facing the music...
DSTOL
general issues which are plagueing the music industry at large (ie free
downloading of prerecorded music).
To me, here is the real issue. The sad fact is, the argument could be made
that the popularity of some of the worst music to be mass marketed in the
history of music is a function of two elements. The first is the poor taste of
the average young music listener who is bombarded with overhyped "artists"
(surprise). The second is greed on the part of the music industry at large
(surprise again).
Who is to blame for this situation? Not the music industry and not the
artists. Surprise, it's us the consumers. The more we validate the crap that
is disguising itself as actual art, the deeper we go into the asthetic musical
sinkhole in this country that used to be vital and making a positive impact on
the rest of the world.
Around four decades ago, with the exception of the emergence of rock and roll,
jazz and classical music was the dominant style in this country. Music was an
integral part of people's lives and was not used as "background" except in
movies, television and radio ads and muzak. Today, music has become so
accessible that many people have tuned it out altogether.
If you read this newsgroup, there's a good chance that you know good music when
you hear it. As a favor to potential future music appreciaters, try to steer a
young listener in the right direction.
Ira Chineson
> If you read this newsgroup, there's a good chance that you know good music when
> you hear it. As a favor to potential future music appreciaters, try to steer a
> young listener in the right direction.
Coincidentally tonight on TVLand I saw a 1962 episode of "Leave it to Beaver
"where Beaver joins a record club in order to buy some rock and roll 45s. Ward
and June view his antics with gentle and resigned amusement. I guess at the very
least they should have turned the Beaver on to some Bird.
Someone
"DSTOL" <ds...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020713012825...@mb-cp.aol.com...
> The first is the poor taste of
> the average young music listener who is bombarded with overhyped "artists"
Your parents said the same thing about your generation.
> Music was an
> integral part of people's lives and was not used as "background" except in
> movies, television and radio ads and muzak.
4 decades ago about the only way for the avg person to listen to recorded
music was on vinyl or over the radio. The technology was not yet available
to put music into nearly every environment.
Joshua Bayer
> Around four decades ago, with the exception of the emergence of rock and roll,
> jazz and classical music was the dominant style in this country. Music was an
> integral part of people's lives and was not used as "background" except in
> movies, television and radio ads and muzak. Today, music has become so
> accessible that many people have tuned it out altogether.
Let's fault rock'n'roll and the blues and Elvis. The fact is that with
the advent of 'pop' music in the fifties (which one could argue was the
result of the merging of simple forms - i.e. the blues - with shorter
simpler structures - i.e. pop music) 'composed' music - that is music
with harmonic process - began to fade as muci became easier to listen
to. Jazz and classical music take work to listen to. When that was all
that was available, even in the more popular genres, that is all people
listened to. There was a more sophisticated ear in this country. With
the emergence of 'pop' culture, music becam less of a chalenege to
listen to and identify with, as well as remember and hum, and, to the
average player, easier to play. THis can also be reflected in the
simpler jazz forms that the dance bands would also use (not exclusively
of course).
The industry has been making us dumber - or allowing us to be dumber.
Chicken or the egg.
I still really dig the Beatles. Of couorse, George Martin was a
classical musician.
dig the site - www.joshuabayer.com
Adam Bravo
"Someone" <shri...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:agokfb$4bc$1...@nwall1.odn.ne.jp...
>
> "DSTOL" <ds...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20020713012825...@mb-cp.aol.com...
>
> > The first is the poor taste of
> > the average young music listener who is bombarded with overhyped
"artists"
>
> Your parents said the same thing about your generation.
As did their parents about their generation, those people's parents about
their generation, etc.
Robert McKay
>From: ds...@aol.com (DSTOL)
>Date: 7/12/02 11:28 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>If you read this newsgroup, there's a good chance that you know good music
>when
>you hear it. As a favor to potential future music appreciaters, try to steer
>a
>young listener in the right direction.
My notions of "the right direction" have expanded in the past couple of years.
Do I recommend Rush, KISS, Stone Temple Pilots, and Iron Butterfly; or Miles
Davis, Charlie Parker, Duke Ellington, and the Preservation Hall Jazz Band; or
George Strait, Willie Nelson, Ricky Skaggs, and Conway Twitty? :)
Robert McKay
goffs...@aol.com
NASCAR
Someone
"Joshua Bayer" <jba...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D30696A...@erols.com...
>
> Let's fault rock'n'roll and the blues and Elvis. The fact is that with
> the advent of 'pop' music in the fifties (which one could argue was the
> result of the merging of simple forms - i.e. the blues - with shorter
> simpler structures - i.e. pop music) 'composed' music - that is music
> with harmonic process - began to fade as muci became easier to listen
> to. Jazz and classical music take work to listen to. When that was all
> that was available, even in the more popular genres, that is all people
> listened to. There was a more sophisticated ear in this country.
You're deluding yourself. Listen to the dance bands of the 20s - 40s, or a
crooner from nearly any recorded period before the advent of rock and roll -
this is not complex, demanding music.
Sayan Bhattacharyya
>
>To me, here is the real issue. The sad fact is, the argument could be made
>that the popularity of some of the worst music to be mass marketed in the
>history of music is a function of two elements. The first is the poor taste of
>the average young music listener who is bombarded with overhyped "artists"
>(surprise). The second is greed on the part of the music industry at large
>(surprise again).
>
>Who is to blame for this situation? Not the music industry and not the
>artists. Surprise, it's us the consumers. The more we validate the crap that
>is disguising itself as actual art, the deeper we go into the asthetic musical
>sinkhole in this country that used to be vital and making a positive impact on
>the rest of the world.
You are trying to go against the logic of capitalism itself.
History shows that you will never succeed.
It is capitalism which has made the USA a great country. As someone
once said, "the business of America is business".
Even though jazz may become a casualty of capitalism (what you
incorrectly called "greed"), it will be a price worth paying.
Frisbie Einstein
> Recently, several threads have appeared which attempt to demystify the current
> general issues which are plagueing the music industry at large (ie free
> downloading of prerecorded music).
>
> To me, here is the real issue. The sad fact is, the argument could be made
> that the popularity of some of the worst music to be mass marketed in the
> history of music is a function of two elements.
When I was a kid it was a lot worse. Recall that only the best music
survives. Oldies stations play only the best of the best. There was a
good deal of very bad music that was very popular that has completely
disappeared. The average level is higher now.
Also now that MTV rules the big stars are mainly dancers/pinups, not
musicians. So it is no surprise their music isn't much. But dance is
1000 times better than it was in the 60's, when it was Aboslute
Nowheresville.
> Who is to blame for this situation? Not the music industry and not the
> artists. Surprise, it's us the consumers. The more we validate the crap that
> is disguising itself as actual art,
Waddya mean, we?
> the deeper we go into the asthetic musical
> sinkhole in this country that used to be vital and making a positive impact on
> the rest of the world.
>
Alanis Morrisette is a genius and is well known. You a moldy fig or
sumpin'?
The labels that recorded now-classic jazz were very small time. It is
true that major labels used to support music for its greatness, no
more. Leveraged buyouts took care of that. Visualize $300,000 a day
in debt service. I never buy anything they sell, but have found GREAT
music direct from the artist. It wasn't that hard, so either I'm very
lucky or there is a lot of it out there.
> Around four decades ago, with the exception of the emergence of rock and roll,
> jazz and classical music was the dominant style in this country.
This is completely false. Pop music was king. Think Striesand and
Burt Bacharach (and they were the best).
> Music was an
> integral part of people's lives and was not used as "background" except in
> movies, television and radio ads and muzak. Today, music has become so
> accessible that many people have tuned it out altogether.
>
Nah, most people had tin ears (or worse) back then too.
> If you read this newsgroup, there's a good chance that you know good music when
> you hear it. As a favor to potential future music appreciaters, try to steer a
> young listener in the right direction.
Sure. Why not?
Joshua Bayer
I'm deluding myself? What the hell kind of reply is that? You show
yourself to have the need only to demean others. You do not get it at
all.
The pop forms of the dance bands of the 20's-40's contained orhestrated
harmonic complexities that eventually were washed out of music.
Don't just tell people that they 'art deluding themselves' and come back
with some weak-ass statement with no reference execpt 'listen to
this!!". What a waste of time.
Someone
>
> > > Let's fault rock'n'roll and the blues and Elvis. The fact is that
with
> > > the advent of 'pop' music in the fifties (which one could argue was
the
> > > result of the merging of simple forms - i.e. the blues - with shorter
> > > simpler structures - i.e. pop music) 'composed' music - that is music
> > > with harmonic process - began to fade as muci became easier to listen
> > > to. Jazz and classical music take work to listen to. When that was
all
> > > that was available, even in the more popular genres, that is all
people
> > > listened to. There was a more sophisticated ear in this country.
> >
> > You're deluding yourself. Listen to the dance bands of the 20s - 40s,
or a
> > crooner from nearly any recorded period before the advent of rock and
roll -
> > this is not complex, demanding music.
>
> I'm deluding myself? What the hell kind of reply is that? You show
> yourself to have the need only to demean others. You do not get it at
> all.
Bad day at work, eh?
If you're going to make mean-spirited allegations perhaps it would be best
to follow your own advice and fess up with examples.
> The pop forms of the dance bands of the 20's-40's contained orhestrated
> harmonic complexities that eventually were washed out of music.
No doubt we could find a few examples of songs that were complex. Do you
really mean to claim that the majority of this music was more complex than
modern pop/dance music? Perhaps YOU can provide some evidence for THIS
assertion.
> Don't just tell people that they 'art deluding themselves' and come back
> with some weak-ass statement with no reference execpt 'listen to
> this!!". What a waste of time.
Didn't stop you from replying to it, though, did it?
Joshua Bayer
again.
Someone
provide any, stop whining.
"Joshua Bayer" <jba...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D3CE6A0...@erols.com...
Joshua Bayer
Adam Bravo
"Joshua Bayer" <jba...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3D3D863F...@erols.com...
Joshua Bayer
flamer whose ONLY mission is to challenge everyone's opinions with
asshole/mean comments merely for the sake of doing so? Do you read this
guy's posts? They are totally out of line constantly!!! All he does is
insult people. I realize he probably does it because he feels lousy
about himself, and he is using the anonymous aspects of the web to
belittle people. He doesn't even put his real name down. He takes no
risks and does not put his opinions out there as a person but as
'someone'. Please. He disrespects everyone on the NG thru his
actions. I don't consider you in this way Adam. You have always dished
it out, as well as taken it while (for the most part) respecting
others. I am surprised you have taken this stance defending a
hypocrite. Notice I have taken the time to elaborate on my opinion in
this case.
Someone
> Um, did I ever say you were? and, why should I respond at all to a
> flamer whose ONLY mission is to challenge everyone's opinions with
> asshole/mean comments merely for the sake of doing so? Do you read this
> guy's posts? They are totally out of line constantly!!!
If by that you mean I'm the only one on this list who openly takes offense
at the smooth jazz/Kenny G bash fests, then, yes, I'm way out of line.
> All he does is insult people.
Examples?
> I realize he probably does it because he feels lousy
> about himself, and he is using the anonymous aspects of the web to
> belittle people. He doesn't even put his real name down.
How can any of us verify that you are Joshua Bayer?
My name is Jeff Martin, I live in Japan, and I'm feeling pretty good about
myself right now. School is finished, no more classes, and I'm ready to
leave for a three-week vacation in Thailand, where I'll be participating as
a volunteer in a workshop for Thai English teachers.
> He takes no
> risks and does not put his opinions out there as a person but as
> 'someone'. Please. He disrespects everyone on the NG thru his
> actions. I don't consider you in this way Adam. You have always dished
> it out, as well as taken it while (for the most part) respecting
> others. I am surprised you have taken this stance defending a
> hypocrite. Notice I have taken the time to elaborate on my opinion in
> this case.
You ask for examples - but can't provide any of your own. Get real.
If you don't hear from me in the few weeks it's becasue I _do_ have a life
outside this ng.
Joshua Bayer
swear to god I will let it go. Oy, this NG.
Email me directly for examples.
Dennis J. Kosterman
wrote:
>> > Let's fault rock'n'roll and the blues and Elvis. The fact is that with
>> > the advent of 'pop' music in the fifties (which one could argue was the
>> > result of the merging of simple forms - i.e. the blues - with shorter
>> > simpler structures - i.e. pop music) 'composed' music - that is music
>> > with harmonic process - began to fade as muci became easier to listen
>> > to. Jazz and classical music take work to listen to. When that was all
>> > that was available, even in the more popular genres, that is all people
>> > listened to. There was a more sophisticated ear in this country.
>> You're deluding yourself. Listen to the dance bands of the 20s - 40s, or a
>> crooner from nearly any recorded period before the advent of rock and roll -
>> this is not complex, demanding music.
...(the above paragraph is by "Someone")...
>I'm deluding myself? What the hell kind of reply is that? You show
>yourself to have the need only to demean others. You do not get it at
>all.
>The pop forms of the dance bands of the 20's-40's contained orchestrated
>harmonic complexities that eventually were washed out of music.
I don't often agree with "Someone", but I think his assessment of this
issue is right on. The majority of popular music has been simplistic
crap for as long as there's been recorded evidence. You have to keep
in mind, as someone else said, that the pop music that survives from
the 20s-40s period is the very best of it. There was an awful lot of
crap that nobody remembers. I have boxed sets of Bing Crosby, Frank
Sinatra, Nat King Cole, Billie Holiday, and Ella Fitzgerald from this
period. All of them were great singers, but all of those boxed sets
include numerous inconsequential, forgettable songs -- and these were
the *best* vocalists of the time.
I've listened to a lot of pop music covering most of the 20th century,
and I can't honestly say that the pop music of today is any worse than
in any other period. Nor do I see any evidence of harmonic complexity
being washed out. The music of the more sophisticated songwriters of
today -- people like Burt Bacharach, Paul Simon, Stevie Wonder, Joni
Mitchell, etc. -- has plenty of harmonic complexity. Sure, there's a
lot of simple three-chord stuff, too, but a lot of the dance band
music of the 20s-40s wasn't much more complex than that, once you get
past the most famous songs of the very best bands.
Dennis J. Kosterman
den...@tds.net