About Making Music.

[hypehat]

Son, you're crazy. You speak as if now that your favourite musicians aren't making music anymore that music is dead. There are plenty of bands going round having respectable careers who have never had 'hits', as if the concept meant much nowadays - wasn't it Cake or some nineties rejects that managed to get to No. 1 in the Billboard Charts with something like 40,000 records earlier this year?

If you want to talk golden ages, I think we're on the cusp of something. If only because the record industry is dealing with the sheer volume of new talent afforded by affordable gear, like pro-tools, that could take a lot of things back towards the artist. Like you do, many talented people can record their albums on the hoof, and labels will take it - Bon Iver and The Antlers are two semi-recent examples. Also, even you are pitifully closeminded when it comes to hip-hop, the creativity in those records, both production and songwriting wise, is evident in so many new bands in a way that isn't 'lets rap over guitars', but the attitude and spirit. Try listening to the latest Tuneyards album.


And you'll be grinding your dentures in the rest home when they compare the pop songteams and songwriters of today to Goffin & King, the Brill Building, or Leiber & Stoller. You think if you heard EVERY SINGLE Leiber & Stoller song on the radio when they came out, every single attempt that they made to get hits, that you wouldn't get annoyed? Yet because we disregard the hundreds of flops and focus on 'Hound Dog' or 'Spanish Harlem', the hits, we call them genius. I bet you anything you like they'll be saying the same about Dr. Luke or Timbaland.

Austin has said this after a fashion, but think long and hard about this. You are the exact same person, but listening to the radio in '64. The Beatles come on. Are you going to notice the [inserts positive waffle about the beatles], or think 'Those damn Beatles. Killing Tin Pan Alley by writing their own songs! Those stupid haircuts! Those loud guitars! No finesse! No Craft! I'm gonna go put on my old Cole Porter records!'

[the captain]

I don't really have a response, Austin and hypehat more or less hit a lot of it. I'll just add a few things. Am I a young guy (vintagemusic asked)? Medium, for this board: about to turn 35. Too old to truly be on the cusp of the new, too young to have been around for the old stuff.

This, regarding sales. vintagemusic, you seem to have it both ways. You're correlating the collapse of the music industry with a collapse in sales, but you're disparaging the things that get huge sales: hip hop, for example (which for you to dismiss off-hand says more about your argument than it does about hip hop, btw). The music industry's sales have collapsed primarily because of technology. People can, and thus will, get recorded music for free. Simple as that.

You fail to note that income from live shows is up. I'm not talking about the classic rawk oldies tours, though I'm sure they're doing ok. I'm talking about working musicians. New musicians. The ones who are totally under your radar, apparently, dismissed as not being the Beatles or the Who. The smart among those bands are actually thriving in a business sense, because they have more control over themselves than they ever have. They own their music, they sell their music (sometimes), and they sell tickets. The industry may be dead, but making a living off of music isn't--not by a long shot.

Last, on the idea of the golden age, I'll have to reiterate an already made point because I think it's hugely important: there will never be another golden age for the people who find the golden age to be the "canon" of Beatles, Dylan, Beach Boys, etc. But that is nothing to bemoan--it is something to celebrate. Art changes or it ceases being art. If we had music somehow continuing only in that tradition, music that appeals that directly to the people who made that music, it wouldn't be especially good. It would be nostalgia.

As new generations are born and come of age, they want to do new things. Those new things are obviously rooted in what they've heard, and so we're always going to hear Beatles in pop. We can't avoid that. We're always going to hear Dylan in pop. But what musician would set out to ape them? How terribly sad a life to have your ultimate goal being achieving a perfect facsimile of something that happened decades before you were born! If you've already decided on the pinnacle, there is no point in continuing. The sensible thing to do would be to hole oneself up in an acoustically perfect room with some audiophile-approved gear and listen to Blonde on Blonde, Pet Sounds, Pepper, and the like ad infinitum.

But everyone has his own golden age. And a lot of it isn't based on the quality of music, but the coincidence of the year of his birth and the place where he spent his teenage years.

There are people who consider the likes of Television, Clash, Talking Heads, and other late 70s/early '80s music the golden era; or '70s soul/funk, like Stevie Wonder, Sly, James Brown, Marvin Gaye, and Curtis Mayfield; or maybe late-80s heavy metal, like classic Slayer, Metallica, Megadeth, etc; or the chart-dominating 80s genre-spanning pop of Madonna, Prince, or Michael Jackson; or maybe early '90s grunge...you get the point.

You (or people of your generation, or people of any other opinion and generation--I really don't mean offense here or mean to point you out) don't matter to the things that don't connect with you. It's fine if I don't get Tyler the Creator or care where Early is. They don't care that I don't care--but someone cares, deeply, even as he wonders who this Run-DMC his parents liked was, and why his grandma goes on about Stevie Wonder, and his great grandma about Mahalia Jackson. Pop is a cult of youth. We grow up with our pop of choice, but we (and those acts) are constantly replaced. It's no big deal. And it all happens separate from the quality of each new offering, with every batch partly gawd-awful, largely mediocre, and thank goodness sometimes represented by brilliance. There are always talented people doing wonderful things that will last--you just have to let enough time pass for them to prove it.

You can hold on to a golden age that is gone, buying reissues and complaining, while golden ages are going on all around you all the time for others. It's fine to say it isn't your thing, but it seems a sad way to live to me.

That went longer than I thought. Sorry, I guess I had a rant in me.

[vintagemusic]

I Like you guys, you are sharp as tacks. I don't take your comments as mean spririted
or offensive in any way. In fact I agree with much of what all three of you have said.

Luther I  like the bit about, you have to let enough time go by to let some of today's
artists prove that their stuff will stand the test of time. Which one of you said that
bit about todays writers will eventually be hallowed like some of the Brill building
tunesmiths of yesteryear.

Look I agree every era has some great artists. And yes I am dismissive of certain
types of music like hip hop. I am sure there are a few great tracks, but here's my point.

Some forms of music are more inherently better than others. Classical music, baroque,
ragtime, jazz. blues. and in my mind I include the greats of the pop era, Beatles, Brian Wilson
as the Chopins or Beethoven of their time.


I agree music must evolve and it would be stagnant to just keep trying to copy the Beatles
or Neil Young or whoever.

Certain idioms are better than others. They are also best when done by the best people
I have a fairly broad range of what I consider potentially great, from Elvis, to Gershwin, to the Beatles
to Brian Wilson to Led Zeppelin. I Like Weezer a bit (I shamefully admit) and Amy Winehouse is great
Oasis is ok, I hear new groups I like from time to time. I need more time to learn about them and I
am a busy guy.

Far from putting Brian Wilson and THe Beatles on a pedestal, I have been waiting years, decades
to hear somebody good enough to knock them off and blow me away. It's not my fault that no one
has come along and taken the crown away from them. And you need to see that I am not an island.
The only reason the Beatles remasters on ITUNES broke all those records for sales with 40-50 year
old music, is because many people agree with me. I'd love to hear something, anything fresh that was
as moving to me as the Beatles or Brian Wilson or the WHO or Pink Floyd. But in the opinion of many
NO one arpound today has demonstrated that level of excellence.

Van Halen, Michael Jackson, Madonna, NIrvana Nine Inch Nails, Oasis, Lady Ga Ga, Marilyn Manson  None of them are that great I
hate to be the one to break it to you, they are just run of the mill.I do like some of todays acts better
than all those mediocre acts. Kid Rock isint it. Nickelback drech, I have heard such mediocre stuff the last
20 years, That is whats turned me off, not being closed minded. But yeah I should learn more about
some of the younger groups. THey must be better than the ones I just mentioned

I Like you guys you make good points maybe we will all learn something

[the captain]

It might be worth noting that the things you say you like from more recent decades are things that sound like the music you've already decided is the best. So with that in mind, I think it's safe to say you're not going to find anything to knock the classics off their pedestal: your mind is made up. (Not calling you intentionally closed-minded, mind you. Just saying you're human.) What I must take umbrage with is that "some forms of music are more inherently better than others." I'd give you that some require more training than others; I'd give you that they serve different purposes than one another. But not that some are better than others. And what's more, your list of what is better than others seems--unless I'm missing something--to say that more or less all music that has achieved any sort of popular acclaim in Western culture up until your pop period of choice is what is inherently better, and the pop (and notably hip hop, and then hip-hop inspired pop, as most popular music is now) that comes after is what is inherently worse.

[the captain]

Got drunk and evening's plans were canceled. That means I am seriously thinking about tackling the aforementioned tune now. But not about tackling it seriously. I think I need to pick up some wine. Then I might get after it.

Last time I said that, I was lying. But now I'm not. Since my last posts here, I have done bass and two guitar parts and aux perc part. Guitar solo (yeehaw) next, some vox, and a quick mix. Hope to have a version posted here within about an hour, hour and a half tops. We'll see if I keep it going.

[vintagemusic]

It might be worth noting that the things you say you like from more recent decades are things that sound like the music you've already decided is the best. So with that in mind, I think it's safe to say you're not going to find anything to knock the classics off their pedestal: your mind is made up. (Not calling you intentionally closed-minded, mind you. Just saying you're human.) What I must take umbrage with is that "some forms of music are more inherently better than others." I'd give you that some require more training than others; I'd give you that they serve different purposes than one another. But not that some are better than others. And what's more, your list of what is better than others seems--unless I'm missing something--to say that more or less all music that has achieved any sort of popular acclaim in Western culture up until your pop period of choice is what is inherently better, and the pop (and notably hip hop, and then hip-hop inspired pop, as most popular music is now) that comes after is what is inherently worse.

Happy Holiday Luther. Now I'm gonna break it down for ya once and for all. Just because I am a nice guy.


If you force feed people a SH^T sandwich long enough some people will start to like it. This is what paved
the way for the destruction of the music industry as we knew it, along with piracy and changes in technology,

At first you had some urban kids, who mostly couldn't play an instrument, but they had a sense of rhythm and
a message about their lives. Not a message of peace, or just angst or rocknroll, but a message of car jacking, abusing
chicks, racial hatred, and admiring gangsters,these kids had their anger and desperation and money for an engineer
who could operate a drum machine, while they went--papa pow pow . It was cheap to produce and created a new market
of disenfranchised urban youth..a new ghetto music. The record companies said this is great! and cranked as much of it out
at low cost as much as they could. We were no longer in the realm of Mrs Robinson, Good Vibrations or B.B. King
we were in the era of dirty nasty rap by people who don't even play an instrument..then it began to get more sophisticated
with more overdubs and samples. and session musicians.

Kid Rock, Lady Ga Ga et al are the children of that horrible segment of music history, and they have incorporated it
into their new pop. Much as Las Vegas (created by the mob) incorporated  family theme parks to go along with their
gaming (lose your house, break your legs) entertainment (Prostitutes on every corner) and neighborhood business (slot machines in safeway)

The good musicians began to incorporate this in their songs and playing--the hip hoppy rappy influence,  and we have todays
music Greenday at one extreme and some hip hop nightmare on the other wing.

You say I am closed minded, and  that inherently a Lady Gaga is a peer in terms of talent or artistic merit
with   John Lennon or Brian Wilson or Oscar Peterson or George Gershwin.

I say if you play Sh^t Sandwich on the radio long enough, people start to eat them and like it.

Green Day = Pink Floyd in terms of artistic merit?  I don't think so Luther.

Kid Rock = John Lennon in ability ? I don't think so.

But there are great artisrts in any era, this is also the era of the chick, for and I love Amy Winehouse
and Lucinda Williams to name two.


Kid Rock = David Cassidy 40 years later (sorry David for the insult)

Lady Ga Ga = Madonna 2

If you don't see how that is inferior in substance and creativity to Good Vibrations and Strawberry Fields
I need a smarter more articulate person to advocate my point of view.


Now lets get a pizza and spin some cool jazz or rocknroll! Happy Holiday!

[the captain]

Said it before and will again, we couldn't have more opposite views. Though you do see to choose some absolutely atrocious music to represent modernity. Maybe that's your problem. Anyway, I'd say happy holiday but I don't give a f*** about 'em. So just happy day.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

And you'll be grinding your dentures in the rest home when they compare the pop songteams and songwriters of today to Goffin & King, the Brill Building, or Leiber & Stoller. You think if you heard EVERY SINGLE Leiber & Stoller song on the radio when they came out, every single attempt that they made to get hits, that you wouldn't get annoyed? Yet because we disregard the hundreds of flops and focus on 'Hound Dog' or 'Spanish Harlem', the hits, we call them genius. I bet you anything you like they'll be saying the same about Dr. Luke or Timbaland.

I bet you they won't.

The thing about music from 50s through to The Beatles is that it vigorously shook up mainstream culture. The reason why people reacted so severely to the music (from either outright hate campaigns to outright orgasmic screaming in concert halls) is because the product was disruptive, important, and completely unheard of and unexpected. There is a long tradition of this, incidentally. The first public showing of Stravinsky's Rite of Spring caused a riot in 1913. Now compare that to the kind of reaction that Bon Iver is getting. To his credit, he may have caused a riot amongst crickets at one point. I think part of the problem is that The Sex Pistols effectively put the nail in the coffin for rock music but no one seemed to really get the message. More over, the hip hop scene has been treading water since the early 90s back when songs like "Cop Killer" actually was a source of public debate. Unfortunately, there won't be much rock or R&B music that will be important today until musicians confront what it actually means to be important.

[hypehat]

@rocknroll
Do you reckon The Beatles, Elvis, or anyone else operating in that timeframe, had notions of 'importance'?

They were young people, who did whatever they could in order to get heard. Dylan would be an ideal balance to this, if he didn't completely renounce any higher notions of what his music was while he was making it. They were young people hungry for the oppurtunity to make music, and yes, shitloads of cash. I didn't reference Bon Iver as an example of that. He hasn't had a hit, and I know that. I referenced the young, popular, successful songwriters of the day. Who, because they are such, will be canonised as such. Like Leiber & Stoller, Goffin & King, Holland-Dozier Holland, and all your other songwriting teams.

In case you haven't noticed, teenagers go crazy for Justin Beiber nowadays. and the same teenagers who went apeshit when The Beatles got off the plane turn around and call them idiots. I call them hypocrites.

As for you, vintagemusic, Luther's right. There is a world of modern music you simply do not see. I think, charitably, you are out of touch. John Lennon wasn't that freakin' great a songwriter. And what the hell is wrong with Madonna? A smarter, more articulate person probably wouldn't share your POV, as you seem to have only a glancing knowledge about any music written after 1977.

And I don't like your point about 'chick music', you freakin' moron. That I am willing to get angry about.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

@rocknroll
Do you reckon The Beatles, Elvis, or anyone else operating in that timeframe, had notions of 'importance'?

Important in the way that I'm talking about it? Absolutely. Do you honestly believe that they were not aware of the cultural implications of the music they were listening to in the 50s?

The Beatles most certainly understood that they were part of an extremely rebellious movement. You might as well ask Marlon Brando and James Dean if they were aware that they happened to be doing anything counter-cultural.

They were young people, who did whatever they could in order to get heard.

Yes, but that has nothing to do with what I was saying whatsoever.

Dylan would be an ideal balance to this, if he didn't completely renounce any higher notions of what his music was while he was making it.

What do you mean by "higher notions"? In fact, it shows how respectable folk music was in comparison to rock and roll when you see just how much Dylan's switch to an electric sound caused such remarkable hatred and anger - again, this is simply a reaction you wouldn't see today at all because rock and roll is pretty much dead as a relevant genre.

In case you haven't noticed, teenagers go crazy for Justin Beiber nowadays.

To a degree. I mean, his 2010 album made about two and half million dollars in the US. The Beatles in 1964 made over 25 million. In that sense, to compare the reaction to Bieber and the Beatles is, I think, grossly misunderstanding what The Beatles actually accomplished. To be fair to you, this happens all the time. Every five years or so, there's another flash in the pan who sells about 10% of the records that The Beatles sold in one year and it causes people to make absurd comparisons. So, this is nothing new but it's completely unconvincing.

Furthermore, I urge you to youtube a few videos of live Justin Bieber shows. The audience does go crazy when he comes out and then basically remain rather subdued during his performances (at least compared to live Beatles shows in the US). And, again, there's good reasons for this. The Beatles happened to come to popularity after a particularly drab period and fans were in many ways acting out the aggression that had been held back. Furthermore, nobody had really seen anything like them before. Bieber, unfortunately, has not walked into that same history and he is merely a carbon copy of hundreds of acts in the last decade, some of which happen to hit and some of which don't.

and the same teenagers who went apeshit when The Beatles got off the plane turn around and call them idiots. I call them hypocrites.

Well, I'm not sure who you are talking about but you can see a difference, right? The Beatles did belong to a particular tradition and a particular culture and, consequently, what they were doing was much more genuine than Bieber who has been constructed by a corporation to specifically garner precisely the kind of calculated attention that he has been getting. The music is made not because of any particular creative impulse, but because a record company wants to make money from a bunch of middle-class teenagers. Bieber is simply filling a role. Again, to say that Bieber is simply doing what The Beatles did is just not simply understanding the historical relevance of The Beatles.

[vintagemusic]

@rocknroll
Do you reckon The Beatles, Elvis, or anyone else operating in that timeframe, had notions of 'importance'?

They were young people, who did whatever they could in order to get heard. Dylan would be an ideal balance to this, if he didn't completely renounce any higher notions of what his music was while he was making it. They were young people hungry for the oppurtunity to make music, and yes, shitloads of cash. I didn't reference Bon Iver as an example of that. He hasn't had a hit, and I know that. I referenced the young, popular, successful songwriters of the day. Who, because they are such, will be canonised as such. Like Leiber & Stoller, Goffin & King, Holland-Dozier Holland, and all your other songwriting teams.

In case you haven't noticed, teenagers go crazy for Justin Beiber nowadays. and the same teenagers who went apeshit when The Beatles got off the plane turn around and call them idiots. I call them hypocrites.

As for you, vintagemusic, Luther's right. There is a world of modern music you simply do not see. I think, charitably, you are out of touch. John Lennon wasn't that freakin' great a songwriter. And what the hell is wrong with Madonna? A smarter, more articulate person probably wouldn't share your POV, as you seem to have only a glancing knowledge about any music written after 1977.

And I don't like your point about 'chick music', you freakin' moron. That I am willing to get angry about.

Hypehat, to your credit, you are direct if misguided. You play a little mandolin and guitar, and crow about "John Lennon
wasn't that freakin great a songwriter" I suppose in your mind you and Madonna are his equals or superiors in the
recording studio. How nice it must be for you, to construct that world. I would say you shouldn't begin your insults with
the phrase "to be charitable"  it might be more accurate if you say, "I'm half in the bag right now" and the "freakin"
makes you sound like some working class grouser from Wisconsin or Chicago getting ready to down eight hot dogs
before you record another "demo". As for as your jibe about me being out of touch with music since 1977, well its true
I'd been involved in a few hit records by about that time, and I still plug away making music for love if not a lot of money.
But I'm a "Moron" in your view, and I suppose you are what ? A genius in your own mind ?, the block policeman? A great
artist of wisdom breaking it down for the senile and rest home set?

Your'e a half in the bag cyber bully Hypehat, and you have an opinion like everybody else.You have some musical talent
and you think it gives you a right to throw dirty elbows and call people morons, if they disagree. I grew up in music, made a living
in music, had some fun, learned some things. In my view we live in a time where rock music or popular music is in a less creative or
prolific place than it was 20 or 30 years ago. You certainly can disagree all you want. Disagreeing with you does not make people
morons, less intelligent than yourself. I've done a lot of things musically for a long while, probably more than you'll ever do, not in
my living room but in the real world of commerce and music.

When you say, "john lennon wasn't that freakin great of a songwriter" & "Whats wrong with Madonna" (as if she was a good songwriter or something)
when you say those things, you impeach yourself as credible more than I ever could.

There are a lot of people Hypehat who are nifty with a musical instrument, guitar , piano whatever, but they don't even have
the ability to distinguish a great piece of work or talent from some assembly line drech formulated in a business office by some
coked out, or money hungry exceutives trying to cash in on a trend. If you lack the ability to distinguish between greatness and Madonna.
How can anyone ever help you..

I'll send you a mirror so when you blow smoke up your own A$$, you'll be able to see what your'e doing. Fair enough hotshot.

[rab2591]

LOL. WTF.

Just because a record company isn't spoon-feeding us good music doesn't mean good music isn't out there. I agree with what Luther said: every age is its own golden age...it just depends on how we define 'gold' and where we look for it.

BTW, congrats on having your hand in some hit records...this point really added a lot of credibility to your post. Well, I'm heading back to my living room to create non-commercial/non-real-world music.

[hypehat]

@rocknroll
Do you reckon The Beatles, Elvis, or anyone else operating in that timeframe, had notions of 'importance'?

They were young people, who did whatever they could in order to get heard. Dylan would be an ideal balance to this, if he didn't completely renounce any higher notions of what his music was while he was making it. They were young people hungry for the oppurtunity to make music, and yes, shitloads of cash. I didn't reference Bon Iver as an example of that. He hasn't had a hit, and I know that. I referenced the young, popular, successful songwriters of the day. Who, because they are such, will be canonised as such. Like Leiber & Stoller, Goffin & King, Holland-Dozier Holland, and all your other songwriting teams.

In case you haven't noticed, teenagers go crazy for Justin Beiber nowadays. and the same teenagers who went apeshit when The Beatles got off the plane turn around and call them idiots. I call them hypocrites.

As for you, vintagemusic, Luther's right. There is a world of modern music you simply do not see. I think, charitably, you are out of touch. John Lennon wasn't that freakin' great a songwriter. And what the hell is wrong with Madonna? A smarter, more articulate person probably wouldn't share your POV, as you seem to have only a glancing knowledge about any music written after 1977.

And I don't like your point about 'chick music', you freakin' moron. That I am willing to get angry about.

Hypehat, to your credit, you are direct if misguided. You play a little mandolin and guitar, and crow about "John Lennon
wasn't that freakin great a songwriter" I suppose in your mind you and Madonna are his equals or superiors in the
recording studio. How nice it must be for you, to construct that world. I would say you shouldn't begin your insults with
the phrase "to be charitable"  it might be more accurate if you say, "I'm half in the bag right now" and the "freakin"
makes you sound like some working class grouser from Wisconsin or Chicago getting ready to down eight hot dogs
before you record another "demo". As for as your jibe about me being out of touch with music since 1977, well its true
I'd been involved in a few hit records by about that time, and I still plug away making music for love if not a lot of money.
But I'm a "Moron" in your view, and I suppose you are what ? A genius in your own mind ?, the block policeman? A great
artist of wisdom breaking it down for the senile and rest home set?

Your'e a half in the bag cyber bully Hypehat, and you have an opinion like everybody else.You have some musical talent
and you think it gives you a right to throw dirty elbows and call people morons, if they disagree. I grew up in music, made a living
in music, had some fun, learned some things. In my view we live in a time where rock music or popular music is in a less creative or
prolific place than it was 20 or 30 years ago. You certainly can disagree all you want. Disagreeing with you does not make people
morons, less intelligent than yourself. I've done a lot of things musically for a long while, probably more than you'll ever do, not in
my living room but in the real world of commerce and music.

When you say, "john lennon wasn't that freakin great of a songwriter" & "Whats wrong with Madonna" (as if she was a good songwriter or something)
when you say those things, you impeach yourself as credible more than I ever could.

There are a lot of people Hypehat who are nifty with a musical instrument, guitar , piano whatever, but they don't even have
the ability to distinguish a great piece of work or talent from some assembly line drech formulated in a business office by some
coked out, or money hungry exceutives trying to cash in on a trend. If you lack the ability to distinguish between greatness and Madonna.
How can anyone ever help you..

I'll send you a mirror so when you blow smoke up your own A$$, you'll be able to see what your'e doing. Fair enough hotshot.

Ok, sir. I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about.

Especially 'chick music'. Which you dodged in a really ineloquent manner. Tell me, in no uncertain terms, what 'chick' music is, you sexist douche, and then we can talk music. PM me it if you want, so we can stop ruining this thread.

rocknroll, I'll get some coffee and get back to you, right? We should try and drag this back to more civilised discussion...

[hypehat]

Hey, rocknroll.

I'm really not sure they were. Like, it would seem The Beatles only ever wanted to be famous, in the beginning. Their other advances seem to be more ascribed to getting bigger, different and weirder sounds, although the political element is of concern - Revolution #1, etc. I guess it's difficult to ascribe and think about political and sociological motivations for musicians in a time so different to our own.

I think the point that they were trying to just make records does hold up! Like, all you read about in Beatles or Elvis bios is that all they ever wanted was to be on the radio in the first place. Elvis just wanted to make gospel records for his mum, and eventually did! Stuff like that. I really don't reckon Elvis was thinking about his music in terms of cultural impact, it seems a remarkably detached way to approach a insane situation of Beatlemania/whatever. They never really stopped wanting hits, which would seem counterintuitive to any other agenda than the popstar one. Although John tried (or at least admitted to in hardly measured interviews, like the 71 Wenner one) to use his more barbed stuff as a dig at cultural aspects, you are right.

Dylan is interesting - I am of the opinion that he just made music he wanted to make, like his early records show an imitation, quickly blossoming into mastery, of the Guthrie/Folkways stuff he really loved, but his own artistic voice pushed him into ditching the lyrical style completely (even by Hard Rain) and then going electric. I was mostly referring to his toying of the presses reaction. Of course, loving that sort of music gives your stuff an inherent political edge, and Dylan certainly didn't shy from that initially. His sheer denial of political aspects to it in later life is very interesting, though. But trying to figure out Dylan might be a fools game.

You're absolutely right in that pop music (or indeed, any music) seems to lack that disruptive influence now. Which is a shame, really, but not necessarily its fault, and i'm not sure what i'd blame for that being the case. I'm no sociologist. But the mindset was so unbelievably different in the late 50's-60's, and I don't profess to understand it really, but it's definitely gone. Nowadays there's no sort of mystery to pop culture, and nothing much forbidden - kids are freer to do as they please now than they ever were. Like I said before, i really think we could be on the edge of something weird and exciting thanks to this. I have no idea what, though. Nothings ending.

I think reports of the death of the record industry are greatly exaggerated, although any faults in it are mostly it's own short-sighted ones, like completely screwing up its reaction to download culture until somewhat recently. It's not like people aren't buying records and stuff, but the games changing. I used Beiber as a symbol, really, then anything I have more than a fleeting experience with. Gaga maybe more so. My friends went to see her not so long  ago and apparently people were going insane throughout. The love for popstars never really goes, obviously, but any cultural significance is dissipated. Perhaps the internet just means you can bitch about it on some messageboard and venting that way as opposed to getting really mad and breaking windows, idk...

That's all i really have time for on my lunch break, though. dammit.  I like wondering where this crazy thing called pop is going. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

You're absolutely right in that pop music (or indeed, any music) seems to lack that disruptive influence now.

Ok, well, to be honest, this is really all I'm saying except to add that being disruptive in this way is what makes you relevant and keeps whatever artistic field you're working in alive and kicking. And to be honest, I don't think that rock and roll has the capacity to do this anymore. This is something that black music culture has  often been more aware of - there was really no earth shattering movement in white pop like rap in the 80s.

So, yeah, this is really my point but I can address other issues you raise too.

Like, it would seem The Beatles only ever wanted to be famous, in the beginning.

I think that this is can only really be said in retrospect - unless we have different ideas of when "the beginning" was. The fact is that when the Beatles were playing in music clubs, the only really famous rock and roll artists were from the United States. I can't imagine that four guys with a perpetually shifting drummer, forced to play covers in strip clubs in a foreign country, truly believed that they were going to be first British rock and roll band ever to be really famous. Maybe it's because of my literary background, but throughout history you will find many marginalized groups (women, colonized) who quite simply believed that they couldn't write because nobody before them had. And I would imagine that the same can be said for British bands in the 50s and early 60s. And if you watch those early interviews you'll see that there was a prevailing notion amongst the band that even after they had a hit or two, it was only a matter of time before the bubble would burst because there was simply not a history of lasting pop acts at that time. Again, in retrospect, we could say that the band were fulfilling their dreams of being huge, but I can't imagine that such a thought would have occurred to them at the time.

Even if it did (and that's a big IF), this isn't really my point. Yes, The Beatles probably wanted to be successful musicians but that has nothing to do with what I'm saying. If you just look at some of the Anthology interviews, you will see Ringo talking about going to see a movie (a movie, no less!) about rock and roll and seeing the movie crowd tear the theatre apart. You have other interviews where the guys talk about being taken off the stage specifically because they were playing rock and roll. You can't actually experience those things and not have the vaguest clue that you were taking part in something that was culturally significant.

Their other advances seem to be more ascribed to getting bigger, different and weirder sounds, although the political element is of concern - Revolution #1, etc.

Well, I'm not really talking about those kind of politics. Walter Benjamin, one of the most important Marxist critics, says that political messages are trivial - that's not where real political work is done. I think one could plausibly argue that "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is a hell of a lot more political than "Revolution #1" (a song whose message of ambivalence is apolitical if anything).

I really don't reckon Elvis was thinking about his music in terms of cultural impact

So when cameras refused to shoot him below the waist, or when audience laughed at his voice and his dancing, you don't think he ever contemplated why? When there was a massive anti-rock and roll campaign throughout the 50s and he was at the forefront of the genre, you don't think he was aware of what was going on?

Dylan is interesting - I am of the opinion that he just made music he wanted to make, like his early records show an imitation, quickly blossoming into mastery, of the Guthrie/Folkways stuff he really loved, but his own artistic voice pushed him into ditching the lyrical style completely (even by Hard Rain) and then going electric. I was mostly referring to his toying of the presses reaction. Of course, loving that sort of music gives your stuff an inherent political edge, and Dylan certainly didn't shy from that initially. His sheer denial of political aspects to it in later life is very interesting, though. But trying to figure out Dylan might be a fools game.

I've never heard him deny the political aspects of his music. In fact, quite the contrary. In 1966 when Dylan basically toured from concert hall to concert hall in England just to get booed on a nightly basis, a reporter asked him why he wasn't writing political songs anymore and Dylan replied that "All my songs are political." And, in fact, he was exactly right. If by singing "Leopard Skin Pill Box Hat" causes a crowd of people to nearly riot, then you are certainly doing something political.

But the mindset was so unbelievably different in the late 50's-60's, and I don't profess to understand it really, but it's definitely gone.

Absolutely it's gone - which is why you can't be disruptive in the same ways. Chuck Berry understood quite well that he wasn't going to rile things up by writing in the style of Stravinsky.

But it's not as if this discussion is relegated to the 50s and 60s. The Sex Pistols basically did the same thing in the late 70s. Public Enemy did the same thing in the late 80s. Importantly though, both of these groups were part of a scene. It's not as if they were just individual bands who happen to make it really big. They were at the forefront of new and exciting genres of music that challenged the status quo. Punk music for example showed just how respectable rock and roll music had become. And, to be honest, I don't think that it is impossible for something as disruptive to happen again but it hasn't happened for quite a long time, mostly because artists now are more content to tread water than to make waves (I hate that metaphor).

Gaga maybe more so. My friends went to see her not so long  ago and apparently people were going insane throughout. The love for popstars never really goes, obviously, but any cultural significance is dissipated.

I've heard people make argument for Gaga, but from my perspective, she is on the cusp of things that Bowie accomplished nearly 40 years ago.

You are right that the love for popstars never really goes but you were talking about canonization earlier and one of my points is that being successful is not merely what gets you canonized. The reason why Leiber/Stoller, Lennon/McCartney etc. are canonized was because they were part of a movement that actively challenged the status quo and in doing so, actively re-shaped culture. I can't see what artists today are really accomplishing those things.

[the captain]

Was in the mood to revisit a song I wrote about 10-11 years ago, but never had a decent recording of. Sadly, after a couple acoustic guitar tracks, I brought out the ol' banjo ... which was a cheap piece of trash to begin with, and it doesn't wear its years well. Got frustrated in that I can't so much as move my arm or tune one string without something else going well off. The whole damn thing is like one big whammy bar. So ... we'll see. Maybe I'll use the uke for what I was thinking of using the banjo on. Or something. I don't know. For now, you don't get "Not So Pretty." And it's the banjo's fault.

[vintagemusic]

@rocknroll
Do you reckon The Beatles, Elvis, or anyone else operating in that timeframe, had notions of 'importance'?

They were young people, who did whatever they could in order to get heard. Dylan would be an ideal balance to this, if he didn't completely renounce any higher notions of what his music was while he was making it. They were young people hungry for the oppurtunity to make music, and yes, shitloads of cash. I didn't reference Bon Iver as an example of that. He hasn't had a hit, and I know that. I referenced the young, popular, successful songwriters of the day. Who, because they are such, will be canonised as such. Like Leiber & Stoller, Goffin & King, Holland-Dozier Holland, and all your other songwriting teams.

In case you haven't noticed, teenagers go crazy for Justin Beiber nowadays. and the same teenagers who went apeshit when The Beatles got off the plane turn around and call them idiots. I call them hypocrites.

As for you, vintagemusic, Luther's right. There is a world of modern music you simply do not see. I think, charitably, you are out of touch. John Lennon wasn't that freakin' great a songwriter. And what the hell is wrong with Madonna? A smarter, more articulate person probably wouldn't share your POV, as you seem to have only a glancing knowledge about any music written after 1977.

And I don't like your point about 'chick music', you freakin' moron. That I am willing to get angry about.

Hypehat, to your credit, you are direct if misguided. You play a little mandolin and guitar, and crow about "John Lennon
wasn't that freakin great a songwriter" I suppose in your mind you and Madonna are his equals or superiors in the
recording studio. How nice it must be for you, to construct that world. I would say you shouldn't begin your insults with
the phrase "to be charitable"  it might be more accurate if you say, "I'm half in the bag right now" and the "freakin"
makes you sound like some working class grouser from Wisconsin or Chicago getting ready to down eight hot dogs
before you record another "demo". As for as your jibe about me being out of touch with music since 1977, well its true
I'd been involved in a few hit records by about that time, and I still plug away making music for love if not a lot of money.
But I'm a "Moron" in your view, and I suppose you are what ? A genius in your own mind ?, the block policeman? A great
artist of wisdom breaking it down for the senile and rest home set?

Your'e a half in the bag cyber bully Hypehat, and you have an opinion like everybody else.You have some musical talent
and you think it gives you a right to throw dirty elbows and call people morons, if they disagree. I grew up in music, made a living
in music, had some fun, learned some things. In my view we live in a time where rock music or popular music is in a less creative or
prolific place than it was 20 or 30 years ago. You certainly can disagree all you want. Disagreeing with you does not make people
morons, less intelligent than yourself. I've done a lot of things musically for a long while, probably more than you'll ever do, not in
my living room but in the real world of commerce and music.

When you say, "john lennon wasn't that freakin great of a songwriter" & "Whats wrong with Madonna" (as if she was a good songwriter or something)
when you say those things, you impeach yourself as credible more than I ever could.

There are a lot of people Hypehat who are nifty with a musical instrument, guitar , piano whatever, but they don't even have
the ability to distinguish a great piece of work or talent from some assembly line drech formulated in a business office by some
coked out, or money hungry exceutives trying to cash in on a trend. If you lack the ability to distinguish between greatness and Madonna.
How can anyone ever help you..

I'll send you a mirror so when you blow smoke up your own A$$, you'll be able to see what your'e doing. Fair enough hotshot.

Ok, sir. I'm sure I don't know what I'm talking about.

Especially 'chick music'. Which you dodged in a really ineloquent manner. Tell me, in no uncertain terms, what 'chick' music is, you sexist douche, and then we can talk music. PM me it if you want, so we can stop ruining this thread.

rocknroll, I'll get some coffee and get back to you, right? We should try and drag this back to more civilised discussion...

"The era of the chick" was a reference on my part, an observation that Women singer songwriters, & recording artists have come more to the forefront
in greater numbers and percentages, than in past eras of popular music. That in fact, many of the best and most promoted singer songwriters, and what many
promoters, record companies and producers covet more than in the past, are female artists.That female artists (perhaps deservedly so) now command a bigger
slice of the music pie. Wheras before there was the occasional success story of Chrissy Hynde or Carol King, nowadays there is a much larger percentage of women
with all the well rounded chops as singers, songwriters, musicans, producers,. This would therefore impact the traditional male singer songwriter in a negative way
because there are less spots on the roster available. Not unlike other professions where women have made inroads in recent decades. Which again may be a great thing, or not, but it is not a good thing for males trying to popularize "their music" when the number of available slots has decreased. So in summary, just as popular music had the disco era, or the grunge era, I see the current musical climate as being largely an era for female artists. Some of whom I think are great by the way. My two personal favorites are Lucinda Williams and Amy Winehouse.

[hypehat]

'Perhaps deservedly so'? Nice. I'm not even going to try and dissect that. How condescending can you get?

The 'traditional' male singer-songwriter really deserves to die off. Neil Young, early Bob, and yes, John Lennon have a LOT to answer for. A guitar does not necessarily denote that your feelings are worth writing down, or putting to music 

How goes the track, Luther?

And rocknroll, i never seem to get the time to write a response. Will do soon, I promise!

[the captain]

How goes the track, Luther?

Haven't touched it since then. But I am going to log off from work in a few minutes, will take a quick walk down the block to buy some wine, and will get back to it. I've kicked around a few ideas the past day or so since the initial burst. The thing is, it's not one of my songs I'd consider particularly good. Just kind of returned to mind, all of a sudden, so I figured, why not?

[the captain]

How goes the track, Luther?

Haven't touched it since then. But I am going to log off from work in a few minutes, will take a quick walk down the block to buy some wine, and will get back to it. I've kicked around a few ideas the past day or so since the initial burst. The thing is, it's not one of my songs I'd consider particularly good. Just kind of returned to mind, all of a sudden, so I figured, why not?

Aaaaand ... done. Posting momentarily.

[the captain]

Doing a bit of recording this afternoon--the last of my ready-to-do (i.e. Adam's drumming in place) tunes. The thing is, while I still like the song, I am rethinking some lyrics and never did have a full arrangement in mind. This one was never more than an acoustic guitar and voice before now. It's countryish, and so I am thinking about what I can do with banjo and piano. But first I need to relearn it, in that I think I did the demo about 3 years ago and can't recall having played it since. I found the chords I had jotted down in a notebook, but it's a messy sheet of paper indeed, clearly written down as I was writing the tune. Lots of words and chords crossed out, no real coherence to what I'm looking at. Ah, the glory of organization ... must be nice.

[the captain]

Another thing that makes home recording so fun: out-of-tune piano and a banjo so crappy that the joint of body and neck serves as a makeshift whammy bar--a guy has to be awfully careful about any pressure applied to the body or it's not-always-intentional pitch-shifting. Somehow I think Tom Waits would make a masterwork out of this stuff ... but me, I just get out-of-tune tracks and a little cranky.

[hypehat]

My creative process appears to run by the tenets of Murphy's Law. Spend 2 months with all my equipment, instruments, and recording gear - don't write. visit home for week with only my guitar - I magically start WRITING SONGS! and can't record them! grrr.

Have also been falling very behind with my score work - recent adventures, however, entail recording demos with friends after several bottles of wine for songs with Shakespeare's lyrics, a piece of music that had to 'sound flutey' and be danced to by someone who doesn't exist yet, and also for shits and giggles started recording covers with a friend of mine. Stormy Weather, Lonesome Town, a coupla Marliyn songs....

But my prior musical project ground to a halt - my friend (who i'm now recording the covers with) just stopped writing story. maybe i should pick up the reins....

[♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇]

My creative process appears to run by the tenets of Murphy's Law. Spend 2 months with all my equipment, instruments, and recording gear - don't write. visit home for week with only my guitar - I magically start WRITING SONGS! and can't record them! grrr.

Same here! Usually I'll get a melody in my head while driving, working (back then), dropping a deuce...man...just like when I can't do anything about it

[the captain]

No lie, I cannot tell you how many songs I've "written" while on a walk. That is the perfect time for me. The problem, of course, is I am out walking. I have sung (either in my head or out loud) so many things! First a little fragment, til I am sure I recall it. Then a line or two. Then more, then more. Sometimes I feel like whatever I get home and get on paper with is close to what I started with. Other times I am convinced I lost some masterpiece (which of course isn't ever true, but if the BBs taught us anything, it is that you can mythologize the unfinished). Sitting down with guitar or piano? That's not conducive to writing, now is it?