OT: Most overrated musical artists of all time
Austin Kaiser
1) The Eagles
2) Guns 'N Roses
3) Eric Clapton
4) Van Morrison
5) Led Zeppelin
Yours?
AK
Ken Dixon
2) Kurt Cobain
3) Prince
4) Mariah Carey
5) Eminem
Jonathan Wolgamuth
Any American Idol winner.
Jamie McDonell
> My nominees:
> 1) The Eagles
> 2) Guns 'N Roses
> 3) Eric Clapton
Yeah, but he'd also be on my list of the greatedst musical artists of
all time.
I mean: Who could live up to "...is God" (an honorific he neither wanted
nor liked)?
> 4) Van Morrison
Is Van the Man really rated that high?
(I really like his music, but that's beside the point.)
> 5) Led Zeppelin
Ed Mitchell
Every Boy Band that ever existed
Creedence Clearwater Revival
Mariah Carey
The Carpenters
"Austin Kaiser" <akai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138038211.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Tim Daneliuk
1) Madonna
2) The Beatles
3) Nirvana
4) Kenny G
5) Celine Dion
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Justin Holmes
1. The Eagles
2. Yngwie Malmsteen
3. P diddy
4.The clash
5. Marilyn Manson
Rad Davis
"DrBlues" <rudabag...@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:am9at1lis7n64o452...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Jan 2006 09:43:31 -0800, "Austin Kaiser" <akai...@hotmail.com>
> Eric Clapton
> Grand Funk Railroad - loved em as a kid, as I got older I really
> really thought they sucked
> The Who
> Every band in the 80's like Flock of Seagulls, Duran Duran oh gawd
> kill me they were awful...
>
Culture Club?
Rad
Roadie
Roadie
"Austin Kaiser" <akai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138038211.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Gene H
"Jonathan Wolgamuth" <jonwol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138039545.2...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I'll go with this list.
Gene H
Tim Daneliuk
Justin Holmes
overrated. THat may not be the case here, Rad
Gene H
"Austin Kaiser" <akai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138038211.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Hey, c'mon. I like Eagles and Led Zeppelin. Especially when I regress to my
college / pre-college days... when I still had hair down to my shoulders and
sex was still something to look forward to instead of wistfully back at ....
LMAO.
Have a good Monday Guy and Gals.
("Gals" eeewww. s/b Ladies)
Gene H
crosb...@gmail.com
Ben R.
iann...@gmail.com
Any kind of Rap or R & B (whatever you call it is the same thing- crap)
Most bands on the radio today...
Tim Daneliuk
> LED ZEPPELIN RULES.
>
d00d - it's spelled "RULEZ".
Ben R.
John Grubb
Scott Curtis
wrote:
>Any RAP artist.
>
John,
It's not RAP any more. It's "Hip-Hop". Please keep with the lingo.
Also:
It's not Puff Daddy
It's not Puff
It's not P Diddy
It's just DIDDY!!
Next week it will be DipShit
SC
Justin Holmes
rap. That said, Diddy didn't do anything creative with the music he
ripped off, and he ripped off most of his flow from other, more
talented MCs.
Scott Curtis
wrote:
>My nominees:
Beatles
Eagles
Led Zep
Nirvana
Genesis
Yes
Moody Blues
Rolling Stones after 1973
Styx
Def Leppard
SC
max
max
Scoop
generation that's gone in the past, from the cavemen complaining about the
first hide-drum, to the Greeks complaining about the new Roman sound, to our
parents complaining about Rock and Roll. The first sure sign of becoming a
relic is claiming that everything that is currently being played is crap.
Me, I like some of the stuff that's out. I like the work of NOFX, of Green
Day, I think there's a whole lot of good music being made, and much of it is
being made overseas.
Scoop
<iann...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138044955.9...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Scoop
Celine Dion
Barry Manilow
The Carpenters
Captain and Tenille
The Osmonds - all of them.
That's a start
Justin Holmes
over rated. That said, I am turning into a bit of an old fart. Hasn't
been much that moved me in the last 5 years. Mostly I think the new alt
rock stuff is pretty wimpy.
Austin Kaiser
You really don't know if Van Morrison is rated very highly? I think
it's safe to say that he qualified as a "legend" in the rock world
many, many years ago.
AK
adam
2-Zeppelin
3-Phish
4-Notorious BIG
5-CREED!!!!!!!!
NOFX isn't out
1germanshepherd
The Eagles
Guns and Roses (Redefined the word "awful")
Black Crows
Journey
Any of those horrid 80's androginy bands (ABC, Flock Of Stinkin'
Seagulls, Culture Club, Oingo Boingo...yech!)
adam
Christ, there are a lot of overrated bands!
Justin Holmes
they were radiohead...
Briarroot
Regards,
Tim Parker ... GH Brown flake in a Stanwell billiard
kilted1
"Austin Kaiser" <akai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1138038211.6...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> 1) The Eagles
> 2) Guns 'N Roses
> 3) Eric Clapton
> 4) Van Morrison
> 5) Led Zeppelin
>
> Yours?
>
> AK
>
>
kilted1's dreadful list:
1) The Beatles
2) Journey
3) The Beatles
4) Guns'N Roses
5) The Beatles
6) RAP does not qualify as music, it's more like bad poetry set to a
predictable "beat" performed by punks who need diapers
7) The Beatles
8) Almost anything currently (or in the past 15 years) on MTV
9) The Beatles
10) The Eagles
Did I meantion The Beatles?
Most overplayed songs in history of FM radio (now moving to satellite radio)
1) Freebird: Lynyrd Skynyrd (break out your bic lighter one MORE time)
2) Hotel California: The Eagles (you can check out anytime, but they'll
STILL be playing this song)
3) Hey Jude: The Beatles (nearly anything by The Beatles would qualify, I
just hate this one more than most)
4) Money: Pink Floyd (Another Brick In The Wall would also qualify "we
don't need no education" c'mon these guys recorded some really great stuff,
try playing some of it)
5) Dust in the (f*cking) Wind: Kanas (I have detested this song since first
hearing it nearly 30 years ago!) Someone get a dustbuster already, put us
out of our collective misery!
6) Stairway to Heaven: Led Zepplin (ooooh I'm all pimply-faced and ready
for my high school prom again, and again and again and again)
7) Na na naaa naaaaaaaaaa naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa: Journey (what
a PUKE "band" they were anyway)
8) A Horse With No Name: America (hey I only know 2 chords!!!)
9) Tom Sawyer: Rush (with 24+ albums released, you'd think more of their
material would get airplay)
10 Owner of a Lonely Heart: Yes (when they sold out!)
Oooops, just blew every FM playlist there is in the USA!
kilted1
rkzenrage
DrBlues wrote:
> On 23 Jan 2006 14:14:59 EST, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Do you really want to hurt me?
>
> and then got ready to take my daughter to the Dr. I was standing at
> the kitchen sink and I remembered that song {{{{shudder}}}} and I
> guess the answer would have been yes. Well not maybe like bad or
> anything but right when he sings the last word a good pie in the face
> would suffice. What was deal with the clown outfit clothes? I so feel
> for anyone that was a teenager in the 80's. What do they have to
> forward to, a reunion of Poison? {{{{shudder}}}}}
> T
> Is D2O more filling?
> www.dr-blues.com
There was actually some amazing music in the 80's, you just had to know
where to look.
I was a big 4AD fan.
Namaste'
Robert
adam
poetry, I think it is unfair to damn an entire genre of music (yes
music) knowing only what Sony, BMG, and Time Warner put on the radio.
E.g:
In the afterlife gladiators meet their maker
Float through the wheat fields and lakes of blue water
To the next life from the fortress
Away from the knives and slaughter
To their wives and daughters
Once more before the Lord judges over all of us
Cos in this place you'll see me
Brace yourself, cos this goes deep
I'll show you the secrets, the sky and the birds
Actions speak louder than words
Stand by me my apprentice
Be brave, clench fists.
Walt Whitman it ain't, but it does it for me.
Kurt Huhn
>
> Yours?
>
Motley Crue
Cinderella
Whitesnake
Def Leppard
Poison
Hmmm, notice a pattern there?
--
Kurt Huhn
pipec...@pipecrafter.com
http://www.pipecrafter.com
Rad Davis
"DrBlues" <rudabag...@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:blpat1l5lbvt4v0rh...@4ax.com...
> On 23 Jan 2006 14:14:59 EST, Tim Daneliuk <tun...@tundraware.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Do you really want to hurt me?
>
> Ya know the whole thing got out of control, I typed my reply to RAD
> and then got ready to take my daughter to the Dr. I was standing at
> the kitchen sink and I remembered that song {{{{shudder}}}} and I
> guess the answer would have been yes. Well not maybe like bad or
> anything but right when he sings the last word a good pie in the face
> would suffice. What was deal with the clown outfit clothes? I so feel
> for anyone that was a teenager in the 80's. What do they have to
> forward to, a reunion of Poison? {{{{shudder}}}}}
> T
> Is D2O more filling?
> www.dr-blues.com
Terry,
I'm sorry I made you remember that song! I did not mean to cause you
stress.
Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Chamleon, they come and
go.......................
Rad
Austin Kaiser
Tim Daneliuk
<SNIP>
would suffice. What was deal with the clown outfit clothes? I so feel
> for anyone that was a teenager in the 80's. What do they have to
> forward to, a reunion of Poison? {{{{shudder}}}}}
I got news for you, the guitar player in Poison, C.C. Deville, was one
smokin' player. Ignore the makeup and go listen to the playing. You'll
be surprised just how good it was (ditto Whitesnake, Badlands, Extreme ...)
whisk...@sbcglobal.net
warp though. It was said in the Senior Prophecy in my High School
yearbook that one of my classmates would become a famous psychologist
by curing me of the time warp I was stuck in. I graduated in 1988 for
those that need to know, and I listened to all the old stuff, 50's -
70's, I cared very little for the music that was popular at the time.
And as far as the current music like Hip-Hop, you can take it and shove
it, Janis Joplin, The Beatles, etc, it will never be.
Scott Curtis
wrote:
>David Coverdale is a poet, Kurt!
He did his best work with Deep Purple.
SC
buck12ga
>
> I'm sorry I made you remember that song! I did not mean to cause you
> stress.
>
> Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Chamleon, they come and
> go.......................
>
> Rad
>
>
>
Puff puff,
Buck
Patriot
Steven Fowler
overrated? The fact that you could include Dylan in a list with those
mentioned here is silly.
Steven
Austin Kaiser
sucks.
AK
rkzenrage
art brought pleasure to someone and eased their voyage through this
"veil of tears" their work is valid...
That cannot be overrated.
I do not do this kind of thing because I don't think art can be judged
this way... technical skill, sure, but those who enjoy and love that
work do so for individual and personal reasons that are ALWAYS valid,
because they are their own.
I was making an amazingly bad TV show once that I really was not happy
about. Then a "fan" came up to me and thanked me an told me how happy
the show made them, I felt like a jerk... this guy was making my
paycheck and I had no right to look down on him.
Sometimes "high art" is over rated also.
I still hear that show made people happy for a little while in their
day, sometimes because it was bad... so I don't look at it the way I
used to.
Namaste'
Robert
Rob "Nixster"
<estel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>5) The Beatles
>6) RAP does not qualify as music, it's more like bad poetry set to a
>predictable "beat" performed by punks who need diapers
Had a supervisor in Hawaii, no its not a military rank, but a
position, used to call Rap, "Sneaker in the Dryer Music" must say I
still agree with him there.
>kilted1
>
>
>
Rob aka Nixster
Colorado Springs, CO
Smoking in the Rockies...
mark tinsky
Fear of a Black Hat made in 1989. Pretty funny, has anyone else seen
it?
MT
Michael Hudson
> Austin Kaiser wrote:
CUT!
> I was making an amazingly bad TV show once that I really was not happy
> about. Then a "fan" came up to me and thanked me an told me how happy
> the show made them, I felt like a jerk... this guy was making my
> paycheck and I had no right to look down on him.
> Sometimes "high art" is over rated also.
> I still hear that show made people happy for a little while in their
> day, sometimes because it was bad...
ACTION!
What show was that, Robert? And when you say "made," what means?
Not meaning to pry, mind you, just curious is all.
Cecil B.
rkzenrage
Namaste'
Robert
Ken Dixon
Too late, you opened that door ;-)
Ken in Miami
Patriot
You have your opinion. I have mine. What is silly is moaning about
someone else's personal preferences.
Illogical.
Dylan is a freak and he VERY overrated.
Steven Fowler
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, and Johnny Cash, but they influenced the
direction of music. They charted new ground, and made new sets of
rules that allowed artists to be artists, breaking the influence of
record companies or their sponsors. Before Dylan most of the popular
music was visceral (I like visceral, BTW), but Dylan brought a cerebral
aspect to popular music, particularly post 1966. He painted pictures
with words (e.g. Visions of Johanna and Desolation Row), and in the
same period made some of the best rock songs ever ( i.e. Like a Rollin'
Stone). In two years he made 3 of the best records in modern pop
history, Where it all Belongs, Highway 61, and Blonde on Blonde.
Nothing has been the same since.
Sorry dude, it ain't silly moaning, it's history.
Steven
G. L. Pease
danced wildly on the keyboard to produce
(in article <43lo91F...@individual.net>):
Knock it off, Rad, or I'll really want to make you cry...
Rat bastid...
The weird thing is, you MUST have actually gone through the lyrics in
your head in order to produce the right number of karmas. Perhaps this is
a good case of poetic justice, as now you're destined to hum the damn
song to yourself until the end of days.
Ah, Good Thing George. We hardly knew ye.
-g
--
In Celebration of Briar - A Gallery of Pipe Photographs
http://www.glpease.com/Photos/PipeGallery
Updated 16 January, 2006
Tim Daneliuk
The problem with these discussions that they look at too short a
timespan and too narrow a cultural span. Whether or not someone is a
significant artist (as opposed to a political or cultural icon) is
largely measured by the duration of their influence. Mozart and Bach
have lived for centuries and likely will continue to. Moreover, they
have appeal well outside the Western culture in which they were born.
But let's do a thought experiment. How many of the performers in
question will continue to have influence in even a hundred years? Miles
- probably, he, Dizzy, Duke, and Coltrane fundamentally changed music.
Zappa - doubtful, he was a cultural cult icon and little more. Dylan -
doubtful, he was the voice of a generation and when that generation (and
its issues) passes, so will his music for the most part. Cash - unclear,
because his music is enjoying an resurgance among the very young (unlike
Dylan and Zappa), its just not clear that this is sustainable for a
hundred years.
The point is this. There are "artists" who are nothing more than
entertainers (most of rock and roll, good portions of country, much of
what currently passes for jazz, etc.). There are "artists" who are no
such thing - Madonna built a career out of being a high-class stripper
and nothing more. Many rappers are little more than a verbal form of the
graffitti that adorns the inner cities. Some "artists" are political and
cultural commentators. Dylan and his contemporaries fit into this
category. Some portions of the early rap/hiphop movement qualify.
But, ... some "artists" actually make "art" - artifacts that stand the
test of time, measurement of quality, and broad, cross-cultural appeal.
None of this speaks to what you *like*, of course. I find Bach profound
and moving, but listening to Big & Rich makes me chuckle, and I happen
to like Zeppelin a lot too. I just writhe under the notion that everyone
who produces anything can call it "art" and thus it is so ... it' ain't.
Ken Dixon
I agree with you Steven. Dylan may be a unintelligible mush mouth today
but his influence on the early days of rock and folk music are still
being felt today. He broke down barriers that no one else had the balls
to go near.
Having said that, to each his own. A lot of people look at the Sex
Pistols as ground breakers, I just thought the were a really bad rock
band full of obnoxious junkies. What do I know.
Ken in Miami
Patriot
Mozart in the same sentence as Cash, Davis, and Zappa is appalling.
I bid my permanent adieu to you provincials. I shall not miss you. I
am certain the feeling is mutual.
Ta ta now.
Steven Fowler
commentator, ignores everything post 1966. I prefer his work when he
set his acoustic guitar down and joined up with Robbie, Rick et.al.,
turned their amps up to ten, and screamed about the human condition:
love, loneliness, marriage, separation from our loved ones, etc. His
political stuff is brief, discounted by him, and often used by his
critics to define him. It ignores 40 years of his art, and yes I mean
art. Art like Mark Twain, Tennessee Williams, Georgia O'keefe, and
many others. It says something that needs to be said, and makes me
feel (pain, joy, loneliness). He made an album in the 90's that
literally guided my way through one of the most difficult time of my
life.
How will he be viewed in 300 years? Not like Shakespeare or Mozart
surely. How will Tennessee Williams be viewed in 300 years? Not like
Shakespeare or Mozart, either, but Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is still art,
IMHO, and so is Visions of Johanna.
Steven
Steven Fowler
riding, tattoed, white trash would have been more accurate. You would
have been more appalled if you knew I was smoking a GBD, and not a
pre-trans Barling. I am shocked to see elitism from someone who's
reading and posting to a thread about pop culture. What would your
friends say?
Steven
Ken Dixon
Don't let the screen door hit ya in the ass.
Michael Hudson
It was ALF, wasn't it. Oh, Robert, I'm so sorry...
M
Rad Davis
"G. L. Pease" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BFFBBF3C...@news.giganews.com...
>> Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Karma, Chamleon, they come and
>> go.......................
>
> Knock it off, Rad, or I'll really want to make you cry...
>
> Rat bastid...
>
> The weird thing is, you MUST have actually gone through the lyrics in
> your head in order to produce the right number of karmas. Perhaps this is
> a good case of poetic justice, as now you're destined to hum the damn
> song to yourself until the end of days.
>
> Ah, Good Thing George. We hardly knew ye.
>
> -g
You got me, Greg!
I had to count karma's! :o)
"One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster..............."
Not Culture Club, just another one of those wierd songs that runs through my
head from time to time.
Remember The Baha Men?
"Who let the dogs out? Who.., who,..who, who..........."
I count "who's" too! :o)
Rad
Jari T
> "One night in Bangkok and the world's your oyster..............."
That's Murray "I'm only watching the Game. Controlling it." Head!
--
Jari T in Helsinki
Scott Curtis
wrote:
>Like what, Scott--"Stormbringer"? I think his DP stuff pretty much
>sucks.
>
>AK
Austin,
I really enjoy the Coverdale era of Deep Purple in a "Spinal Tap" sort
of way. Coverdale's vocals were so over the top and the lyrics were so
hokey they were funny. Like:
You Fool No One
You fool no one, waiting to see if I'm gone.
So hard to see you are taking your chances with me.
If I find you with some other man
you know what I'm gonna do.
Better run if you see me comin', ah.
Soon you will fall, making mistakes like before.
When you tell me lies I can see by the look in your eyes.
If you think you're gonna take me for granted,
chasin' round with all you see,
gonna make you live to regret it, ah.
You fool no one, waiting to see if I'm gone.
So clear to see you've had all your chances with me.
You thought that you could take me for granted
but I couldn't take it no more.
Better run when you see me comin, ah.
The "Made in Europe" album has one great part where Coverdale is
introducing the song "Stormbringer" and he screams the title like
someone shoved a 2x4 up his ass right then.
SC
Jonathan Wolgamuth
It's no "Sex Farm".
--
JW
rkzenrage
for my theatre habit and fine arts schoolin' were a few Superboy
episodes.
Namaste'
Robert
rkzenrage
Snobs are a sad lot.
This reminds a lot of those who "will never smoke a cob!" even though
they have never tried one...
Namaste'
Robert
kilted1
"rkzenrage" <rkze...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1138140350....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
On that note, many a fond memory of Edgeworth Sliced in a cob
.................................
kilted1
Steven Fowler
a cob.
Steven
Kurt Huhn
> David Coverdale is a poet, Kurt!
>
I was always troubled by the "same but different" thing that all those
80s bands had going on. Same thing with the grunge rock that replaced
them in the early 90s.
--
Kurt Huhn
pipec...@pipecrafter.com
http://www.pipecrafter.com
Briarroot
>
> I know exactly where some people in this group stand. Mentioning
> Mozart in the same sentence as Cash, Davis, and Zappa is appalling.
Why? You just did it.
> I bid my permanent adieu to you provincials. I shall not miss you. I
> am certain the feeling is mutual.
>
> Ta ta now.
>
<a very loud belch is heard>
Regards,
Tim Parker ... Dorchester in a Savinelli Hercules pot
rkzenrage
snobery... should have been the 8th.
Funny... because I an guilty I can see it a mile off...
fuckers...assholes.. you know of whom I write.
It comes;
Namaste'
Robert
G. L. Pease
> Having said that, to each his own. A lot of people look at the Sex
> Pistols as ground breakers, I just thought the were a really bad rock
> band full of obnoxious junkies. What do I know.
Ah, but while "Never Mind the Bollocks" is relatively tame in comparison
to later punk rock examples, there's little doubt that the Pistols barged
through a door that had previously been barely knocked upon. They weren't
a great band in critical terms, but they didn't set out to be. The set
out to prove that anyone with a voice and even the slightest ability to
play an instrument, and face it, they had just barely that, could make a
band, and have their message be heard. In their day, they were more than
just a band - they were the voice of dissent in a culture that was
becoming increasingly repressive.
I suspect they, were responsible for more kids picking up instruments,
banging on them, and enjoying being in a "band" than any band before
them. Too, they represented a voice in England that hadn't been given a
venue before.
I actually quite like them. Maybe I give them too much credit, but I've
always been an anarchist. ;)
-glp
G. L. Pease
> I know exactly where some people in this group stand. Mentioning
> Mozart in the same sentence as Cash, Davis, and Zappa is appalling.
Now, if it had been Bach, instead of Mozart, would you have found it
equally appalling? Talk about parochial!
Mozart, today, is like the top-40 of the 18th century. There are
certainly greater composers, but few have penetrated the contemporary
audience as deeply. He's the baroque equivalent of the Beatles. I bet
THAT frosts your cookies.
The whole NOTION of "most overrated" &c is provincial. So what? It's fun.
It's amusing. It's entertaining. Get over it.
> I bid my permanent adieu to you provincials. I shall not miss you. I
> am certain the feeling is mutual.
Well, at least you got something right.
Ken Dixon
I will concede that the Sex Pistols are responsible for making more
completely untalented kids pick up an instrument and bang away in garage
bands than any other group since the Beatles.
Not that there's anything wrong with that ;-)
Ken in Miami
Robert Crim
wrote:
>Now, if it had been Bach, instead of Mozart, would you have found it
>equally appalling? Talk about parochial!
>
>Mozart, today, is like the top-40 of the 18th century. There are
>certainly greater composers, but few have penetrated the contemporary
>audience as deeply. He's the baroque equivalent of the Beatles. I bet
>THAT frosts your cookies.
There is a fundamental flaw in this kind of comparison. Back when
Mozart and Bach were doing their music there were only two ways to
experience music......you made it your self or you went to see other
people making themselves. There were no CDs or tapes or radio.
When you say Mozart was in the top 40 of the 18th century, what you
really are saying is that Mozart was popular among those that could
take the time to go to see him or his music performed. How many of
the regular working stiffs of that time were invited to the palace?
Bach's music was experienced by the nobility and the people that went
to the church where his music was performed. I kind of think that
most of the working stiffs were either there or sleeping in on Sunday.
To compare the likes of Handel, Mozart, and Bach with the likes of
Jimmy Hendricks, the Beatles or Clapton is indeed folly. Different
audiences. Today the same class of audience that listened to Mozart
then are still listening. The working stiffs of today can revel in
the "pop" stuff that is heard on the radio and sold in the stores.
However, when 2106 rolls around, I can pretty well guarantee that the
first three will still be heard while the second three will be
forgotten.........unless civilization really collapses.
Robert
F. Prefect
wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:52:43 -0800, Patriot, in tiny little tap shoes,
>danced wildly on the keyboard to produce
>(in article <1138132363....@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
>> I know exactly where some people in this group stand. Mentioning
>> Mozart in the same sentence as Cash, Davis, and Zappa is appalling.
>
>Now, if it had been Bach, instead of Mozart, would you have found it
>equally appalling? Talk about parochial!
>
>Mozart, today, is like the top-40 of the 18th century. There are
>certainly greater composers, but few have penetrated the contemporary
>audience as deeply. He's the baroque equivalent of the Beatles. I bet
>THAT frosts your cookies.
>
>The whole NOTION of "most overrated" &c is provincial. So what? It's fun.
>It's amusing. It's entertaining. Get over it.
>
>> I bid my permanent adieu to you provincials. I shall not miss you. I
>> am certain the feeling is mutual.
>
>Well, at least you got something right.
>
>-glp
Some people do have the annoying habit of living in the now surrounded
by their shoddily constructed cocoon, and never venturing much further
beyond. If it was in the Reader's Digest it MUST be right, er right?
Shame really. Life's short enough as it is.
The baroque equivalent of the Beatles. I believe there could be
more than just a little merit there.
F. Prefect
G. L. Pease
> To compare the likes of Handel, Mozart, and Bach with the likes of
> Jimmy Hendricks, the Beatles or Clapton is indeed folly.
Yes, Robert. It was.
Leonardo Herrera
[...]
> To compare the likes of Handel, Mozart, and Bach with the likes of
> Jimmy Hendricks, the Beatles or Clapton is indeed folly. Different
> audiences. Today the same class of audience that listened to Mozart
> then are still listening. The working stiffs of today can revel in
> the "pop" stuff that is heard on the radio and sold in the stores.
Hm, what about Mozart's comic operas?
--
Leonardo Herrera
Robert Crim
<leonardo...@gmail.com> wrote:
What about them? Do you think the average guy on the streets of
Salzburg went to the opera any more than they do today?
R..............obert
Corneel Vermeulen
Yep. Sure of it too.
Corneel.
Tim Daneliuk
Yes. Opera and symphony music were not the "highbrow" entertainments in
their own time as they are today. As you noted, there was a conspicious
absence of iPods in the 16th Century. Music (and theater) was
experienced live and by a considerable portion of the population. It is
also a mistake to believe that the church music of, say, Bach, was heard
only by the elite. The percentage of the population attending church was
probably quite a bit higher then than now. Similarly, the great painters
of history painted everything - the rich, the poor, the merchants, the
workers, and the peasants. Art was thus accessible at some level to
almost everyone.
But back to my original point that set off this subthread. It is
essentially impossible to know what, if anything, of contemporary
culture will survive as "art". The mere fact that someone says it's
"art" doesn't make it so (though it may well be an *attempt* at "art").
Part of the cultural dumbing down of the West happened when all of art
(along with most everthing else) became relativized to the existential
experience of the art consumer. Art became all about how you feel about
it, not the innate qualities of the artifact in question. This happened
because what makes something "art" is really hard to define. When the
whole philosophical base of Western thought moved to existential
relativism in the last hundred years or so, it was easy to just give up
and say, "It's 'art' if someone *feels* it is."
But instinctively, we all know that something isn't "art" just because
someone says so. <Veering back towards On-Topic slightly> Say I hand you
a machine made Grabow from the drugstore and then also hand you a
Cornelius Maenz creation. You'd instinctively be able to tell that the
latter is an artistic expression and the former is purely utilitarian.
Similarly if you look at a chair from Ikea and one of the wonderous
handmade chairs of Sam Maloof you'd spot the difference in a second even
if you've no idea who he is. I'm not saying one is necessarily *better*
than the other or even that you'd like it more - a Grabow is far more
desirable than a Maenz if you cannot afford the latter. What I'm saying
is this:
1) Not everything claimed to be "art" actually is.
2) Just because "art" is hard to define does not mean there is not
some objective basis for determining what it is, and then how
*good* it is. ***
3) There is a difference between objects of "art", "craft", and
"utility", though they sometimes overlap. A Maloof chair is
a (quite beautiful) object of art. But it also has utility value.
*** So what makes something "art". 'Pretty tough question, but I think
there are some things all art must have (no matter whether it is good or
bad art) to qualify as such. An artifact need not be beautiful to be
"Art". But there are some things that are non-negotiable - if something
is to be considered "Art", it must have these things. Note that these
are a _minimum_ set of things. Actual art has far more attributes. Here
are a few of those objective properties that leap to mind off the top of
my head (there are probably more):
1) Art has a _human author_ - nature is beautiful, but it is not art.
2) It must have been an _intentional act_ by that human - accidents
are not, in and of themselves Art. But an artist who is trying to
make art will sometimes do so "accidentally" - a subtle but important
distinction. For example, if I trip in the studio and pour paint
all over a canvas unintentionally, it is not art. But if I am painting
a portrait, and unintentionally use the wrong brush or color, it is still
art. The difference? In the first case, I was not trying to make Art, I
was trying to walk through the studio. In the second case I _was_ trying
to make Art. That's why my drop cloth from painting my house is not Art,
but Jackson Pollock's splatterings are.
2a) As a consequence of 2), a given piece of Art always has an
_architecture_ or plan imposed upon it by the artist. This
is true without regard to the methods or media selected by the
artist. If if my method as a painter uses randomness somehow,
that very choice of randomness is itself a kind of artistic
architecture.
3) In a closely related point, Art requires _skill_ or _technique_ of
some sort. It is not something anyone can just do because they
have heartbeat. But ... I happen to be an optimist: I believe all
normally functioning humans have the innate ability to acquire
such skill if they desire - in principle, anyone can become an
"Artist", but not everyone is, in actual fact.
5) Art has _compositional elements_ which the artist conciously chooses.
Some or all of these either exist explictly, are implied, or exist
consciously in the negative: Form, space, pattern, repetition, and singularity
are all examples in visual forms. Negatives exist for each.
There are analogous forms in music including melody, harmony,counterpoint, rhythm,
and so on along with negatives such as dissonance. Implication also exists
in music. For example, in Bebop, the melody is frequently implied by
some combination of harmonic, melodic, and even rhythmic improvisation.
6) Art has _binding elements_ which connect the compositional elements
to create the final work: integration, flow, context, placement,
perspective, and timing are examples. Some or all of these are
present in varying degrees in all true Art. These are the way the
architecture of a given work of Art is actually realized.
7) All Art, in principle, is _timeless_. That is, it has the potential
of living forever in human existence. Most of it, of course, does not,
but the very best (and sometimes worst) examples do become timeless.
This is why, for example, the vast majority of hip-hop and rap cannot
possibly be considered art - it is largely pop culture commentary which
becomes irrelevant as soon as the popular fashion shifts. It may have
some value to sociologists or even historians as a record of a period but
it is not even in principle, timeless, let alone actually so.
8) Art always _interprets_ reality or human experience somehow, it is not
just a recording of the world - that's journalism (or what journalism
is supposed to be) or a textbook. For example, as a serious photographer
I claim that we _make_ fine art photographs,
we do not _take_ them. This is the principal reason I dismiss Madonna's
output as "Art". It is certainly a skill or craft to effectively
demonstrate sexuality or incite sexual arousal, but she is not interpreting
anything about human sexual experience in doing this. She is merely displaying
it in essentially the same way a stripper does, albeit and arguably at
a much higher level of skill.
Notice that all of these except 7) are about the *artist* and the *artifact*,
_not_ the viewer or listener. That is, what defines something as "art"
has essentially nothing to do with who consumes it, it's about the producer,
the process, and the result. Timelessness is a sort of "check and balance"
that it really is art and timelessness is about how other people value the
work, but its the last step in a much larger chain.
I care about this because when *everything* is seen as "art" just
because someone says so, we lose the ability to distinguish the
brilliant from the mediocre. It's the ultimate form of "leveling the
playing field" by making the game so easy that anyone can play without
regard to ability or results. And *that* is how every slimy drug addict
with a foul mouth gets elevated to "artist" status the first time they
figure out how to rhyme two phrases. That's how an entire music video
industry dedicated to producing soft porn gets branded as "art". That's
how doing little more than getting naked on a theater stage gets
reviewed as "brilliant". But worst of all, that's how *real* art of
great quality gets ignored. Once everything is "art", what's the difference
between Bach and Kenny G? Ingmar Bergman and Quentin Terantino? Once
everything is "art", you can't tell the difference any more.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk tun...@tundraware.com
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
Leonardo Herrera
> On 26 Jan 2006 19:39:00 GMT, "Leonardo Herrera"
> <leonardo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
[...]
> >
> > Hm, what about Mozart's comic operas?
>
> What about them? Do you think the average guy on the streets of
> Salzburg went to the opera any more than they do today?
>
> R..............obert
Of course I do. Not only that; back then, comic operas were considered
entertainment for the unwashed masses :-)
Cheers,
--
Leonardo Herrera