"This made things embarrassingly clear that the Grammys have become all about television ratings and very little about the music."
Ya think? I mean, I'm all over Mintzer and his work with the Yellowjackets, but this statement isn't exactly groundbreaking.
As P.E. said so many years ago, "Who gives a **** about a g*dd*mn Grammy?" |
It doesn't.
Much of it just doesn't fit your embedded criteria for acceptable music. Look, every decade/generation has its share of totally shitty music. The 70's, 80's, and 90's (especially the 90's) all had a factory's worth of bubble-gum bullsh*t with generic styles, voices, personas, and faces. Those artists always get the limelight because they appeal to the superficial acceptance factor of much of the music-gobbling population.
However, to say that most new music sucks is to say that you're unwilling to leave your own perspective and acknowledge the very immediate, very available musical artistry that's out there today. Artists like Adele, The National, M83, Taylor Swift, Lemar, Band of Horses, Sufjan Stevens, Nas, Jay-Z, etc., are all as talented and influential as anything done in the last three decades. I don;t have to like them, but I have to admit their sheer talent and dedication to their craft.
I mean, Zep may have broken new ground, but new artists simply continue building the road that Zep started years ago.
Hell, even your list of artists you grew up with (all of whom I share your reverence of, if not your complete idolatry), share much with the current crop of musical avante-garde and illuminati. And artists like Rush - who just last year released their best album since 1981 - , The Police, Tears for Fears, Talking Heads, and others will remain my musical benchmarks - but not to the whiny exclusion of the musical zeitgeist.
Admittedly, modern engineering is geared way too much towards radio production, with all its compression and limited sonics and target audience who doesn't give a shit about high fidelity. But as music has become so niche-oriented, there're plenty of artists and music out there that can satisfy you.
If not, you might as well go on Eagles tour or cough up $500 for a Stones ticket. It sounds as if your stone gathered moss long ago.
IMHO, of course. |
I meant no offense and apologize if I cam e across too judgmentally. It's just that I always shudder when someone makes a sweeping generalization about an art form - like opining that most new music sucks. I;m quite sure that many of those in their 40's and 50's said much the same thing when The Who and Zep and such came about in the mid- to late-60's. Much of mew music is simply different in scope and presentation from the standard rock paradigm.
Also, most ADULTS don't know what good sound is. Seriously. For most of the adult world, Bose or Cerwin-Vega! or Bang and Olufsen represent the ultimate in sound, and as long as they have their surround system with earth-shattering bass, they're happy. We audiophiles are a niche minority.
Case in point, a recent review of M83's "Hurry Up, We're Dreaming" cd (whence comes "Midnight City"), while lauding its sonic mastery and composition, lamented that much of its 20-something audience wouldn;t have the equipment needed to really appreciate its audiophile production and attention to detail - nor would they care.
Besides, who ever accused "young folks" of being appreciative of sonic nuances and three-dimensional sound-stages? :) |
Bryon, et al,
I agree with your statement that more production equals more dilution of talent. And I was impressed by your careful and methodical articulation of your point.
I guess what got me, though, on the original post was the implication that compared to the giants of yore, the modern day artists are superficial, etc. Yes, many modern day musicians struggle (or not) to surpass bubble-gum cheese pop status. But the same can be said for just about any decade of music.
Idk; I think when we start denying the modern for a celebration of the past - the whole "ubi sunt" (oh, where have they gone?" motif) is when we delude ourselves to how relevant our perspective really is. |
I'm not sure what the deal with "civility" is. I mean, are we to handle every utterance and statement with kid gloves?
Look, you can't throw out a sweeping and myopic generalization like "new music sucks" (which itself is an "uncivil" observation) and then expect a gentrified, socratic discussion among strangers. I don't think audiogon is the domain of sycophants. However strong a statement you start with is going to generate as equal or stronger statements in return.
With all due respect to Goose, Bryon, et al., and with the exception of a few responses involving mentions of death, etc., most of the responses have actually been pretty restrained. And my own comment that Goose's stone is gathering moss seems born out by his comment about his own musical frames of reference; e.g., the Stones, the Who, and the rest.
Seriously - the Stones, Beatles, Who, etc., started FIFTY FRICKIN' YEARS AGO. That doesn't diminish the power of their artistry or legacy in the least, but if one is pining away for the expressions of half a century ago, then one really seems to refuse to accept the inevitable change in musical paradigms and directions.
Yes, I say "accept". You don't have to like it, but you can't simply out-of-hand reject it as substandard. That shows true superficiality.
It's like saying "All rap sucks" or "All country sucks". Completely untrue. Yes, there's a lot of rap and country (and classical and jazz - I mean, how many decades back has jazz been set by smooth jazz and Kenny G?) that's pure marketing and image and stereotype and geared towards the here and now, not the far and yet unknown. But there're also a few rap and country artists who are every bit as important as Daltrey and Hendrix and Richards. |
Nonoise wrote:
"Something alluded to but not fully fleshed out is that as I grow older, I find myself less tolerant of what I consider bad music."
In some ways this tangentially supports Goose's original statement. I mean, how much "sucky" music did we tolerate, listen to, and even celebrate when we were teens and 20-somethings? And how much harder is it now for us in our 30-50's to actually latch on to a new act with as much gusto as before?
Less tolerance also equals more caution and suspicion of new music and artists.
And less patience to put up with standards that fall below what we've built up within ourselves.
Not to be chauvinist, but it also works the same with women (and vice versa, I suppose). The older we get, the less b.s. we're willing to put up with in order to get to the sweet spot. |
Almarg wrote:
"06-06-13: Almarg
06-06-13: Bryoncunningham
There is a whole continuum of behavior in between hostility and sycophancy. Somewhere in the middle is civility.
Very well said, as usual Bryon. I couldn't agree more.
It has often seemed to me, in fact, that when discussions in internet forums become uncivil, it is often because the parties who are at odds with one another do not seem to recognize that shades of gray, matters of degree, and a continuum between extremes are involved in most issues."
Please. Is that really the case here? In these two pages of responses to Goose's original post, are there really that many people who are unaware of the 50 and more shades of gray inherent in this conversation?
I'm going top reiterate my main point - that despite Bryon's lamenting of its supposed degeneration, this thread has, for the most part, remained civil and productive. There're always be a few ankle-biters amidst the crowd, but you have to ignore them. |
Goose wrote:
"I also have a hypothesis that when individuals actually had to play an instrument to make music, there was a greater possibility of something good being produced."
Here's an interesting article about the supposed demise of R&B, by John Blake, an African-American reporter and music critic. He points out that the separation of the artist from the instrument is one of the prime causes of the sweeping trend towards solipsism and self-absorbance in modern R&B.
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/02/showbiz/music/love-songs |
FYI, the term is "rap", not "rap music". "Rap" itself is - in part - an acronym created by the Village Voice back in '79, standing for "rhythm and poetry." |
You may want to get a subscription (if you don't have one already) or resubscribe to Rolling Stone magazine. It's a good gateway to the music out there, as well as a way of keeping abreast of what's developing out there. |
And one more thing: speaking of Rolling Stone, I remember back in the late 80's and early 90's being mystified, scared, but fascinated by the artists on the "College Charts". I didn't recognize 90% of the names, but they seemed way different than the mainstream AOR stuff that was out there. Who were some of those names?
REM
Jane's Addiction
Suzanne Vega
Elvis Costello
The Stone Roses
The Smiths
The Sugar Cubes (whence comes Bjork)
Living Color
The Replacements
etc..
These were the artists that helped shape the next two decades of musical zeitgeist. And no, not every artist on the College Charts (which became "Alternative" in the mid-90's) had substance or longevity, but they were the "new music" that didn't suck. |
