Good music, bad music

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    I wasn't aware that Beyonce was a composer;  my understanding is that, much like Madonna, her input to her songs is minimal/nothing but due to her ability to sell records she negotiates to buy part of the composer credits.  

    She gets money from royalties due the composer, she gets phony cred from being a "songwriter" and the actual songwriters get a platform for their music and a portion of the royalties.

    A good business deal, but hardly makes Beyonce influential, IMO.


    I never said she was a composer.  She's a pop/r&b singer.  A very successful one, at that, and it's within that area of pop/glam/r&b/dance that I think her impact has been/will be felt.

    Of course, you may disagree.

     

     


    I do.  I can't see a single positive influence/impact of a half naked woman writhing around singing other people's songs....and little long-term influence of any type.

    Look at even the ultimate song stylist, Elvis Presley.  How many times have you heard a musician cite him as an influence compared to Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, all the Bluesmen, etc?



    Elvis Presley has been cited by many music performers as the reason they started playing rock music. I don't think that influence is limited to songwriting or playing an instrument. Song interpretation is a large part of all genres of music. You choose to reduce Elvis to a song stylist. I see him as a performer and vocal interpreter whose influence is felt across all of popular music.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    You hit the nail on the head, David.  My admiration of musicians is overwhelmingly toward composers.  You don't write, I'm not very interested.  Most of those that sang Bacharach/David songs could have been easily replaced, but the opposite was not true i.e. their biggest hits were B/D.

    If Elvis had been Black, and Chuck had been White.....

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    You hit the nail on the head, David.  My admiration of musicians is overwhelmingly toward composers.  You don't write, I'm not very interested.  Most of those that sang Bacharach/David songs could have been easily replaced, but the opposite was not true i.e. their biggest hits were B/D.

    If Elvis had been Black, and Chuck had been White.....



    We've had this debate before. I think you are unfairly penalizing Elvis for being white. Elvis can't help the circumstances of his birth or the state of the country at the time of his rise to fame. I think Elvis did as much good for the acceptance of "black" styles of music as any black performer did. Chuck Berry was a victim of his times. Today it is black rappers whose beats are blasting through the headphones of white and black kids alike. If Elvis had been black, he still would have been great. But his style of music might have leaned more toward the soul style of Sam Cooke. This is due to the cultural divide at that time. Elvis was immensely talented; his skin color is only relevant due to the culture of his times. I strongly disagree that singers of songs are ever "easily" replaceable.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    We'll have to agree to disagree;  I can't see how a guy that didn't write and didn't play guitar very well is "immensely talented".  Looked good, danced well, got in the game early and made a difference to the emerging youth and rock'n'roll culture.  But Lennon, and McCartney, and Jagger, and Richard, and Marriott, and Davies, and on and on didn't build on Elvis' MUSIC, not at all....he didn't HAVE music, he had others'.

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    I wasn't aware that Beyonce was a composer;  my understanding is that, much like Madonna, her input to her songs is minimal/nothing but due to her ability to sell records she negotiates to buy part of the composer credits.  

    She gets money from royalties due the composer, she gets phony cred from being a "songwriter" and the actual songwriters get a platform for their music and a portion of the royalties.

    A good business deal, but hardly makes Beyonce influential, IMO.


    I never said she was a composer.  She's a pop/r&b singer.  A very successful one, at that, and it's within that area of pop/glam/r&b/dance that I think her impact has been/will be felt.

    Of course, you may disagree.

     

     


    I do.  I can't see a single positive influence/impact of a half naked woman writhing around singing other people's songs....and little long-term influence of any type.

    Look at even the ultimate song stylist, Elvis Presley.  How many times have you heard a musician cite him as an influence compared to Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, all the Bluesmen, etc?



    Again, that you don't think the influence is positive doesn't mean it isn't there.  

    And again, I'm not even that fond of the music, but there's simply no denying the influence of certain pop/hip-hop/r&b/dance stars to their fans and the next generation of stars.

    The Supremes didn't write any of their hits - the sum of which rivaled the Beatles at one point.  And yet, they were next in the long line of female pop/r&b singing groups who set the charts on fire and got millions on the dance floor.

    Venus de Milo was a half naked woman, too.

     

     

     

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    You hit the nail on the head, David.  My admiration of musicians is overwhelmingly toward composers.  You don't write, I'm not very interested.  Most of those that sang Bacharach/David songs could have been easily replaced, but the opposite was not true i.e. their biggest hits were B/D.

    If Elvis had been Black, and Chuck had been White.....



    Did you used to post with a different screen name?   There are quite a few of your opinions that seem to match those of a former poster -- esp. this issue of composers vs. non-composers ; a discussion I recall, evolved where many of us disagreed with your (or his ...) bias in regard to the writing skill set in judging and / or defining talent.    

    Not that you're not entitled to direct your admiration freely upon those that compose. :)

    Either way, that's a whole 'nother discussion in itself.   Many singers who don't write their own songs are masters of interpretation, and electrifying in terms of performance; their talent is dispensed differently, but that doesn't mean there is less of it.   

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    You hit the nail on the head, David.  My admiration of musicians is overwhelmingly toward composers.  You don't write, I'm not very interested.  Most of those that sang Bacharach/David songs could have been easily replaced, but the opposite was not true i.e. their biggest hits were B/D.

    If Elvis had been Black, and Chuck had been White.....

     



    Did you used to post with a different screen name?   There are quite a few of your opinions that seem to match those of a former poster -- esp. this issue of composers vs. non-composers ; a discussion I recall, evolved where many of us disagreed with your (or his ...) bias in regard to the writing skill set in judging and / or defining talent.    

    Not that you're not entitled to direct your admiration freely upon those that compose. :)

    Either way, that's a whole 'nother discussion in itself.   Many singers who don't write their own songs are masters of interpretation, and electrifying in terms of performance; their talent is dispensed differently, but that doesn't mean there is less of it.   



    Yes, I changed my screen name from "Chilliwings" about a year ago.

     

    I just cannot see how a singer/performer of others' songs can be judged equally to a creator of music.  I go to lots of gigs, always have....many thousands over the years I'd guess.  I've seen many great performers/singers, most of whom don't make it because they don't have any/many good songs to sing.  Whereas someone with good songs is much more rare and can relatively easily find a good singer.

    Look at most any band....3-4-5-6 members, usually 1-2 songwriters.  There's your scarcity value before even considering the relative ability of each member.

     

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     


    I do.  I can't see a single positive influence/impact of a half naked woman writhing around singing other people's songs....and little long-term influence of any type.

    Look at even the ultimate song stylist, Elvis Presley.  How many times have you heard a musician cite him as an influence compared to Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, all the Bluesmen, etc?

     



    Again, that you don't think the influence is positive doesn't mean it isn't there.  

     

    And again, I'm not even that fond of the music, but there's simply no denying the influence of certain pop/hip-hop/r&b/dance stars to their fans and the next generation of stars.

    The Supremes didn't write any of their hits - the sum of which rivaled the Beatles at one point.  And yet, they were next in the long line of female pop/r&b singing groups who set the charts on fire and got millions on the dance floor.

    Venus de Milo was a half naked woman, too.

      



    Matty, re Venus de Milo, I have no problem whatsoever with nudity, half or full, but I think your analogy is unsound.  A better analogy is if Alexandros of Antioch had sculpted it while half or fully naked and tried to pass the nudity off as talent....if he did, I'd lose much respect for him.  But at least he would have created something so I'd admire that.

    Re the Supremes, who do you think has had/will have a greater influence on artists:  Lamont Dozier and the Holland brothers (and Berry Gordy) or the people in the Supremes that sang their songs?  The Beatles, for an example, were big fans....I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suggest it wasn't the singers they admired.....

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    We'll have to agree to disagree;  I can't see how a guy that didn't write and didn't play guitar very well is "immensely talented".  Looked good, danced well, got in the game early and made a difference to the emerging youth and rock'n'roll culture.  But Lennon, and McCartney, and Jagger, and Richard, and Marriott, and Davies, and on and on didn't build on Elvis' MUSIC, not at all....he didn't HAVE music, he had others'.



    Listen to his singing and the bands that backed him up. Elvis contributed a lot to the recording process in the studio. He wasn't just a guy who looked good and danced well. He knew how to take a song and make it his own. He could transform a country song into a rock song. He was a unique talent. All of rock music built on Elvis as well as all the other great early rock performers. Elvis was one of the building blocks. To leave him out is to fail to acknowledge his true significance. He created MUSIC in his recorded and live performers. That is part of what music is. Music is not simply the realm of songwriters. Later rock performers actually did use his sound as an element of their sound.  

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

     


    I do.  I can't see a single positive influence/impact of a half naked woman writhing around singing other people's songs....and little long-term influence of any type.

    Look at even the ultimate song stylist, Elvis Presley.  How many times have you heard a musician cite him as an influence compared to Bo Diddley, Chuck Berry, all the Bluesmen, etc?

     



    Again, that you don't think the influence is positive doesn't mean it isn't there.  

     

    And again, I'm not even that fond of the music, but there's simply no denying the influence of certain pop/hip-hop/r&b/dance stars to their fans and the next generation of stars.

    The Supremes didn't write any of their hits - the sum of which rivaled the Beatles at one point.  And yet, they were next in the long line of female pop/r&b singing groups who set the charts on fire and got millions on the dance floor.

    Venus de Milo was a half naked woman, too.

      

     



    Matty, re Venus de Milo, I have no problem whatsoever with nudity, half or full, but I think your analogy is unsound.  A better analogy is if Alexandros of Antioch had sculpted it while half or fully naked and tried to pass the nudity off as talent....if he did, I'd lose much respect for him.  But at least he would have created something so I'd admire that.

     

    Re the Supremes, who do you think has had/will have a greater influence on artists:  Lamont Dozier and the Holland brothers (and Berry Gordy) or the people in the Supremes that sang their songs?  The Beatles, for an example, were big fans....I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suggest it wasn't the singers they admired.....



    I think The Beatles admired the whole package. Songwritng, production, playing, and singing. That's what music is.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    We'll have to agree to disagree;  I can't see how a guy that didn't write and didn't play guitar very well is "immensely talented".  Looked good, danced well, got in the game early and made a difference to the emerging youth and rock'n'roll culture.  But Lennon, and McCartney, and Jagger, and Richard, and Marriott, and Davies, and on and on didn't build on Elvis' MUSIC, not at all....he didn't HAVE music, he had others'.

    Listen to his singing and the bands that backed him up. Elvis contributed a lot to the recording process in the studio. He wasn't just a guy who looked good and danced well. He knew how to take a song and make it his own. He could transform a country song into a rock song. He was a unique talent. All of rock music built on Elvis as well as all the other great early rock performers. Elvis was one of the building blocks. To leave him out is to fail to acknowledge his true significance. He created MUSIC in his recorded and live performers. That is part of what music is. Music is not simply the realm of songwriters. Later rock performers actually did use his sound as an element of their sound.  


    I've never stated that music is only the creation of composers;  just that it mainly is.  Forget famous bands and musicians, look at musical want ads:  who is looking to start bands?  People with songs.  Who is looking to join bands?  Others.  That's a little bit strong, but largely true.  I have a great many musician friends, and most/all would agree without songs there is no band.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    We'll have to agree to disagree;  I can't see how a guy that didn't write and didn't play guitar very well is "immensely talented".  Looked good, danced well, got in the game early and made a difference to the emerging youth and rock'n'roll culture.  But Lennon, and McCartney, and Jagger, and Richard, and Marriott, and Davies, and on and on didn't build on Elvis' MUSIC, not at all....he didn't HAVE music, he had others'.

    Listen to his singing and the bands that backed him up. Elvis contributed a lot to the recording process in the studio. He wasn't just a guy who looked good and danced well. He knew how to take a song and make it his own. He could transform a country song into a rock song. He was a unique talent. All of rock music built on Elvis as well as all the other great early rock performers. Elvis was one of the building blocks. To leave him out is to fail to acknowledge his true significance. He created MUSIC in his recorded and live performers. That is part of what music is. Music is not simply the realm of songwriters. Later rock performers actually did use his sound as an element of their sound.  

     

     


    I've never stated that music is only the creation of composers;  just that it mainly is.  Forget famous bands and musicians, look at musical want ads:  who is looking to start bands?  People with songs.  Who is looking to join bands?  Others.  That's a little bit strong, but largely true.  I have a great many musician friends, and most/all would agree without songs there is no band.



    That's not completeltely true. Jazz improvisation is not dependent on songwriting. I've always read stories that bands usually got together by advertising for those who played certain instruments. But want ads don't really mean anything. There are plenty of songs already written that bar bands can cut their teeth on. Songwriting does not have to come first. It's a chicken and egg argument. You can form a band with or without a member with original songs. When a bluesman first picked up a guitar they were most likely playing their version of a song they heard someone else play. I don't know if that's the same as songwriting.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    That's not completeltely true. Jazz improvisation is not dependent on songwriting. I've always read stories that bands usually got together by advertising for those who played certain instruments. But want ads don't really mean anything. There are plenty of songs already written that bar bands can cut their teeth on. Songwriting does not have to come first. It's a chicken and egg argument. You can form a band with or without a member with original songs. When a bluesman first picked up a guitar they were most likely playing their version of a song they heard someone else play. I don't know if that's the same as songwriting.

    I grant you Jazz improv.

    My want ad example was just that, a simple example to reduce the noise around the debate.....as for cover bands, sure, that's a band.  But that's not what we're talking about....but let's run with it:

    If there was a cover band with a brilliant, dynamic singer, as well as a great git player, bassist and drummer.....all of whom were unable to write songs....how successful do you think their music career would be?

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    That's not completeltely true. Jazz improvisation is not dependent on songwriting. I've always read stories that bands usually got together by advertising for those who played certain instruments. But want ads don't really mean anything. There are plenty of songs already written that bar bands can cut their teeth on. Songwriting does not have to come first. It's a chicken and egg argument. You can form a band with or without a member with original songs. When a bluesman first picked up a guitar they were most likely playing their version of a song they heard someone else play. I don't know if that's the same as songwriting.

     

     

    I grant you Jazz improv.

    My want ad example was just that, a simple example to reduce the noise around the debate.....as for cover bands, sure, that's a band.  But that's not what we're talking about....but let's run with it:

    If there was a cover band with a brilliant, dynamic singer, as well as a great git player, bassist and drummer.....all of whom were unable to write songs....how successful do you think their music career would be?



    They could have a great career by using songwriters outside of the band. This was a common practice of some very successful performers. Yes, songs are a critical component. But a band or a performer does not have to be able to write their own songs in order to succeed. There are some songwriters who may or may not perform themselves, but mainly provide songs for performers. If the performers have a knack for picking songs that suit them, they can be very successful.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    That's not completeltely true. Jazz improvisation is not dependent on songwriting. I've always read stories that bands usually got together by advertising for those who played certain instruments. But want ads don't really mean anything. There are plenty of songs already written that bar bands can cut their teeth on. Songwriting does not have to come first. It's a chicken and egg argument. You can form a band with or without a member with original songs. When a bluesman first picked up a guitar they were most likely playing their version of a song they heard someone else play. I don't know if that's the same as songwriting.

     

     

    I grant you Jazz improv.

    My want ad example was just that, a simple example to reduce the noise around the debate.....as for cover bands, sure, that's a band.  But that's not what we're talking about....but let's run with it:

    If there was a cover band with a brilliant, dynamic singer, as well as a great git player, bassist and drummer.....all of whom were unable to write songs....how successful do you think their music career would be?

     



    They could have a great career by using songwriters outside of the band. This was a common practice of some very successful performers. Yes, songs are a critical component. But a band or a performer does not have to be able to write their own songs in order to succeed. There are some songwriters who may or may not perform themselves, but mainly provide songs for performers. If the performers have a knack for picking songs that suit them, they can be very successful.

     

     



    That's my point;  a band cannot succeed on their own without good songwriting skills regardless of their singing/playing ability.  However, a band with a good songwriter (or even a few decent songs) can succeed with even the most modest of singing (Dylan, Hendrix) or playing (many, many bands) skills because the critical, most important, most rare skill is composing.  

     

    Sure, a band/singer can buy in songs and succeed, though in rock'n'roll that ship sailed when the Beatles arrived i.e. you don't write, you got no cred.  But that doesn't alter the fact that without songs you cannot succeed, but without the other stuff you can.

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    Sonics, what you're saying is that the pen is mightier than the sword, or in the case of music, the axe.

    The truly blessed artists are the ones who can write, sing and play.  The triple threats.

     
  17. This post has been removed.

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

     

    Re the Supremes, who do you think has had/will have a greater influence on artists:  Lamont Dozier and the Holland brothers (and Berry Gordy) or the people in the Supremes that sang their songs?  The Beatles, for an example, were big fans....I don't know this for a fact, but I strongly suggest it wasn't the singers they admired.....

     



    Well, now you're talking about degrees of influence - importance - not the existence  of influence itself.

     

    Regardless, a song may not be worth the paper it's written upon without someone to deliver it to an audience and perform at a high standard...a standard I think most people would agree that The Supremes met and surpassed.

    It's been said that, "it's the singer, not the song, who makes the music move along," and there is a truism to that.  You said you attend of lot of shows - suffice to say the bands and most of the audience are there for the performance and interpretation.

    And it's been proven time and time again that even a mediocre song can motivate an audience in many ways if skillfully delivered.  This is not to discount the songwriters, producers...or even the engineers at the mixing boards, but these points aren't to be taken lightly.

    (The Venus reference was a joke re: 'half-naked woman writhing on stage' - which is another type of art entirely.)

     

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    Let's take a step back here as I am seeing both sides of the coin. Although my personal opinion tends to side with Sonicmonk regarding overall influence, I do see where straight out singers/performers who do not write their own music can be influential. Lennon and McCartney both have clearly stated that Elvis was a major influence on them. It may not have been in the songwriting, but the influence was certainly there. Elvis opened up the ears of the British youth and from there they heard Lil Ritchie, Buddy Holly, Chuck Berry, etc. & from there, The Blues.  Elvis, like Sinatra before him was excellent at bringing a song to life. And for my money, Elvis could sing.

    Motown - again, mostly artists who sang and performed songs which were written by others plus they had the luxury of having one of the great bands backing them (Funk Bros). And there can be no denying of the influence of Motown through all genres starting with the Beatles.

    The Monkees - clearly a created band who achieved success as the voices to some of the great RnR songwriters of all-time. And just like Motown and Elvis, you can see their influence on the Pop scene. Thankfully, the Monkees did not sit on their success and did their own thing. Zappa and Lennon both knew exactly what the Monkees were and took from them.

    So it is clear that influence carries over from bands who many of us would not put in the elite category of musicians/songwriters.

    This brings us back to Beyonce. and I have to retract my original statement that she is not an influence upon younger musicians/singers. She obviously is. To what extent, I don't know. She is not finished yet. But in this statement, then I have to say that Brit Spears also influenced many that followed. Sad, but true.

    Like Matty said, "doesn't matter if it is good or bad, influence is influence." My best example of that is Def Leppard. Much of what happened in the last 2/3rd of the 80's decade was clearly influenced by D.L. They brought a hybrid of hard guitar rock with a crossover pop that just exploded all over the place and that includes Guns and Roses. And puttng aside my dislike for Bon Jovi, Nelson, Warrant and a number of other platinum selling bands from 86 - 90,  for they  basically ripped off D.L.'s hook based hard rock.  I think Def Leppard is one of the top 5 bands to come out of that decade, but they did influence a lot of junk that followed.  And because of this, they are looked down upon by many in the industry. Yet 30 + years later, they are still writing, recording and touring. Maybe not like in their hey day, but they remain viable and that is saying something. And yet I cringe everytime I hear Bon Jovi who also continues to write, record and perform.

    So influence is influence - good, bad or ugly. But I will hold true to my opinion that at least as far as Pop music is concerned, including Beyonce, it is all disposable and those who have yet to be born will never know who they were. But then I believe this theory will hold true about Madonna as well.

    But Led Zeppeiln, like The Beatles, The Who, Kinks, Queen, Clash, etc. will be, because they wrote & performed  timeless music that to this day & into the future will influence kids to pick up a guitar and play. "We Won't Get Fooled Again"!!!!!!!!!!!

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.



    Yes, it should be restricted.   I went down this alley either earlier in this thread, or in another recent thread.   So I know where you're going ... but the two genre worlds just don't mesh very well re: composing / performing, and have little common ground.  

    Pavarotti was a vocalist, too -- and his influence is legendary in bringing opera to the masses -- and as far as I know, he never wrote any of his own material.  :)

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.



    Yes.  Composition is only one phase of the process.  We often hear the term 'interpretation' used to describe a performance of a classical piece, or a performance of a play.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    Look at the Stones first album (England's Newest Hitmakers (I believe)) and their first live album ("The Rolling Stones Live! Now!, 1963-1966 performances).

    I'll have to double check when I get home, but my recollection is that they are almost exclusively covers.



    They were all covers, I believe, certainly their first album.  But that was a different time, when was the last time - other than bands doing it for fun, or for a specific reason i.e. a tribute - a rock band succeeded with an album of covers?  Or even an unsuccessful one?  It just doesn't happen anymore, again, because the Beatles ruined the career of being a rock'n'roll composer.

    There are exceptions that prove the rule like blues-based singers like George Thorogood, the exception among exceptions Steve Marriott with Humble Pie (a band I have always loathed for just that reason), and others I may be forgetting.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.



    Yes, we've only been discussing rock music.  Re classical music, why is it that modern composers are not considered - at least by laymen - to be able to reach the heights of the masters of 1-3 centuries ago?  Is it really possible composers could not reach or exceed the level of Mozart, Bach, etc?  If so, why?  Or is it just snobbery i.e. assuming the masters are beyond our meagre talents?

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars's comment:

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

     

    And now, I suppose, should this be restricted to rock?


    I'm not aware of Yo Yo Ma, Rostropovich, Pearlman, or Heifetz of ever writing anything. But they were grand masters of their art: performance.

     



    Yes, we've only been discussing rock music.  Re classical music, why is it that modern composers are not considered - at least by laymen - to be able to reach the heights of the masters of 1-3 centuries ago?  Is it really possible composers could not reach or exceed the level of Mozart, Bach, etc?  If so, why?  Or is it just snobbery i.e. assuming the masters are beyond our meagre talents?

     



    This same question pertains to popular music.  Will there ever be songwriters that compare to the Beatles?  We're inclined to think not.  I tend to think that the musical form itself is a finite resource of material that is eventually exhausted.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: Good music, bad music

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     



    This same question pertains to popular music.  Will there ever be songwriters that compare to the Beatles?  We're inclined to think not.  I tend to think that the musical form itself is a finite resource of material that is eventually exhausted.

     



    Hf/What - interesting responses, I certainly don't have the answer.   I would add money to the equation as well....potentially great classical musicians (or playwrights, or poets) might be pushed to popular music, film and novels given the money in the later dwarfs the former.

     

Share