We're Only In It For The Money-part two

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

    We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    I know many of you aren't around on the weekend, but I assume many of you will return on Monday to view this wonderful thread.

    "One of the secrets of whatever success I've amounted to was that I never make shows for the audience. I listen to good advice, but the only person I make shows for is myself."

    "Writers and producers and directors and so on that create a show for specific audiences do shlock work. They should do selfish work, proudly selfish work, and that happens to be true about painters and sculpters too."  ( unspoken , but he probably should have included writers and performers of music also).

    The speaker is someone I am sure you all know. He created a T.V. series that had 4 spinoffs, over a half dozen feature films and a legion of fans that would make most sports teams  envious.

    Money and fame were not the main goal, but more of a desire to see a vision become reality.

    I think maybe many of our musical success stories are a result of wanting to create something , not so much to be rich or famous. Sure, there are the people who did it for the fame and the money, but seriously, would you name a group "Dead Kennedys" if you had any hope of being successful commercially? Would you play radio friendly 3:00 songs or would you be Hendrix, Led Zeppelin or Frank Zappa? Pink Floyd, a group we've discussed at length, never , ever did anything for the audience. They were "proudly selfish" , refusing to be like anything that came before them or has ever come along since. Jimi Hendrix was "proudly selfish" , he wanted to play guitar, he didn't want to play shlocky pop music." Johnny "Rotten" Lydon was "proudly selfish" , he turned his back on a style of music he helped create ( because it had little future anyway), Punk Rock , to be a pioneer in a new style, Alternative Rock. Lydon's career took a decidedly uncommercial turn at a point where many would have been trying to exploit the brief brush with fame he enjoyed in the 70's.

    Much of today's popular music is what can be termed "shlock." Music created because it can generate cash, it can make a person famous for a short period, it is aimed at pleasing an audience but has no artistic value, therefore no staying power, no substance, no creativity.

    Were the Blues legends trying to get rich and famous? No, they were just trying to find something pleasing in a miserable existence. By doing so, they created a sustainable art form, a music so great that time can't make it obsolete.

    By the way, the speaker I quoted was Gene Roddenberry , creator of Star Trek.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Zilla- Your post resonates even more with the passing of Neil Armstrong today. A true American hero, whose "Giant Leap for Mankind," is still a source of pride and unlike many of our TV heroes, really did fly in Space. By all accounts, he was a modest man who used his celebrity for worthy causes, rather than financial gain. Given his enormous fame, it must have been tempting for him to cash in, but he choose to live a quiet life in Ohio. How many people would do the same?

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from tcal2-. Show tcal2-'s posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    It's a Kardashian world we live in.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In Response to Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two:
    It's a Kardashian world we live in.
    Posted by tcal2-


    Not everyone lives in that world.

    I see it as a result of the "sleaze overkill" that is today's entertainment world. Like fast food , ATMs , remote controls, riding lawnmowers, cellphones and drive-thru windows ( heck, we don't even want to spell out the word "through", it's too much damn work!)...convenience rules the day. We simply do not want to work too hard at anything. We'll watch anything that the T.V. offers us, because it's easy to just turn on the T.V. and watch what "desperate housewives" might be up to ( we assume it's something sexual and naughty...so we are instantly intrigued by it). Who hasn't watched a few minutes of trashy T.V. just to make sure you aren't missing something exciting? So yes, people become addicted to "sleaze" just like they became addicted to garbage food....chicken nuggets ( is that really chicken?) and Big Macs and Taco Bell. Even our news channels are bigtime "sleaze mongers" , they make big news about O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony and a politician who might tell us about "legitimate rape."

    Now, how does this relate to music? ...it's easier to be a fan of the popular stuff, the stuff the radio and T.V. feeds you. But, it's alot of work to dig deeper and find music with substance and individuality. It takes some time to appreciate a style of music that is not loaded with "hooks", many artists that have made sustainable, classic music are "acquired tastes." By that I mean you don't necessarily fall in love with them at first hear. It took me a while to appreciate some of my favorites...Hendrix, the Grateful Dead , U2 ...did not grab me right away. There are others I would not even know about if I had just listened to top 40 hits radio ( The Cramps, X, Rory Gallagher,Les Dudek, Echo and the Bunnymen , Oingo Boingo, to name a few).

    An artist who creates something that lasts is "proudly selfish" loving his work and feeding off that passion. The "artist" ( and I use the term loosely) that creates shlock, smut and sleaze, wants to capitalize on current trends, turning garbage into money, because basically people are too lazy to dig for something better. They go for what is "popular" or "talked about" , because they do not want to be "left out."

    I have no problem researching things that are unpopular, because I do not seek entertainment as a vehicle for being included in a group or to make sure I am not "out of the Loop." In fact, I enjoy being "out of the Loop" when it comes to what is " popular" in much of today's entertainment world.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Z, In all honesty, I believe in the big umbrella. I think there's room for all types.

    My favorite groups tend to be those who that can be described as doing it because they wanted to create something. However, I can also enjoy music that simply might be doing it to entertain the audience.

    Just like TV and movies. There are some that I appreciate because of the quality and other times when simple, mindless entertainment is just fine.

    And food. I love all-types, from cheap, quick fast food to upscale, high quality gourmet foods.

    I can appreciate the sentiment of creating art for the love and not for the money, but to be honest, as long as someone isn't being dishonest or underhanded, I'm not going to begrudge someone making a buck.

    And the more I think of it, creating something that might not have legs and might be done for the money to satisfy an audience is an artform in itself.

    The greats can do both. Be true to themselves and find a large audience. But someone who produces crp that no one wants to listen to but is true to him/herself is no more noble IMO than someone produces crp for money that entertains a large audience. In fact, you could say the latter is, if not noble, better because in the end, they're giving enjoyment to many.

    But like I started -- there's room for all under a big umbrella.
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In Response to We're Only In It For The Money-part two:
    I know many of you aren't around on the weekend, but I assume many of you will return on Monday to view this wonderful thread. "One of the secrets of whatever success I've amounted to was that I never make shows for the audience. I listen to good advice, but the only person I make shows for is myself." "Writers and producers and directors and so on that create a show for specific audiences do shlock work. They should do selfish work, proudly selfish work, and that happens to be true about painters and sculpters too."  ( unspoken , but he probably should have included writers and performers of music also). The speaker is someone I am sure you all know. He created a T.V. series that had 4 spinoffs, over a half dozen feature films and a legion of fans that would make most sports teams  envious. Money and fame were not the main goal, but more of a desire to see a vision become reality. I think maybe many of our musical success stories are a result of wanting to create something , not so much to be rich or famous. Sure, there are the people who did it for the fame and the money, but seriously, would you name a group "Dead Kennedys" if you had any hope of being successful commercially? Would you play radio friendly 3:00 songs or would you be Hendrix, Led Zeppelin or Frank Zappa? Pink Floyd, a group we've discussed at length, never , ever did anything for the audience. They were "proudly selfish" , refusing to be like anything that came before them or has ever come along since. Jimi Hendrix was "proudly selfish" , he wanted to play guitar, he didn't want to play shlocky pop music." Johnny "Rotten" Lydon was "proudly selfish" , he turned his back on a style of music he helped create ( because it had little future anyway), Punk Rock , to be a pioneer in a new style, Alternative Rock. Lydon's career took a decidedly uncommercial turn at a point where many would have been trying to exploit the brief brush with fame he enjoyed in the 70's. Much of today's popular music is what can be termed "shlock." Music created because it can generate cash, it can make a person famous for a short period, it is aimed at pleasing an audience but has no artistic value, therefore no staying power, no substance, no creativity. Were the Blues legends trying to get rich and famous? No, they were just trying to find something pleasing in a miserable existence. By doing so, they created a sustainable art form, a music so great that time can't make it obsolete. By the way, the speaker I quoted was Gene Roddenberry , creator of Star Trek.
    Posted by ZILLAGOD


    I knew you were talking about Star Trek.

    As for everything else, there is no getting into another person's mind and knowing for sure why they do this or do that. I know when I was struggling to make it in music, it was more than just doing what I liked. It was the thought of making a ton of money while I was doing what I loved. Money always has a way of creeping into the conversation, one way or another.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Well said, zilla...in part because it needs to be said every now and then.

    But to expand upon roy's point a little:

    The quality of art is always a relative thing and as such it thrives on comparison and contrast between examples of it.  We need the bad art to know what's good.  We need the schlock to be able to spot the substance.  We need the trash to distinguish it from the treasure.

    Our intellects are innately built to handle these equations, but we don't always exercise them.  I think that's part of what Roddenberry was saying.  We DO need to challenge ourselves more and take a chance that we might not like something, just so we can make that determination.

    Often, we just don't know what we're talking about.  I know that I can't tell the difference between good Korean Pop and bad Korean Pop, but there's no doubt that the line exists somewhere.  With a little patience and exposure, the line becomes a little clearer, perhaps, and in turn the process makes us into something better than existed before.


    P.S.  I like sci-fi a lot but never really cared for Star Trek.

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

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    I remember yoga asked me back when I posted "part one", if there would be a "part two."

    I wasn't really sure myself, until I saw this quote by Roddenberry in a book I am currently reading. It seems to fit in with my "part one" thread.

    roy, jessie, Matty ...thanks I love your contributions. Oh, and tcal too....you gave me a great platform for my 2nd post.

    this part for Matty-

    Matty, Star Trek is not just sci-fi , it is humanity expressed through Science Fiction. Many people I know do not like '2001: a Space Odyssey'....they simply do not understand it, they want a big, scary alien monster, the want laser torpedos, space wars.... ( Star Wars satisfied what people wanted from Science Fiction, hence the boost in Sci Fi movies in the 80's).....but really one of my favorite Sci Fi movies from that period - Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind....a movie that depicted aliens as non violent, a Sci Fi movie that didn't have all the explosions and killing. Really, a great film.

    I guess you're right , we do need to see what "shlock" is so we know how good art with "substance" really is....we need bad music , so that we can know what "good" is, but when it comes to art, it's all in the eye or the "ear" of the beholder....isn't it? I will change the radio anytime KC and the Sunshine Band is played....my other half, she really doesn't understand this...but she thinks Jimi Hendrix is awful and hates the Rolling Stones....how do I begin to explain?...
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In Response to Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two:
    this part for Matty- Matty, Star Trek is not just sci-fi , it is humanity expressed through Science Fiction. Many people I know do not like '2001: a Space Odyssey'....they simply do not understand it, they want a big, scary alien monster, the want laser torpedos, space wars.... ( Star Wars satisfied what people wanted from Science Fiction, hence the boost in Sci Fi movies in the 80's).....but really one of my favorite Sci Fi movies from that period - Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind....a movie that depicted aliens as non violent, a Sci Fi movie that didn't have all the explosions and killing. Really, a great film. I guess you're right , we do need to see what "shlock" is so we know how good art with "substance" really is....we need bad music , so that we can know what "good" is, but when it comes to art, it's all in the eye or the "ear" of the beholder....isn't it? I will change the radio anytime KC and the Sunshine Band is played....my other half, she really doesn't understand this...but she thinks Jimi Hendrix is awful and hates the Rolling Stones....how do I begin to explain?...
    Posted by ZILLAGOD


    Look at it this way: without the 'good' Star Trek movies, we wouldn't be able to accurately judge the 'bad' Star Trek movies', right? 

    Remember, these are all art forms, even the worst examples.  I love the minimalist, picayune details of "2001", but many people probably find it as exciting as paint drying.

    I love the Stones and Zeppelin, but some might regard them as overly cocky, misogynistic, sloppy appropriations of the blues. 

    My philosophy is to soak it up - all of it - as much as I can get and as often as I can get it, process it, break it down, and then share it with others (who may not always like it, but they usually appreciate the sharing part).  In turn, they will share with me what they know and like and feel (because there's not enough time on earth to do it all myself).  And what more can I ask for, really?


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

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Thanks for "part two" on this thread -- and that's a good lead in for the way I see this.   How can there be a part one, without contemplating and / or knowing there will be a part two?    Complimentary and connected, two parts that indicate a whole.  Maybe a third will come, but in creating the second part, you have, for now, created a relationship between two parts. 

    The yin and the yang, essentially.  Two complimentary poles of energy, not opposing, but complimentary.   The masculine, the feminine.  The hot, the cold.  The sweet, the sour -- and so forth.   The FULL circle.   The concept of the yin and the yang is based on the whole, bringing various forces (of energy) together, but once together, they balance each other out and create harmony.    It's not about judgement -- one is not 'better' than the other; rather, both are needed, they are equals, and need to co-exist, to exist at all.  We need both sides in the world.  

    (BTW, in yoga practice, it is always a (nerdy) joke among us when our teacher forgets to complete a vinyasa on *both* sides (left and right) as we will not be "balanced" unless we do both sides equally).  :)

    I try to see the space around me this way; if I didn't, it would be too depressing.  Don't get me wrong, Zilla's thesis resonates with me all too well, and I also think it bears repeating and reflecting upon.   I struggle with the downfall of civility all the time.  So, all in all, I march to the beat of my own drummer, like many have expressed.   I learned from two amazing people, my parents, and while I don't know if I can ever live up to their example in terms of not caring one wit what "the Joneses are doing", I aspire to the example that they set.  

    As for music, it's always been a priority for me, that's why I seek out what I like on my own terms.  I know it's not a priority for everyone, not even for all of my friends, so I try not judge.  I said try.  :)  Even when my cycling instructor has a Justin Bieber song on her playlist and walks over to me and says, "isn't he cute?" -- I just laugh because she already knows what I think.  :)  
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Are things really much different than they were in the Sixties or Seventies?  I'm not convinced that they are.  As has been observed here before, in the Sixties and Seventies there was plenty of commercial junk being produced.  And even a lot of the good stuff had commercial intentions.  For example, we think of the Yardbirds as a seminal and creative blues-rock band, and they were.  But when they needed a hit a hired gun writer such as Graham Gouldman would be commissioned to come up with one, and in fact he gave them the hits 'For Your Love' and 'Heart Full of Soul' which are now the Yardbirds songs you hear on Classic Rock radio...
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Star Trek was a great show but I'm not sure there weren't some commercial intentions going on there too.  Ever notice how many of the female guest stars (like Julie Newmar) were beautiful and voluptuous?  I sure did. 

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

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    @yoga:

    The eternal, mutual contradictions between the mind and the spirit and the search for inner peace, i.e. the reconciliation of the two.

    For me, aesthetics are innately human...more so than law or religion...and serve to define the earthly struggle into languages and themes that everyone can understand. 

    We created art and music almost from day one - even before language, I believe - and it's been our creative pursuits that have most genuinely advanced our common cause(s). 

    (When we destroy or oppress it, we lose momentum, i.e. the buddhas blown up by the taliban in afghanistan...tragic.)

    It remains to be seen how this period of human history is regarded in terms of aesthetic achievement, but it seems that the sheer proliferation of forms is ultimately positive, except perhaps for those who would wish to control it.


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

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In Response to Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two:
    Are things really much different than they were in the Sixties or Seventies?  I'm not convinced that they are.  As has been observed here before, in the Sixties and Seventies there was plenty of commercial junk being produced.  And even a lot of the good stuff had commercial intentions.  For example, we think of the Yardbirds as a seminal and creative blues-rock band, and they were.  But when they needed a hit a hired gun writer such as Graham Gouldman would be commissioned to come up with one, and in fact he gave them the hits 'For Your Love' and 'Heart Full of Soul' which are now the Yardbirds songs you hear on Classic Rock radio...
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut


    Good point.

    This was accented for me when I watched the doc on Scott Walker and his initial success as a member of the Walker Brothers - who were as manufactured a pop band as any (mostly in the UK).

    It seems that creating art of lasting significance isn't remotely automatic despite what was popular 'at the time'.  And yet, even they (esp. Scott) still have their admirers, not least of all David Bowie, who was directly inspired by Scott.


     
  15. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In Response to Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two:
    @yoga: The eternal, mutual contradictions between the mind and the spirit and the search for inner peace, i.e. the reconciliation of the two. For me, aesthetics are innately human...more so than law or religion...and serve to define the earthly struggle into languages and themes that everyone can understand.  We created art and music almost from day one - even before language, I believe - and it's been our creative pursuits that have most genuinely advanced our common cause(s).  (When we destroy or oppress it, we lose momentum, i.e. the buddhas blown up by the taliban in afghanistan...tragic.) It remains to be seen how this period of human history is regarded in terms of aesthetic achievement, but it seems that the sheer proliferation of forms is ultimately positive, except perhaps for those who would wish to control it.
    Posted by MattyScornD

    Reconciliation is certainly part of the struggle, but that's not (necessarily) the end goal, but more akin to a wonderful byproduct, when putting complimentary forces of energy together.  In a profound way, you see the world in a less linear fashion, and more holistically.  The pieces you once thought were incompatible, are now parts of the same continuum.  Fine lines, and all that. Very fine.  

    The art of balance (and yes, it's an art, just as much as a 'law') is one of the most difficult to achieve -- and just because it is a goal for some, that doesn't cancel out the formation of tastes, opinions, individual thought, not that I thought that what's you were implying by any means, but I honestly believe there is not only more ease in understanding cause and effect with a balanced mind, but also more openness in developing tastes, opinions, etc.  

    That's what creates community.   Or it's what could create community, if people saw the whole more often, and not the dividing lines, as is the case in more linear thinking.  

    Nothing is the same from day to day, no one person, no one thought, not one emotion, not one living thing.  Not one response, not one reaction.  Why else would someone attend the concert of a musician that they've already seen 100 times?   Why else would someone watch a film for the 50th time?   Why else would someone re-read a book for the umpteenth time?   

    The only thing that is permanent is Zilla's dislike for disco music, and I have to admit, I find comfort in that.  Amen to that, you know?
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In Response to Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two:
    Are things really much different than they were in the Sixties or Seventies?  I'm not convinced that they are.  As has been observed here before, in the Sixties and Seventies there was plenty of commercial junk being produced.  And even a lot of the good stuff had commercial intentions.  For example, we think of the Yardbirds as a seminal and creative blues-rock band, and they were.  But when they needed a hit a hired gun writer such as Graham Gouldman would be commissioned to come up with one, and in fact he gave them the hits 'For Your Love' and 'Heart Full of Soul' which are now the Yardbirds songs you hear on Classic Rock radio...
    Posted by Hfxsoxnut

    Hfx,
    On the count of sameness for music, I agree, but only on the level that you have described.   You know, the more things change, the more they stay the same, and all that. 

    But the innocence is gone, and can never be recaptured, nor should it be.  It's a different world, a different era.   That's what I happen to think about when we harken back to thoughts of the Sixties and Seventies.   How many people really knew about the underpinnings of marketing music?   Was it more invisible?   Now it's all we see -- churn out the albums, no matter if they have any originality, skill or musical merit.  Just get the thing to market.  The younger, quick-to-rise-to-fame artists don't have as much individuality as the artists from that bygone era, either; they're all out of the same cookie cutter.  
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    I guess I'm puzzled about this one.  I see a lot of artists mentioned here that people like and I've never heard of.  So I thought there were still artists doing interesting and creative stuff and having some success.  Then there's White Stripes and Black Keys and so on.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    Of course there are many creative new and emerging musical artists who are making good, if not great, music; but harkening back to the OP, let's just say that quantity trumps quality, much of it is defined as 'shlock' and is generated for sales.  Among newer, up and coming artists, the music that has staying power, originality, and is generated for artistic value, is difficult to find.  There are very few people who would argue that despite the considerable number of decent artists that have emerged over the past 10 years and counting, they are few and far between.   

    It's been said there was plenty of shlock in the sixties, seventies, certainly the eighties, but enough time has elapsed to see the cream that has risen to the top from those decades, and the amount is staggering; right now, it's hard to imagine that happening with the music produced in the past decade in terms of sheer numbers.  

    I think Zilla also contends that even though there are people who seek out schlock, and it is quite popular, that doesn't legitimize the music.  I'm totally good with some of the schlock, it fills a type of void, and so be it.  The full menu needs to be there, the great, the good, the shlock -- it all balances out in the end for each of us, IMO.    
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from polar123. Show polar123's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    I'm with Roy on this issue, I think there is room both serious and non-serious musicians, just as there is room for serious tv vs reality tv, or anything for that matter. I don't have to like it, but I'm not going to say that there shoudln't be choices. In the entertainment business not everyone is going to make it big, make it last, or achieve great fame. But I have to believe that most go into it with an eye towards some sort of payday whether it be critical, or commercial success.

    I was watching Iron and Wine Live from the Artist Den the other night. I mean how good is this guy. Every song he writes is killer, yet how big is he again? Sure he has his core of really devoted fans, but compare his to sales of the guy who played guitar and won American Idol, well, it's not even close. What does that say, Not sure, but it is the reality in the 21st century. In fact as Hfx, has pointed out, serious vs, non serious musicians have been fighting for decades.

    And not everyone is it for the fame, but rather the artistic, or creative pursuit. I'm sure Iron and Wine (Sam Beam) would like to enjoy the same kind of fame many far less deserved poseurs get, but it must a be comforting that their are folks who really enjoy his music and attend his shows. I'mean what more can you want as a musican, validation right? 

    But what is fame?

    I am going to go with a post I deleted over the weekend. It concerns Neil Armstrong. I deleted it because I did not think it applied here, yet it does. He was not a rock star, yet as the first man to walk on the moon, he became as famous as any beatle. Instead of bragging about his accomplishments, and profiting by it, he choose to live a quiet life with his wife in Ohio, and devote his remaining years to the space program.  Armstrong always said that just being an Astronaut was rewarding enough. For him, it was never about the money. I guess the question is how many people would walk away from that kind of fame? And is Armstrong being proudly selfish here?

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

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    I am loving these responses!!!

    I am so glad I can throw out a subject and have brilliant minds grasp it, add their own twist to it , and add opinions without being snide and viscious to each other.

    I am now thinking of a thread where you , the listener, list your favorite "shlock" songs....because yoga is right, there are a few shlocky songs that are entertaining. You liking it surely doesn't "legitimaize" it as she stated, but you do like some shlocky songs...admit it, don't you?

    However , you will not find "Me And You And a Dog Named Boo" on my list.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jesseyeric. Show jesseyeric's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In response to We're Only In It For The Money-part two:

    I am loving these responses!!!

    I am so glad I can throw out a subject and have brilliant minds grasp it, add their own twist to it , and add opinions without being snide and viscious to each other.

    I am now thinking of a thread where you , the listener, list your favorite "shlock" songs....because yoga is right, there are a few shlocky songs that are entertaining. You liking it surely doesn't "legitimaize" it as she stated, but you do like some shlocky songs...admit it, don't you?

    However , you will not find "Me And You And a Dog Named Boo" on my list.



    Some say The Sweet's song Little Willy was pure schlock. I call it pure genius. Let's start there.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from royf19. Show royf19's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In response to We're Only In It For The Money-part two:

     

    I'm with Roy on this issue, I think there is room both serious and non-serious musicians, just as there is room for serious tv vs reality tv, or anything for that matter. I don't have to like it, but I'm not going to say that there shoudln't be choices. In the entertainment business not everyone is going to make it big, make it last, or achieve great fame. But I have to believe that most go into it with an eye towards some sort of payday whether it be critical, or commercial success.

    I was watching Iron and Wine Live from the Artist Den the other night. I mean how good is this guy. Every song he writes is killer, yet how big is he again? Sure he has his core of really devoted fans, but compare his to sales of the guy who played guitar and won American Idol, well, it's not even close. What does that say, Not sure, but it is the reality in the 21st century. In fact as Hfx, has pointed out, serious vs, non serious musicians have been fighting for decades.

    And not everyone is it for the fame, but rather the artistic, or creative pursuit. I'm sure Iron and Wine (Sam Beam) would like to enjoy the same kind of fame many far less deserved poseurs get, but it must a be comforting that their are folks who really enjoy his music and attend his shows. I'mean what more can you want as a musican, validation right? 

    But what is fame?

    I am going to go with a post I deleted over the weekend. It concerns Neil Armstrong. I deleted it because I did not think it applied here, yet it does. He was not a rock star, yet as the first man to walk on the moon, he became as famous as any beatle. Instead of bragging about his accomplishments, and profiting by it, he choose to live a quiet life with his wife in Ohio, and devote his remaining years to the space program.  Armstrong always said that just being an Astronaut was rewarding enough. For him, it was never about the money. I guess the question is how many people would walk away from that kind of fame? And is Armstrong being proudly selfish here?

     




    Good post. I do have a comment about Armstrong. I'm certainly not going to call him selfish after all he did for this country even before going to the moon. I don't think he should have done more public events -- autographs, etc. -- if he didn't like them, but I do sort of feel he should have done a few more interviews. On the various documentaries you see on the space program and the moon landings, you hear Buzz Aldrin talk about it a lot but not Armstrong. Simply from a historical standpoint it would have been nice for him done a bit more.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from ZILLAGOD. Show ZILLAGOD's posts

    Re: We're Only In It For The Money-part two

    In response to We're Only In It For The Money-part two:

    In response to We're Only In It For The Money-part two:

    I am loving these responses!!!

    I am so glad I can throw out a subject and have brilliant minds grasp it, add their own twist to it , and add opinions without being snide and viscious to each other.

    I am now thinking of a thread where you , the listener, list your favorite "shlock" songs....because yoga is right, there are a few shlocky songs that are entertaining. You liking it surely doesn't "legitimaize" it as she stated, but you do like some shlocky songs...admit it, don't you?

    However , you will not find "Me And You And a Dog Named Boo" on my list.



    Some say The Sweet's song Little Willy was pure schlock. I call it pure genius. Let's start there.

     

    I would call 'Little Willy' an "infectous song." It gets in your head and you get get it out. This is true of most shlocky songs....but I agree this song and many of the others by Sweet are just really fun songs and you jus have to love them.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share