Genius Loves Company
Marc Dashevsky
recordings. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it, but
not surprisingly, it is an impeccably produced CD with full,
rich arrangements.
Ray's voice is clearly the weakest I've ever heard it, but it
still is no embarrassment. His keyboard playing is tasteful
and adds so much to the songs.
The cuts I think are excellent are:
- Here We Go Again w/Norah Jones
- You Don't Know Me w/Diana Krall
- Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word w/Elton John
- Do I Ever Cross Your Mind w/Bonnie Raitt
- Heaven Help Us All w/Gladys Knight
- Crazy Love w/Van Morrison
The Raitt and Jones songs are particularly sublime.
I also find the following songs enjoyable:
- Sinner's Prayer w/B.B. King
- Somewhere Over The Rainbow w/Johnny Mathis
The following do nothing at all for me:
- Sweet Potato Pie w/James Taylor
- Hey Girl w/Michael McDonald
The next song starts so promisingly with its great arrangement,
but the banter with Cole is just too artificial for me.
- Fever w/Natalie Cole
I hate this song. I hate all versions of this song.
Even Ray Charles can't rescue this song.
- It Was A Very Good Year w/Willie Nelson
--
Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
Bob Roman
<use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>The following do nothing at all for me:
>
>- Sweet Potato Pie w/James Taylor
>- Hey Girl w/Michael McDonald
I have come to he decision that, for me, "Hey Girl" is the worst. Ray
and McD have no chemistry at all and it totally kills the momentum of
the album.
Bob Roman
Marc Dashevsky
says...
What about "It Was A Very Good Year?" [shudder]
Desn't it completely repulse you?
Sav...@aol.com
No problem, just skip the bad songs and listen to the good ones. Nobody
is forcing you to listen to every track on the CD in the exact oder
that they appear.
Gramm...@mindspring.com
> Even Ray Charles can't rescue this song.
>
> - It Was A Very Good Year w/Willie Nelson
>
> --
> Go to http://MarcDashevsky.com to send me e-mail.
Even Homer Simpson's version?
Marc Dashevsky
Gramm...@mindspring.com says...
> > I hate this song. I hate all versions of this song.
> > Even Ray Charles can't rescue this song.
> >
> > - It Was A Very Good Year w/Willie Nelson
>
Of course I like Homer's version. The song is so thoroughly
mawkish that only a version that parodies itself can succeed.
[Spoken intro]
Well, Beer, we've had some great times . . .
When I was seventeen
I drank some very good beer
I drank some very good beer
I purchased with a fake ID
My name was Brian McGee
I stayed up listening to Queen
When I was seventeen
Bob Roman
>No problem, just skip the bad songs and listen to the good ones. Nobody
>is forcing you to listen to every track on the CD in the exact oder
>that they appear.
Of course I sometimes listen to separate tracks, and sometimes I
listen to the complete album. Most people can do both.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
<use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>In article <3ncu11915osj7ibek...@4ax.com>, robert...@hotmail.com
>says...
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 09:06:24 -0500, Marc Dashevsky
>> <use...@MarcDashevsky.com> wrote:
>>
>> >The following do nothing at all for me:
>> >
>> >- Sweet Potato Pie w/James Taylor
>> >- Hey Girl w/Michael McDonald
>>
>> I have come to he decision that, for me, "Hey Girl" is the worst. Ray
>> and McD have no chemistry at all and it totally kills the momentum of
>> the album.
>
>What about "It Was A Very Good Year?" [shudder]
>Desn't it completely repulse you?
Yeah, but more for the production than the performances. If you gave
the song the simple production Nelson used on his "Stardust" album I
think it would have worked.
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
EVERYBODY can do both, if they wish, but why would you EVER listen to
the full album again when you don't like a couple of the tracks?
Bob Roman
>EVERYBODY can do both, if they wish, but why would you EVER listen to
>the full album again when you don't like a couple of the tracks?
People are paid good money to decide on sequencing, so its worth
exploring their work. And if you don't like a track or two, there is
such a thing as the advance button. No need to throw the baby out
with the bathwater.
Bob Roman
JayePMorganSucks---KimWildeRocks
Roger Ford
That's crazy and its one reason I dislike LP's (and CDs of course) as
opposed to singles----I don't want to hear the tracks in the order
that some other person decided they should go especially since it
throws up the inevitable duds sandwiched between often great numbers.
The best record sequencing machine I know is the one inside my head
which I can always rely on to skip playing dud numbers,the playing of
which because you "have to" strikes me as a particularly dumb thing to
do
ROGER FORD
-----------------------
"Spam Free Zone" - to combat unwanted automatic spamming I have added
an extra "b" in my e-mail address (mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk).
Please delete same before responding.Thank you!
BACKING THE LONDON BID FOR THE 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES!!
Bob Roman
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:53:06 -0500, Bob Roman
><robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>People are paid good money to decide on sequencing, so its worth
>>exploring their work. And if you don't like a track or two, there is
>>such a thing as the advance button. No need to throw the baby out
>>with the bathwater.
>>
>That's crazy and its one reason I dislike LP's (and CDs of course) as
>opposed to singles----I don't want to hear the tracks in the order
>that some other person decided they should go especially since it
>throws up the inevitable duds sandwiched between often great numbers.
>
>The best record sequencing machine I know is the one inside my head
>which I can always rely on to skip playing dud numbers,the playing of
>which because you "have to" strikes me as a particularly dumb thing to
>do
Who said you "have to" listen to duds? I just got done saying there's
a reason for the advance button, and duds are that reason.
As for sequencing, it's a detail to appreciate or denigrate. All I
was saying is that it is not meaningless. The sequencing adds or
detracts from the work. Therefore, it's an important decision.
But it's not final for each listener. Almost all CD players allow
personalized resequencing. And of course the shuffle button.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 06:12:46 GMT, Roger Ford
><mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:53:06 -0500, Bob Roman
>><robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>People are paid good money to decide on sequencing, so its worth
>>>exploring their work. And if you don't like a track or two, there is
>>>such a thing as the advance button. No need to throw the baby out
>>>with the bathwater.
>>>
>>That's crazy and its one reason I dislike LP's (and CDs of course) as
>>opposed to singles----I don't want to hear the tracks in the order
>>that some other person decided they should go especially since it
>>throws up the inevitable duds sandwiched between often great numbers.
>>
>>The best record sequencing machine I know is the one inside my head
>>which I can always rely on to skip playing dud numbers,the playing of
>>which because you "have to" strikes me as a particularly dumb thing to
>>do
>
>Who said you "have to" listen to duds? I just got done saying there's
>a reason for the advance button, and duds are that reason.
>
Exactly so therefore to avoid the duds you're disposing of the record
company's sequencing
>As for sequencing, it's a detail to appreciate or denigrate. All I
>was saying is that it is not meaningless. The sequencing adds or
>detracts from the work. Therefore, it's an important decision.
>
I'm saying that given 12 tracks or whatever the sequencing is done
best by the listener. It sure works best for me and I bet it does for
you too
>But it's not final for each listener. Almost all CD players allow
>personalized resequencing. And of course the shuffle button.
>
Yes,that' one big advantage of CD's over the old LP's where it was
hard work to follow your own sequence of tracks,one reason I always
preferred 45RPMs
Sav...@aol.com
Roger Ford wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 19:53:06 -0500, Bob Roman
> <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On 25 Feb 2005 13:04:37 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >>EVERYBODY can do both, if they wish, but why would you EVER listen
to
> >>the full album again when you don't like a couple of the tracks?
> >
> >People are paid good money to decide on sequencing, so its worth
> >exploring their work. And if you don't like a track or two, there
is
> >such a thing as the advance button. No need to throw the baby out
> >with the bathwater.
> >
> That's crazy and its one reason I dislike LP's (and CDs of course) as
> opposed to singles----I don't want to hear the tracks in the order
> that some other person decided they should go especially since it
> throws up the inevitable duds sandwiched between often great numbers.
Bob can't help himself.....youger lad who grew up with an album rock
mentality and has been brainwashed into believing that an "album" is
more than just a "long playing" record with a lot of tracks.
> The best record sequencing machine I know is the one inside my head
> which I can always rely on to skip playing dud numbers,the playing of
> which because you "have to" strikes me as a particularly dumb thing
to
> do
Absolutely. The music is there for us to do what we want with it once
we own a copy. To play it in order because "someone is paid good money
to decide on sequencing" is pretty illogical, especially after a person
has already heard every song and does not like all of them.
Sequencing is even different sometimes in different countries. In the
past, with 8-tracks and cassettes, sequencing would many times be
different on the LP than on the other formats.
I wonder if Bob were around in the 50s and bought some EP's if he would
always have played all 4 tracks in the order that they were sequenced.
Bob Roman
>Bob can't help himself.....youger lad who grew up with an album rock
>mentality and has been brainwashed into believing that an "album" is
>more than just a "long playing" record with a lot of tracks.
Ok, this is worth exploring. What exactly have I been brainwashed
into believing? That thought is put into sequencing? That time and
money are spent exploring sequencing options?
Bob Roman
fred.w...@gmail.com
This particular discussion is probably better pursued in the 60s board,
because that is when sequencing came into its own, so I am crossposting
this there under the new subject heading.
The goal of track sequencing is to make the collective work greater
than the sum of its parts. Questions of tempo, key, mood, arrangement,
and even the dreaded and despised lyrical content of the songs must be
considered to establish an overall feel and pace. Sequencing is an
art, not a science. There is no formula or template for success.
Sometimes the magic works, and sometimes it doesn't.
Contrary to what Bruce believes, substantial time and effort was and is
often expended in determining track sequence for LPs and CDs (and
before Roger comes in to defend a position I am not challenging, I am
not saying that the people responsible for originally sequencing LPs or
CDs are necessarily any better than he believes he is at it).
Sequencing is not a random act, and an LP is rarely intended just as a
record with "a lot of tracks." There are reasons why tracks show up in
the order they do. Considering and understanding those reasons can
increase one's appreciation of the LP as a whole, and even a "weaker"
song can serve to promote that appreciation if you grasp the reason why
it appears where it does in the track order. There is something to be
gained from understanding context. If you don't care to, or don't want
to, think about the LP or CD as a single organic work, fine, but there
is plenty of evidence to indicate that simply denying any intent at
achieving some gestalt from the overall programming is shortsighted.
In the most obvious parallel, it is like hearing a single aria lifted
from an opera. It may be a wonderful work set on its own, but without
the setting of the entire score and libretto, you may be missing
something important. There may be references to musical or lyrical
themes that appear elsewhere in the entire work that makes the single
aria part of a larger and more coherent whole. There's a good chance
you just don't "get" everything from simply listening to the single
track. This, of course, was less important in the 50s when the 45 was
the basic unit of both performance and sales for popular music, but
with the rise of the LP as an artistic and commercial force, the format
allowed for a larger musical canvas. And the 50s were not entirely
immune. Does anyone listen to "A Thousand Miles Away," "500 Miles To
Go" and "Daddy's Home" in any other sequence?
Sequencing is a producer's function, and one that is taken very
seriously. Hell hath no fury like a producer who has discovered some
label executive has rearranged a sequence to put the first single at
the top of Side 1. I recently watched a situation in which the
European release of a newly recorded CD was going to have two tracks
added to the US release. The debate over where those tracks were
placed on the final version delayed the release date for more than a
month.
Sav...@aol.com
Bob Roman wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 07:17:28 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Bob can't help himself.....youger lad who grew up with an album rock
> >mentality and has been brainwashed into believing that an "album" is
> >more than just a "long playing" record with a lot of tracks.
>
> Ok, this is worth exploring. What exactly have I been brainwashed
> into believing?
That an "album" is more than just a collection of unrelated songs by
the same artist on one long-playing record, or CD, or tape.
Tell me, what does "Within You, Without You" have to do with "It's
Getting Better," other than the fact that you are so used to them being
part of the same "album," that you somehow think that they fit in
together?
If we could go back in time, and remove "Within You, Without You" from
Sgt. Pepper, and replace it with "Strawberry Fields Forever," when you
finally heard "Within You, Without You," on the "Magical Mystery Tour"
album, would you be saying......hhmmmmm....I think this really would
have "fit in" better on Sgt. Pepper?
And would you be saying, "somehow this 'Strawberry Fields' song doesn;t
really fit with the rest of this album."
Same for "When I'm Sixty-Four" and "A Day In The Life?"
If for some reason "When I'm Sixty-Four" had eneded up on "Rubber
Soul," you would now swear that it fits in just right.
When I used to buy an album, it was solely for the purposes of owning
each of the individual tracks on the record. Years ago this was done
for many reasons.
1 - Stereo - Most tracks from the era that I like were mono on 45s, but
sometimes stereo on albums
2 - Sound - Usually the songs sounded better on albums than on 45s,
better qualitry pressings, and would sound good for longer.
3 - Convenience - Just to get all of an artist's hits on one record.
4 - Cost - It was cheaper to buy a greatest hits alobum for $8.00 than
to buy
5 - Tracks not available on singles.
This whole "album" thing is just a clever ruse by then record compnaies
to convert record buyers over from singles to albums, thereby driving
up revenues.
Bob Roman
>Bob Roman wrote:
>> Ok, this is worth exploring. What exactly have I been brainwashed
>> into believing?
>
>That an "album" is more than just a collection of unrelated songs by
>the same artist on one long-playing record, or CD, or tape.
>
>Tell me, what does "Within You, Without You" have to do with "It's
>Getting Better," other than the fact that you are so used to them being
>part of the same "album," that you somehow think that they fit in
>together?
Bruce, you've worked as a club dj. Are you honestly going to tell me
you think there is nothing to the idea of track flow?
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
> Bob Roman wrote:
> > On 26 Feb 2005 07:17:28 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > >Bob can't help himself.....youger lad who grew up with an album
rock
> > >mentality and has been brainwashed into believing that an "album"
is
> > >more than just a "long playing" record with a lot of tracks.
> >
> > Ok, this is worth exploring. What exactly have I been brainwashed
> > into believing? That thought is put into sequencing? That time
and
> > money are spent exploring sequencing options?
>
> This particular discussion is probably better pursued in the 60s
board,
> because that is when sequencing came into its own, so I am
crossposting
> this there under the new subject heading.
>
> The goal of track sequencing is to make the collective work greater
> than the sum of its parts.
Doesn't matter, if the listener, as he should, just determines which
tracks he likes, and which he doesn't, and programs them the way he
wants to hear them. That is why CD players, and MP3 programs have that
feature, som we don't have to be subjected to this silliness.
I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people would
rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every radio station
that ever existed.
>
> Contrary to what Bruce believes, substantial time and effort was and
is
> often expended in determining track sequence for LPs and CDs
Oh, I definitley believe that. I just don't see why the CD buyers buy
into it. If I buy a CD, the first thing I do is go through each track
and see which ones I like, and then copy them on to the computer. I
then listen to each individual track at my own discretion. I do not see
ANY reason to listen to an entire album by one artist, especially in
the order that some producer decided to put the songs in.
Before CDs and computers, if I bought an album, it was for the reasons
described in my last post, answering Bob. The first thing I would do is
skim each track and find the ones that I might lie, and then transfer
them on to tapes with a mix of different artists.
And the 50s were not entirely
> immune. Does anyone listen to "A Thousand Miles Away," "500 Miles To
> Go" and "Daddy's Home" in any other sequence?
Of course. I've never once listened to those three songs all at once in
that order.
Most songs on most albums have nothing whatsoever do do with one
another.
What the fuck does something like "Our House" have to do with
"Woodstock," any more than "Marakesh Express" (from an earlier album)
would have to do with "Woodstock?"
The whole thing is just a way or getting consumers to buy a more
expensive item. Many times there have been songs in large demand that
record companies have intentionally not made available on a single, to
force people to buy an album.
The best way for a radio station to kill their ratings is to play weak
songs from strong albums, or to play entire albums all at once.
The only reason that sequencing is deemed to be so important is because
listenrs have been duped into thinking that an album should be played
from start to finish, and that it is somehow important to preserve this
false "artistic integrity."
I guess that's why I was hearing the guitar from "Pinball Wizard" last
night on some commercial, "artistic integrity."
Sav...@aol.com
Are you honestly going to tell me
> you think there is nothing to the idea of track flow?
Of course there's something to the idea, but one of the cardinal rules
of track flow is to not play music by the same artist for very
long...certainly not as long as an album lasts.
SOME DJ THINGS....
You can't have a song fade out for 25 seconds in a club, you need to
have the next record started already. You also cant have a song take
forever to get going in a club either.
Example, if I was in the middle of a set of uptempo songs and I wanted
to play "Relax" by Frankie Goes To Hollywood, I would cue the record up
about 20 or 30 seconds in, to where the beat starts going. If I played
the quiet stuff at the start of the record, it would kill the flow.
Now if I wanted to play "Relax" out of a slow set, then I would play
the entire beginning, as people would realize that the slow set was
ending, and start to head out to the dance floor, just in time for when
the record got going.
many times I would cut of the begining of songs if they didn't start
out dynamically enough for where I was at the time.
Another trick was to have two copies of a record that was especially
huge at the time, like "Whip It" by Devo. There was no extended version
of that song, just a 2:40 single. By synching the two copies, and
switching from one to the other, you could make the song last for 4 or
5 minutes, without the crowd even noticing the mix (if you did it
right).
I'm not arguing against "sequencing," I'm wondering why the listener
would want to pay any attention to how the album was sequenced. Once I
owned it, I'd just consider it as a master for each of the songs on the
album, and copy them on to whatever format, and whatever order I
pleased.
Obviously it's gotten to the point now in 2005 where most record buyers
talk in terms of "albums," not in terms of individual tracks. I'm not
sure, but I don't think that many songs are even made on singles
anymore.
Len Blanks
> I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people
> would rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every
> radio station that ever existed.
That's why live concerts are always boring.
> The best way for a radio station to kill their ratings is to play weak
> songs from strong albums, or to play entire albums all at once.
That's why requests to play 'Live at the Apollo' in its entirety were
always rejected at Black radio stations in the US South.
--
Len
int (*)(int, char **) makes a good boolean type. You can use 'main'
for true, and 'exit' for false. On some compilers, you may need to
cast exit() to an appropriate type. -- se...@solon.com's "infrequently
asked questions on comp.lang.c"
Sav...@aol.com
Len Blanks wrote:
> In rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s, SavoyBG <Sav...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> > tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people
> > would rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every
> > radio station that ever existed.
>
> That's why live concerts are always boring.
Actually, they many times are. If it wasn't for drugs and alcohol, most
live shows would be duds....and we're not talking live shows here,
we're talking Roman on the train with his headphones.
> > The best way for a radio station to kill their ratings is to play
weak
> > songs from strong albums, or to play entire albums all at once.
>
> That's why requests to play 'Live at the Apollo' in its entirety were
> always rejected at Black radio stations in the US South.
One example out of millions, from a time when many blacks who wanted to
hear the album could not afford to buy it. You had to go back over 40
years to find an album that was routinely played on the radio in its
entirety.
Bob Roman
>> >Bob Roman wrote:
>> Are you honestly going to tell me
>> you think there is nothing to the idea of track flow?
>
>Of course there's something to the idea, but one of the cardinal rules
>of track flow is to not play music by the same artist for very
>long...certainly not as long as an album lasts.
Then imagine how much more important sequencing is on an album, where
you MUST repeat the same artist for the length of an album.
>I'm not arguing against "sequencing," I'm wondering why the listener
>would want to pay any attention to how the album was sequenced.
Ideally the sequencing would not call attention to itself. Like most
things in music, we process it unconsciously.
Bob Roman
Jim Colegrove
>I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
>tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people would
>rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every radio station
>that ever existed.
>
I agree. No doubt most people have very short attention disorders.
Another scope. Why do people go to art museums to see galleries full
of work by one artist? (and believe me they do!)
They want to see what the artist's story is. What does it tell? What
does it say in the subtext? How does the art evolve? What does it
tell the viewer (listener) about their world and themselves. Music on
collections of recordings work in much the same way.
Ever since the advent of tape recorders one could program music one
wanted to hear in the order one liked. Does this negate the original
context of the artist? Hardly. It says far more about the listener
than the artist.
That said, I have wall racks of tapes and more CDs that I can listen
to of "various artists."
Jim Colegrove
Sav...@aol.com
Bob Roman wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 15:18:27 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >> >Bob Roman wrote:
> >> Are you honestly going to tell me
> >> you think there is nothing to the idea of track flow?
> >
> >Of course there's something to the idea, but one of the cardinal
rules
> >of track flow is to not play music by the same artist for very
> >long...certainly not as long as an album lasts.
> Then imagine how much more important sequencing is on an album, where
> you MUST repeat the same artist for the length of an album.
Different story. The patron in the club that I'm DJing in can't walk
over to the booth and hit the "skip" button, so it's much more
imporatnt that I sequence the music well. As a listener on the train
with your headphones, or at home, you can listen to whatever you want
in whatever order you want. You've already plunked down your money for
the album, so what's the difference in what order you hear it in?
>
> >I'm not arguing against "sequencing," I'm wondering why the listener
> >would want to pay any attention to how the album was sequenced.
>
> Ideally the sequencing would not call attention to itself. Like most
> things in music, we process it unconsciously.
EXACTLY, which is what the record companies were banking on, They want
you to feel a need to hear "Lucy In The Sky" right after you hear "With
A Little Help From My Friends," even if the two songs are totally
unrelated. After enough times, your mind now associates the two songs
with each other, until it gets to the point where you don't feel right
listening to one without the other. This feeling gets you to buy $4.99
albums rather than 79 cent singles.
Sav...@aol.com
Jim Colegrove wrote:
> On 26 Feb 2005 15:01:33 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> >I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> >tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people would
> >rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every radio
station
> >that ever existed.
> >
>
> I agree. No doubt most people have very short attention disorders.
>
> Another scope. Why do people go to art museums to see galleries full
> of work by one artist? (and believe me they do!)
>
> They want to see what the artist's story is. What does it tell?
What
> does it say in the subtext? How does the art evolve? What does it
> tell the viewer (listener) about their world and themselves. Music on
> collections of recordings work in much the same way.
>
Many people are more into the person's story than the music (or the
art), which is why they can completely divorce the music of somebody
who does something as a human that they find dispicable.
Many people will never listen to Michael Jackson music again if it is
proven that he molested children. It doesn't make a bit of difference
to me what he did away fromm music, the records will still sound the
same.
Jim Colegrove
>
>Jim Colegrove wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2005 15:01:33 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> >I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
>> >tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people would
>> >rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every radio
>station
>> >that ever existed.
>> >
>>
>> I agree. No doubt most people have very short attention disorders.
>>
>> Another scope. Why do people go to art museums to see galleries full
>> of work by one artist? (and believe me they do!)
>>
>> They want to see what the artist's story is. What does it tell?
>What
>> does it say in the subtext? How does the art evolve? What does it
>> tell the viewer (listener) about their world and themselves. Music on
>> collections of recordings work in much the same way.
>>
>
>Many people are more into the person's story than the music (or the
>art), which is why they can completely divorce the music of somebody
>who does something as a human that they find dispicable.
>
True, humans do have that capacity. It's what drove Kerouac mad to
some extent. I mean being into his story (history) and not his art.
That characteristic is one that I abhor.
Jim Colegrove
Bob Roman
The fact that neither of the songs you mention were singles might have
something to do with it as well.
But in response to your main point, a well-sequenced record will feel
right the first time you hear it. For the outcome of "feeling right"
to be the result of associationism, as you propose, it would not kick
in until multiple listenings.
Anyway, music makers prepare many aspects to be experienced
unconsciously. A string arrangement that blends into the totality of
the recording is usually more effective than a string arrangement that
calls attention to itself. That doesn't make the more-effective
string arrangement devious or sneaky.
Bob Roman
fred.w...@gmail.com
Len Blanks wrote:
> In rec.music.rock-pop-r+b.1950s, SavoyBG <Sav...@aol.com> writes:
>
> > I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> > tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people
> > would rather hear a mix of music, as evidenced by almost every
> > radio station that ever existed.
>
> That's why live concerts are always boring.
>
Amen.
And all those Greatest Hits and Complete Recordings sets are obviously
sold by mistake to people who would really prefer Various Artist
compilations if they only knew what they really wanted.
> > The best way for a radio station to kill their ratings is to play
weak
> > songs from strong albums, or to play entire albums all at once.
>
> That's why requests to play 'Live at the Apollo' in its entirety were
> always rejected at Black radio stations in the US South.
Bruce is an expert on radio programming, as he keeps telling us. Facts
are irrelevant to an expert.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
from a time when many blacks who wanted to
> hear the album could not afford to buy it.
Was this anywhere near the time when a Victrola cost $250?
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
>
> And all those Greatest Hits and Complete Recordings sets are
obviously
> sold by mistake to people who would really prefer Various Artist
> compilations if they only knew what they really wanted.
>
I buy all of them myself, and have forever, but that doesn't mean that
I actually ever have played any of them from start to finish. I want to
own all of the songs, but certainly don't want to hear all of them
played together. Even before I had MP3s, whenever I played music I
would play either pre-made mixed artist tapes, or put a 24-CD player on
shuffle...one song at a time from a disc, and then it randomly moves to
anlther disc for a song. Just because people buy an anthology doesn't
prove that they take the anthology and play each disc in full, let
alone the entire set in full.
To me, anthologies are just a way to get a nice clear master of each
song to use to listen to on mixed artist tapes, MP3s, etc....if
consumers could get their CDs made to order, any artists, any songs
that they wanted, that's what they would do, rather than buy
anthologies by one artist.
Sav...@aol.com
Than you should be against people who like an artist because of the
artist's politics, or people who dislike an artist for the same
reason....another reason why people who are overly interested in lyrics
are not really "music" fans. If the main reason that someone likes an
artist is because of what his lyrics are saying, I have to question
whether or not the fan likes music at all.
TTC, where are you :-)
Bob Roman
>Than you should be against people who like an artist because of the
>artist's politics, or people who dislike an artist for the same
>reason....another reason why people who are overly interested in lyrics
>are not really "music" fans. If the main reason that someone likes an
>artist is because of what his lyrics are saying, I have to question
>whether or not the fan likes music at all.
Lyrics are not extrinsic to the art. They are part of the art. A
clever lyric can add as much as a clever riff, if you are open to it.
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
But would you agree that somebody who likes recordings mainly for the
lyrics is not really into music?
fred.w...@gmail.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
.
>
> But would you agree that somebody who likes recordings mainly for the
> lyrics is not really into music?
No more than you can say that someone who discounts lyrics is not
really into music.
And where does it say that an appreciation for lyrics means you like
recordings *mainly* for lyrics? It is possible to appreciate both the
lyrics and the instrumental components, and it isn't really necessary
to decide that one is more important than the other.
Bob Roman
>Bob Roman wrote:
>> Lyrics are not extrinsic to the art. They are part of the art. A
>> clever lyric can add as much as a clever riff, if you are open to it.
>
>But would you agree that somebody who likes recordings mainly for the
>lyrics is not really into music?
I don't think there's really anyone who does. Even critics who
emphasize lyrics do so because they don't have the vocabulary to
discuss the music.
Bob Roman
Bob Roman
<fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is possible to appreciate both the
>lyrics and the instrumental components, and it isn't really necessary
>to decide that one is more important than the other.
This is exactly the point. The lyrics have to fit the music, just as
the arrangement and tempo have to fit the music. It all adds up to
one thing.
Bob Roman
fred.w...@gmail.com
Bob Roman wrote:
>
> I don't think there's really anyone who does. Even critics who
> emphasize lyrics do so because they don't have the vocabulary to
> discuss the music.
I can't think of anyone with any serious claim to being a critic who
emphasizes lyrics over instrumental qualities, or vice versa for that
matter. The lack of vocabulary is only part of the problem, and, in my
experience, an inability to discuss lyrics is usually closely connected
to an inability to discuss anything substantive at all about the music.
Fred
Sav...@aol.com
>From what I see on lyric sites and other places there seemns to be many
people who are mailny intersted in lyrics and don't care much at all
about the musical part of a song.
Tregembo
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote
> I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people would
> rather hear a mix of music
Covered in someone else's response but clearly a huge number of artists
albums are sold vs. various artists albums. Whether pre-sequencing JUST for
that artist's music or post sequencing for the music AND the message. I'm
sure Ronco, Rhino & KTEL have made a buck over the years but don't compare
to any popular artist's catelogue.
>as evidenced by almost every radio station that ever existed.
While that's correct, it's not correct for the reason you suggest. Post the
very successful block formating of concerts in the 20's through the 40's,
popular music on radio has always been programmed as a sampling of a
format's genre. If there will ever be a large enough artist in a big enough
market the rule will be broken, e. g., Elvis x 3 in New York City x 5. But
on a smaller scale, there are Elvis, Beatles and Sinatra shows every weekend
in almost every major market in the U. S.
>I buy all of them myself, and have forever, but that doesn't mean that
>I actually ever have played any of them from start to finish. I want to
>own all of the songs, but certainly don't want to hear all of them
>played together.
Comparatively I KNOW I'm a tiny collector/buyer/listener than most here, but
I always listen to an album from start to finish at least once and
often...often, sequencing or not.
> But would you agree that somebody who likes recordings mainly for the
lyrics is not really into music?
I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would categorically state that they
"like recordings mainly for the lyrics." But if that person exists he might
say that he enjoys poems, prose or literature with a musical background or
accompaniment. For most, with sympathy to you for not enjoying the full
scope of a song with words, often music and lyrics are concomitantly
integral.
Ray Arthur
Sav...@aol.com
Maybe for you, but not for me, and not for many people who are much
more concerned with the lyrics than anything else.
The lyrics (meaning of the words) don't have to fit the music at all
for me, although the sounds uttered by the vocalist DO need to fit the
music. An example would be something like "Nel Blu Di Pinto Di Blu,"
which I like just as much if not more than "Volare," sung in English.
It makes no difference that I can't determine what the words mean in
the Modugno version, it's entirely based on the sounds coming from the
singer's voice and how they fit with the music, tempo, arrangement,
etc...
Same thing with the Plastic Bertrand record from the 70s that is sung
in French. It makes no difference to me what the words mean. I have no
interest in finding out, I just like the way the vocal sounds with the
music.
I also like "Sukiyaki" much better by Sakamoto than by "A Taste Of
Honey," and it has nothing to do with what the English lyrics are
saying, in fact, I could not even tell you waht they are saying. I just
prefer the overall sound of the Sakamoto version to the overall sound
of the A Taste Of Honey version.
I also have no interest in the English translation of "La Bamba."
There are also some Santana songs that I like that are sung in Spanish,
where I have no idea what they are saying. Just doesn't matter.
By the same token, there are many people out there who are mainly only
interested in the lyrics, and the tempo, the feel of the record, does
not mean a thing to them. Usually these types of listeners do not like
R & B and soul music of the 50s and 60s, which is more rhythm and music
based with less intricate lyrics.
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
> Bob Roman wrote:
> >
> > I don't think there's really anyone who does. Even critics who
> > emphasize lyrics do so because they don't have the vocabulary to
> > discuss the music.
>
> I can't think of anyone with any serious claim to being a critic who
> emphasizes lyrics over instrumental qualities, or vice versa for that
> matter.
What constitutes a "serious claim?" If the person is employed as a
music critic by a newspaper, he/she has a serious claim to being a
critic. YOU may not take him seriously if he can't discuss lyrics, but
that does not take away his claim.
The lack of vocabulary is only part of the problem, and, in my
> experience, an inability to discuss lyrics is usually closely
connected
> to an inability to discuss anything substantive at all about the
music.
So what about a jazz critic, or a musician, who can disect all of the
musical parts, but has no interest in lyrics, which mean very little in
the jazz world, where most of the classic records are instrumentals.
Sav...@aol.com
Tregembo wrote:
> <Sav...@aol.com> wrote
>
>
> > I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> > tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people
would
> > rather hear a mix of music
>
> Covered in someone else's response but clearly a huge number of
artists
> albums are sold vs. various artists albums. Whether pre-sequencing
JUST for
> that artist's music or post sequencing for the music AND the message.
I'm
> sure Ronco, Rhino & KTEL have made a buck over the years but don't
compare
> to any popular artist's catelogue.
But if we all had the power to order any CD that we wanted with any mix
of songs in any order, that would be different. Far more CDs sell by
individual artists, mainly for legal reasons, not because people would
prefer it that way if given a choice.
Over the years when I was DJing I would often have a customer ask me to
make them a tape of specific songs that they wanted, always from a mix
of artists.
Far more people listen to music on the radio than people who purchase
music regularly, and all market research shows that people prefer a mix
of different artists when they are listening to music.
But
> on a smaller scale, there are Elvis, Beatles and Sinatra shows every
weekend
> in almost every major market in the U. S.
Yes, there are fanatics on some of the most popular artists of all time
like that, but most people still prefer a mix of music. And on those
shows, they do not play an entire album in the sequence that it was
released in. They play a mix of different songs by those artists,
usually jumping around from one era to another era in short sets of 2
or 3 songs each. One of the "Elvis Only" shows is carried on WMTR in
Morris County, NJ. You don't ever hear the host play an entire Elvis
album.
>
> >I buy all of them myself, and have forever, but that doesn't mean
that
> >I actually ever have played any of them from start to finish. I want
to
> >own all of the songs, but certainly don't want to hear all of them
> >played together.
>
> Comparatively I KNOW I'm a tiny collector/buyer/listener than most
here, but
> I always listen to an album from start to finish at least once and
> often...often, sequencing or not.
Why?
Do you feel some sense of commitment to have to listen to the entire
album in order as is was intended to be played or something?
Maybe it's just a different mindset. I've always been a singles
collector who bought albums for convenience, cost, stereo versions,
etc... as I outlined in a different post. To me, it was always about
individual songs, and I've never bought into this thing about the songs
on an album having anything to do with each other.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> And, of course, there's an even worse alternative: people who are
mainly
> interested in thumbnail chart/release statistics and don't care much
at
> all about the musical part of a song.
The two interests are not mutually exclusive anymore than they are in
baseball, where you can be very interested in stats, and also love
watching the game, and discussing other aspects of it.
Just like music Mike, I don't need to be able to demonstrate how to
throw a curve ball in order to have a love for the game and an
appreciation for a good curve ball. At the same time, I can also look
at Sabrmetric stats such as OPS+ and ERA+ to help compare the
performances of players.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What constitutes a "serious claim?" If the person is employed as a
> music critic by a newspaper, he/she has a serious claim to being a
> critic. YOU may not take him seriously if he can't discuss lyrics,
but
> that does not take away his claim.
>
What I said was I cannot think of someone who can seriously claim to be
a music critic (and I find it somewhat funny that you would limit
"serious" critics to those who have published, but wouldn't hold
historians to the same standard) who is in it mainly because of the
lyrics. Can you?
>
> So what about a jazz critic, or a musician, who can disect all of the
> musical parts, but has no interest in lyrics, which mean very little
in
> the jazz world, where most of the classic records are instrumentals.
We weren't discussing jazz or classical, but I would expect a serious
critic of either genre to be able to deal with vocal performances, and
do so competently. You have any examples of such critics who can't?
fred.w...@gmail.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Maybe for you, but not for me, and not for many people who are much
> more concerned with the lyrics than anything else.
You keep referring to these "many people who are much more concerned
with the lyrics than anything else," but I've never seen one here in
these groups, and, with the exception of some critical pieces dealing
specifically with lyrics as poetry (which, frankly are more concerned
with literary issues than musical), I don't think I've ever met anyone
for whom lyrics are the overwhelmingly predominant part of music as you
claim.
Do you have anyone in mind, or is this just another attempt to set up a
non-existent opponent?
fred.w...@gmail.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Yes, there are fanatics on some of the most popular artists of all
time
> like that, but most people still prefer a mix of music. And on those
> shows, they do not play an entire album in the sequence that it was
> released in. They play a mix of different songs by those artists,
> usually jumping around from one era to another era in short sets of 2
> or 3 songs each. One of the "Elvis Only" shows is carried on WMTR in
> Morris County, NJ. You don't ever hear the host play an entire Elvis
> album.
It is nice to see that you are backing off from the claim that no one
wanted to hear 10 or 12 cuts from the same artist. That was just
silly.
As for this new variant, you are wrong on the facts. Your sample is
just too small to base a sweeping generalization on. Just this week,
I've heard from friends in a half dozen different areas around the
country that the new 50-Cent bootleg is being played beginning-to-end
on stations in their areas. Yes, the whole CD, in the order it was
produced, and by someone who hardly qualifies as one of the "most
popular artists of all time." This is not the first time in the last
six months that this has happened, and, in fact, it appears to be a
growing trend in programming within the most important commercial genre
around. I guess those stations just don't realize that the experts say
playing an entire album is a surefire way to destroy their ratings.
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > What constitutes a "serious claim?" If the person is employed as a
> > music critic by a newspaper, he/she has a serious claim to being a
> > critic. YOU may not take him seriously if he can't discuss lyrics,
> but
> > that does not take away his claim.
> >
>
> What I said was I cannot think of someone who can seriously claim to
be
> a music critic (and I find it somewhat funny that you would limit
> "serious" critics to those who have published, but wouldn't hold
> historians to the same standard) who is in it mainly because of the
> lyrics. Can you?
Ask Bob, he's the one who pointed out that some critics who can't
describe music fall back on over analyzing the lyrics.
I never said I "limited" serious critrics to those who have been
published, only that any working critic would have a claim to be a
"serious" critic, just based on the fact that they held a job in the
field. Your definition of "serious" is a more strict than the societal
definition. Perhaps rather than serious you should use a different
word, like "accomplished."
> > So what about a jazz critic, or a musician, who can disect all of
the
> > musical parts, but has no interest in lyrics, which mean very
little
> in
> > the jazz world, where most of the classic records are
instrumentals.
>
>
> We weren't discussing jazz or classical, but I would expect a serious
> critic of either genre to be able to deal with vocal performances,
and
> do so competently. You have any examples of such critics who can't?
Analyzing a vocal performance has nothing to do with analyzing lyrics.
Most jazz vocalists do not write lyrics, and sometimes they don't even
sing lyrics, like in scatting.
I don't really pay attention to critics, maybe Bob can name somebody
who he feels over analyzes lyrics because of a lack of ability (or
vocabulary) to analyze the music itself.
I did call up the Star-Ledger critic the other day and voice my
displeasure over his terming of "Piece Of My Heart" as a Janis Joplin
song. I thought I'd get his voice mail, but we spoke for several
minutes in person, and he was surprisingly receptive, considering the
tirade that I unleashed upon him.
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
Just this week,
> I've heard from friends in a half dozen different areas around the
> country
IMPOSSIBLE....you don't even have a half dozen friends, let alone in
different areas around the country.
cordially, as always,
Trollberg
fred.w...@gmail.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Ask Bob, he's the one who pointed out that some critics who can't
> describe music fall back on over analyzing the lyrics.
>
> I never said I "limited" serious critrics to those who have been
> published, only that any working critic would have a claim to be a
> "serious" critic, just based on the fact that they held a job in the
> field. Your definition of "serious" is a more strict than the
societal
> definition. Perhaps rather than serious you should use a different
> word, like "accomplished."
>
OK, I will make it simpler for you.
Identify some people who post here who are among the "many people" you
claim exalt lyrics over anything else. No one else can find one, yet
you know there are many.
>
> Analyzing a vocal performance has nothing to do with analyzing
lyrics.
>
> Most jazz vocalists do not write lyrics,
Many jazz vocalists do. I am pretty sure that most 50s rock and roll
vocalists didn't write lyrics either. Your point is irrelevant.
and sometimes they don't even
> sing lyrics, like in scatting.
So?
>
> I don't really pay attention to critics, maybe Bob can name somebody
> who he feels over analyzes lyrics because of a lack of ability (or
> vocabulary) to analyze the music itself.
>
I didn't limit my inquiry to critics. Please identify one person of
the legion of lyric-obsessed zombies who you see around you. ("I see
word people.")
> I did call up the Star-Ledger critic the other day and voice my
> displeasure over his terming of "Piece Of My Heart" as a Janis Joplin
> song. I thought I'd get his voice mail, but we spoke for several
> minutes in person, and he was surprisingly receptive, considering the
> tirade that I unleashed upon him.
I am sure the writer was impressed with you, especially once you
mentioned you were in a beer league hall of fame for umpiring and took
time out of your busy schedule to correct him. Did he print a
retraction, or was that horrendous error allowed to remain as a stain
on the integrity of the Star-Ledger?
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
> Savo...@aol.com wrote:
Please identify one person of
> the legion of lyric-obsessed zombies who you see around you. ("I see
> word people.")
http://entrypoints.com/RockLyrics/RockLyrics.html
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
Did he print a
> retraction, or was that horrendous error allowed to remain as a stain
> on the integrity of the Star-Ledger?
I never checked, but he apologized on the phone for his incorrect
writing.
Once I said that I was a friend of yours, he was very impressed.
cordially, as always,
Trollberg
Bob Roman
>Just like music Mike, I don't need to be able to demonstrate how to
>throw a curve ball in order to have a love for the game and an
>appreciation for a good curve ball. At the same time, I can also look
>at Sabrmetric stats such as OPS+ and ERA+ to help compare the
>performances of players.
Knowing how to throw a curveball is like knowing where to put your
tongue or fingers to play an instrument.
Knowing the importance of OPS+ and ERA+ is like understanding the
importance of time signatures.
Saying all that matters is the bottom line of who wins and who loses
is like saying all I care about is whether I like the record or not.
Bob Roman
Tregembo
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109487085.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Tregembo wrote:
> > I always listen to an album from start to finish at least once and
> > often...often, sequencing or not.
>
> Why?
>
> Do you feel some sense of commitment to have to listen to the entire
> album in order as is was intended to be played or something?
>
> Maybe it's just a different mindset. I've always been a singles
> collector who bought albums for convenience, cost, stereo versions,
> etc... as I outlined in a different post. To me, it was always about
> individual songs,
Initially I was also primarily a singles buyer, based on the "hit" song.
Due to economics (as a kid) I would wait for the greatest hits compilation
LP. But as it became economically feasible I bought albums of artists whose
hit songs I enjoyed. Then listened to the album from start to finish,
partly for convenience but more from the theory that, if I liked the two or
three hits that the artist wrote or selected, chances are I would also like
most or all of the remainder of the album's selections. Don't we all have
album cuts that were never released as singles that are some of our favorite
songs by artists?
>and I've never bought into this thing about the songs on an album having
anything to do with each other.
Like say, Tommy? But seriously, you don't believe that there are some
"concept" albums that have songs that relate to each other? Certainly there
are lyrically, but you're not into lyrics. But musically, you don't hear
the ebb & flow of a concept album that, if the songs were in a different
order, would reflect a difference in the album?
Rat Arthur
Bob Roman
<fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
What was on my mind when I wrote that was a 1980s Tom Petty interview,
where he complained about a reviewer who critiqued his recent album as
if it were a novel, discussing the topics of the songs but not the
musical qualities. At the time I thought, yeah, I've seen that too.
The conception of pop reviewers as musical morons (whether fair or
not) has stuck with me ever since.
Bob Roman
fred.w...@gmail.com
Mike G wrote:
>
> "Tirade"? God, what a sad little character you are. I bet he had a
great
> laugh about you with his colleagues, afterwards.
Mike,
Don't make light of this episode. In years to come, Western
Civilization will look back on that phone call as the point that
changed the course of music journalism. (If, and only if, you believe
the call took place, and then, if, and only if, you actually believe
there was a "tirade.")
We owe Bruce a debt of gratitude, and maybe a beer league Pulitzer
Prize to go with his Hall of Fame plaque.
Fred
fred.w...@gmail.com
A previous response to this post appears to have been swallowed up by a
404 error. If it shows up later, forgive the overlap.
I asked Bruce for examples of the "Many People" who think lyrics are
far more important than the music.
He offered three websites as evidence of his premise.
Let's examine them one by one.
> http://entrypoints.com/RockLyrics/RockLyrics.html
A teacher explains how he uses rock lyrics to teach poetry in the
classroom. At no place in the webpage does he say that lyrics are more
important than the music in a song, although I admit the lyrics are far
more important in teaching poetry, but that wasn't Bruce's point.
Unless Bruce is now saying that merely discussing lyrics is proof that
the speaker believes lyrics are far more important, this website is
useless in promoting his argument.
Something to support Bruce's contention that there are many people who
think that lyrics are far more important to the music = Nothing
>
> http://com4.runboard.com/bthemusicdiscussiongroup.flyrics
>
This is a message board where people can post their favorite lyrics and
ask other people for correct lyrics.
There are five threads on the message board. In none of the posts does
anyone even imply that lyrics are far more important than music. The
subject doesn't ever come up.
Once again, the fact that people are discussing lyrics doesn't lead
inescapably to the conclusion that they think lyrics are more
important.
Something to support Bruce's contention that there are many people who
think that lyrics are far more important to the music = Nothing
> http://www.egodeath.com/MysticAllusions.htm
This one is a beaut, and I know Bruce didn't read it, but included it
in his evidence simply because someone is discussing lyrics. Since the
subject (as far as I can tell) is the presence of certain allusions and
metaphors in rock lyrics, it would make sense to discuss lyrics,
wouldn't it. Be that as it may, there is absolutely nothing in this
offering (and I did read the whole thing) that says that the music is
less important than the lyrics.
Something to support Bruce's contention that there are many people who
think that lyrics are far more important to the music = Nothing
That's O for 3, and not even a foul ball.
While I am not suprised that these three pitiful items are as good as
Bruce is going to supply to support his position, I don't want to leave
him completely without hope.
In five minutes with Google, I found one person who supposedly said
that lyrics were the most important part of a song. The quote is only
reported second hand, so I can't say for certain that the person
actually said what was attributed to him, but since it appears on the
Internet, it clearly meets Bruce's standards for veracity.
Given Bruce's demanding standards for accuracy, I think we should
expect him to do as much to correct this poor misguided soul as he did
for the Star-Ledger reporter. After all, this person who says lyrics
predominate over the music has tried to make a career in music, and his
lack of success is obviously a result of not having his priorities
straight. Reach out to him, Brucie. Smokey Robinson needs your
guidance.
fred.w...@gmail.com
That only is additional proof you completely misunderstood your
contact's reaction to your call (if it actually took place at all).
Jim Colegrove
>
>Jim Colegrove wrote:
>> On 26 Feb 2005 16:25:31 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Many people are more into the person's story than the music (or the
>> >art), which is why they can completely divorce the music of somebody
>> >who does something as a human that they find dispicable.
>> >
>>
>> True, humans do have that capacity. It's what drove Kerouac mad to
>> some extent. I mean being into his story (history) and not his art.
>> That characteristic is one that I abhor.
>
>Than you should be against people who like an artist because of the
>artist's politics, or people who dislike an artist for the same
>reason....another reason why people who are overly interested in lyrics
>are not really "music" fans. If the main reason that someone likes an
>artist is because of what his lyrics are saying, I have to question
>whether or not the fan likes music at all.
>
I think I said what I meant in the previous statement.
But the point has changed now. It is now about lyrics. Songs become
delivery systems for lyrics. The listener would not hear lyrics set
to the music otherwise. The marriage of the two create a unique
experience for those that have an ear to hear it. Those that don't,
don't. Now, do these people who hear the lyrics and respond to them as
such, really like music or are they just poetry fans? Chances are
they are both.
Jim Colegrove
fred.w...@gmail.com
> Knowing the importance of OPS+ and ERA+ is like understanding the
> importance of time signatures.
I think it is far less important than that. It is like basing a
critique of music on how far the musician is standing from his
amplifier when he finishes playing.
Time signatures, at the very least, have relevance to the music the
musician makes. Knowing OPS+ and ERA+ only means you know statistics
that the sport was able to survive without anyone knowing for over 100
years.
Sav...@aol.com
Suppose you don't care at all about who wins and loses but are
interested in ranking how effective individual players are, and in
watching 500 foot home runs, and great fielding plays, and also have a
strong interest in the playing and scoring rules of the game.
What's your musical equivelent of that?
Bob Roman
<fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Time signatures, at the very least, have relevance to the music the
>musician makes. Knowing OPS+ and ERA+ only means you know statistics
>that the sport was able to survive without anyone knowing for over 100
>years.
Imagine you are a member of a royal court, and responsible hiring the
court composer for elaborate royal balls. You could hire an expensive
composer who has has success in other courts and other balls, or you
could study the charts of lesser known composers and hire relatively
cheaply. Michael Lewis might call the latter approach Moneyball.
That's the similarity.
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
Knowing OPS+ and ERA+ only means you know statistics
> that the sport was able to survive without anyone knowing for over
100
> years.
And human life had survived for thousands of years before anti-biotics
were discovered, so does that mean that anti-biotics are insignificant?
The mere fact that something existed for a long time before certain
changes occurred is not an indication that those changes are not
significant.
Sav...@aol.com
Obviously stats like OPS+ and ERA+ have led to the modern revolution in
statistical analysis of baseball, where now most teams, if not all
teams, have stat geek analysts working for them, like Bill James, Voris
McCracken and others.
The upper management of many teams is now being handled by Ivy League
mathemeticians instead of former baseball players. What a scout "sees"
when he looks at a player has become less and less important over the
years, while the statistical analysis of a player's past performance
has become more and more important.
With the money that it costs to sign and keep the great players that
everybody knows about, people running teams with limited budgets, like
Billy Beane, have had to discover very good players that other people
don't know about. The only way that teams with very low budgets for
player salaries are going to be able to compete with teams like the
Yankees is to be ahead of the curve in analyzing player ability.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Bob Roman wrote:
.
>
> What was on my mind when I wrote that was a 1980s Tom Petty
interview,
> where he complained about a reviewer who critiqued his recent album
as
> if it were a novel, discussing the topics of the songs but not the
> musical qualities. At the time I thought, yeah, I've seen that too.
> The conception of pop reviewers as musical morons (whether fair or
> not) has stuck with me ever since.
>
Lord knows there has been a ton of bad music criticism over the years,
and the review Petty complains about would appear to be a part of that
tradition. In a lot of those cases, we end up knowing a lot more about
the critic than we do the music. That even happens with the best
critics, but at least they keep it to a minimum. There is a lot that
Lester Bangs should be held responsible for.
I don't think it takes a musician to understand, appreciate or explain
the musical components of a song. A musician's viewpoint can be
extraordinarily incisive, and, conversely, it can be extremely
befuddled (c.f. John Meyer's column in Esquire for an example of an
incoherent musician). A firm grounding in music, however, provides a
writer with a grasp of the basic terminology, which makes clear
communication a lot easier. Even if you don't have that vocabulary, it
is still very possible to effectively convey what you think about a
specific work, if you can find a common framework with your audience.
The best writers work to find that intersection. The worst start with
the presumption they are already there.
Bob Roman
>Suppose you don't care at all about who wins and loses but are
>interested in ranking how effective individual players are, and in
>watching 500 foot home runs, and great fielding plays, and also have a
>strong interest in the playing and scoring rules of the game.
>What's your musical equivelent of that?
The musical equivalent of watching 500 foot home runs is enjoying a
beautiful guitar solo, or effective vocal phrasing.
The musical equivalent of appreciating great fielding plays is
admiring a brilliant horn or string chart.
The musical equivalent of understanding how the game is played is
understanding, structurally, the differences among genres.
The musical equivalent of the rules of the game is composition.
Bob Roman
fred.w...@gmail.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Suppose you don't care at all about who wins and loses but are
> interested in ranking how effective individual players are, and in
> watching 500 foot home runs, and great fielding plays, and also have
a
> strong interest in the playing and scoring rules of the game.
>
> What's your musical equivelent of that?
There isn't any. This is an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable,
and a supreme waste of time in regard to music.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Bob Roman wrote:
>
> Imagine you are a member of a royal court, and responsible hiring the
> court composer for elaborate royal balls. You could hire an
expensive
> composer who has has success in other courts and other balls, or you
> could study the charts of lesser known composers and hire relatively
> cheaply. Michael Lewis might call the latter approach Moneyball.
> That's the similarity.
If there was a way of actually coming to some legitimate quantification
by comparison of the "charts," you might be on to something, although I
am pretty sure there is a higher correlation between past performance
and future performance between ballplayers than between composers (the
purely repetitive nature of the actions being assessed being only one
reason).
The term "one hit wonder" refers to a musical phenomenon, not a
baseball phenomenon. Since I don't think there is any legitimate
quantification to compare musicians, I think your similarity is a false
one.
But I know you've got Bruce's interest because you mentioned balls.
Sav...@aol.com
Bob Roman wrote:
> On 27 Feb 2005 11:10:40 -0800, Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> >Suppose you don't care at all about who wins and loses but are
> >interested in ranking how effective individual players are, and in
> >watching 500 foot home runs, and great fielding plays, and also have
a
> >strong interest in the playing and scoring rules of the game.
> >What's your musical equivelent of that?
>
> The musical equivalent of watching 500 foot home runs is enjoying a
> beautiful guitar solo, or effective vocal phrasing.
I don't equate "beauty" with "power." I'd say that the musical
equivelent of a 500 foot HR would be more like a powerful guitar riff,
rather than a "beautiful" guitar solo, or in your vocal comp, not the
efective vocal phrasing, but more the vocal power of somebody like
Howlin' Wolf.
Effective vocal phrasing would seeem to me to be more like the batting
skills of Tony Gwynn or Rod Carew.
Sav...@aol.com
Bob started these comps, not me. He already gave his opinions of what
would be the musical equivelent of the parts of baseball above.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> And human life had survived for thousands of years before
anti-biotics
> were discovered, so does that mean that anti-biotics are
insignificant?
>
> The mere fact that something existed for a long time before certain
> changes occurred is not an indication that those changes are not
> significant.
A completely inaccurate analogy, but thanks for playing.
I didn't say it didn't exist, I said baseball got along nicely without
those stats. Somehow Babe Ruth played his whole career without knowing
what his OPS+ was. Comparing anti-biotics to ERA+ is kind of
ludicrous, isn't it.
And as for your "mere fact," presuming that baseball cannot be
appreciated without a working knowledge of arcane statistics is just
silly. You are just making a fetish of the numbers. They are
irrelevant to an appreciation of baseball. More on point, they are
irrelevant to an appreciation of music.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
---long and pointless post edited---
And precisely what does that have to do with music?
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
> Savo...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > And human life had survived for thousands of years before
> anti-biotics
> > were discovered, so does that mean that anti-biotics are
> insignificant?
> >
> > The mere fact that something existed for a long time before certain
> > changes occurred is not an indication that those changes are not
> > significant.
>
> A completely inaccurate analogy, but thanks for playing.
>
> I didn't say it didn't exist, I said baseball got along nicely
without
> those stats. Somehow Babe Ruth played his whole career without
knowing
> what his OPS+ was. Comparing anti-biotics to ERA+ is kind of
> ludicrous, isn't it.
No, I don't think so. The point is that your "baseball was around for
100 years" without those stats does not tell us whether or not those
stats are meaningful.
If "getting along nicely" means that the games were played with
managers continually using bad criteria for making batting orders, and
for deciding which players should be playing, and for strategic
decisions, than I gues it was "getting along nicely." Many long held
belifs about the game have been disproved by the modern recolution in
statistical analysis. Strategies like sacraficing, hitting and running,
having speed at the top of the lineup, etc... have all proven to be
losing propositions.
> And as for your "mere fact," presuming that baseball cannot be
> appreciated without a working knowledge of arcane statistics is just
> silly. You are just making a fetish of the numbers. They are
> irrelevant to an appreciation of baseball. More on point, they are
> irrelevant to an appreciation of music.
There are many ways to appreciate baseball, but without statistics of
any kind, you would not even be able to watch a 4 game series and tell
me who the best players were. If you had no idea about the past
statistics of any players, and just watched a 4 game series, with no
numbers being mentioned, you could not identify the good hitters from
the bad hitters with any appreciable degree of accuracy. The best
(career) hitter in the games could likely go 2 for 15 in the series,
and a weak hitter could likely hit the ball hard the entire series, and
you would come away with an incorrect assessment of both players.
The differences between good hitters and bad hitters is relatively
small, and the standard deviations from game to game and series to
series are so large, that without numbers, you would not be able to
tell which players were the best hitters.
Music is different, as there is no definitive tangible goal like there
is in baseball (to score runs on offense, prevent runs on defense, and
to win games).
As I said, Bob started these comps, not me. I'm more inclined to agree
with you that you can't draw parallels between baseball and music.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> No, I don't think so. The point is that your "baseball was around for
> 100 years" without those stats does not tell us whether or not those
> stats are meaningful.
>
> If "getting along nicely" means that the games were played with
> managers continually using bad criteria for making batting orders,
and
> for deciding which players should be playing, and for strategic
> decisions, than I gues it was "getting along nicely." Many long held
> belifs about the game have been disproved by the modern recolution in
> statistical analysis. Strategies like sacraficing, hitting and
running,
> having speed at the top of the lineup, etc... have all proven to be
> losing propositions.
>
If you think that the discovery of these stats has had an actual impact
on how the game is played, there would be some improvement in
performance that could be directly attributed to the use of these stats
by managers and general managers, and not attributable to any other
source. There isn't anything to prove that, despite the self-important
bleating of the stat geeks.
>
> There are many ways to appreciate baseball, but without statistics of
> any kind, you would not even be able to watch a 4 game series and
tell
> me who the best players were.
That is probably one of the worst criteria for appreciating baseball
that I can think of. Whatever it may be, baseball is not a test of the
viewer's ability to determine who are the best players. That is what
playing the game is for. At the end of the game, you look at the
scoreboard. Everybody who can count will know who the best players
are.
If you had no idea about the past
> statistics of any players, and just watched a 4 game series, with no
> numbers being mentioned, you could not identify the good hitters from
> the bad hitters with any appreciable degree of accuracy.
And that "accuracy" is the root of all appreciation of baseball? That
just makes playing baseball into an exercise to create numbers to
appreciate. You've got the whole thing backwards.
The best
> (career) hitter in the games could likely go 2 for 15 in the series,
> and a weak hitter could likely hit the ball hard the entire series,
and
> you would come away with an incorrect assessment of both players.
>
So, the reason why they play is to provide you with a means of
assessment of the talents of the various players? If there is any
concept that is better designed to suck the life out of a game, I have
yet to hear it.
> The differences between good hitters and bad hitters is relatively
> small, and the standard deviations from game to game and series to
> series are so large, that without numbers, you would not be able to
> tell which players were the best hitters.
>
And knowing precisely who the best hitters are over a longer period of
time is necessary, or even relevant, for an appreciation of a baseball
game?
Horseshit.
I once saw Roberto Clemente take off for the gap as the batter swung,
catch the sinking liner backhand at his shoetops at the track, never
break stride, and sidearm a strike to second base to double a man off.
In less than ten seconds, without the aid of a calculator, I saw what
everyone in the stadium saw, and I knew what everyone in the stadium
knew; Roberto Clemente was God come to earth in a Pirate uniform.
Nobody needed to be able to recite his range factor to figure that out.
You may tell me that there are five, or fifteen, or five hundred better
outfielders than Clemente because of various stats you have at your
command that "prove" it. You forget that those numbers are averages,
or predictions of, over a course of games or years, how often a certain
result will occur. Your numbers don't give you the slightest hint of
what will or does happen in a specific circumstance. At the moment
Clemente makes that play, those numbers didn't count for shit. Right
here, nearly 40 years later, those numbers still don't count for shit.
Bill Bugge
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109536340.0...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> There are many ways to appreciate baseball, but without statistics of
> any kind, you would not even be able to watch a 4 game series and tell
> me who the best players were. If you had no idea about the past
> statistics of any players, and just watched a 4 game series, with no
> numbers being mentioned, you could not identify the good hitters from
> the bad hitters with any appreciable degree of accuracy.
I would be able to identify the best players and good hitters IN THAT
SERIES, and even select the MVP. Would you have the MVP go to the player
with the best career stats? Would you say the guy who went 8 for twelve on
two flares, two checked swing dribblers, two Baltimore chops, one grounder
which probably should have been scored an error, another which hit an
inattentive baserunner and struck out four times is a better hitter than
someone who hit twelve scorching line drives which were caught? He batted
.667 versus zero.
Moreover, I think you can identify the good hitters from factors other than
stats, such as bat speed, swing, selectiveness etc.
Stats can add to a fan's enjoyment of THE game, but not much to the
enjoyment of A game. Nothing compares to experiencing a game firsthand.
Bill
>
>
Sav...@aol.com
>
> I once saw Roberto Clemente take off for the gap as the batter swung,
> catch the sinking liner backhand at his shoetops at the track, never
> break stride, and sidearm a strike to second base to double a man
off.
> In less than ten seconds, without the aid of a calculator, I saw what
> everyone in the stadium saw, and I knew what everyone in the stadium
> knew; Roberto Clemente was God come to earth in a Pirate uniform.
> Nobody needed to be able to recite his range factor to figure that
out.
And you also once saw Ron Swoboda make one of the greatest catches ever
made in a clutch spot in a world series game. Did you know then that
Swoboda was god come to Earth in a Mets uniform?
Sav...@aol.com
Inth...@aol.com wrote:
> Savo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> If you think that the discovery of these stats has had an actual
impact
> on how the game is played, there would be some improvement in
> performance that could be directly attributed to the use of these
stats
> by managers and general managers, and not attributable to any other
> source.
>There isn't anything to prove that, despite the self-important
> bleating of the stat geeks.
Sure there is. Check the amount of wins per millions of dollars of
salary. Oakland, who started paying serious attention to these stats
before any other teams, is far ahead of the other teams in this
category.
Check the efficiency of Oakland's offense over the past 8 or 10 years.
They are consisitently near the league leaders in runs scored despite
playing in a poor offensive ballpark and despite not having their fair
share of acknowledged big name offensive stars. Beane assembles teams
of hitters with high OBP, patient hitters, and will not let his
managers sacrafice or hit and run hardly at all. Their strategy of
getting the opposition to throw more pitches, getting to the bullpens
sooner, taking walks, and wearing down the opposition's pitching staff
has allowed them to keep winning despite losing former MVPs in Giambi
and Tejada, and also losing several other big name hitters.
Beane finds diamonds in the rough that other teams see no value in,
like Scott Hatteberg for instance.
The Red Sox and Theo Epstein hired Bill James as their head consultant
2 years ago. The first year they led the majors in run scored and lost
in extra innings in game 7 of the ALCS. Last year they made history and
won a 7 game series after losing the first 3 games, and then swept the
Cards in the world series, all the while incorporating James'
strategies and refusing to hardly ever sacrafice or hit and run.
There is plenty of proof of these methods working Fred. If you're
really interested it is documented all over the internet.
Sav...@aol.com
Bill Bugge wrote:
> Stats can add to a fan's enjoyment of THE game, but not much to the
> enjoyment of A game. Nothing compares to experiencing a game
firsthand.
What's wrong with appreciating both?
Being ahead of other teams in analyzing the stats of ameteur players in
the draft is another way that teams like Oakland have been able to stay
ahead of higher budget teams. The A's will never draft a high school
player, especially a pitcher, as the numbers have proven that high
school players have a much lower chance of becoming major leaguers than
college players. High school stats have little meaning, as the players
are so young, and are often playing in areas where there's a poor level
of play.
On the oither hand, the stats of college players in major conferences
can tell you significant things about a player.
As Beane would say in meetings with scouts and others, "I don't care
about his body type, what's his OBP in college?"
Bill James many years ago developed a fairly accurate formula for
predicting how a minor leaguer would do as a major leaguer, based upon
his age, his current leage, home ballpark, etc....
If Fred waas right that knowledge of these modern stats means nothing
in terms of a team's performance, you would not have teams employing
these "stat geeks" to help them make decisions.
fred.w...@gmail.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
> If Fred waas right that knowledge of these modern stats means nothing
> in terms of a team's performance, you would not have teams employing
> these "stat geeks" to help them make decisions.
Teams would have staff phrenologists if they thought it would improve
team play.
I am still asking you for one instance in which quantifiable
performance has been improved simply because teams know these stats.
You are mystifying the simple and straightforward, creating a kabbalah
of numbers for no other reason than to set you apart from the "common"
fan. You've done the same thing with music, so there is no surprise
here. The fact that both attempts get you nowhere is also no surprise.
Sav...@aol.com
Bill Bugge wrote:
>
> I would be able to identify the best players and good hitters IN THAT
> SERIES, and even select the MVP. Would you have the MVP go to the
player
> with the best career stats? Would you say the guy who went 8 for
twelve on
> two flares, two checked swing dribblers, two Baltimore chops, one
grounder
> which probably should have been scored an error, another which hit an
> inattentive baserunner and struck out four times is a better hitter
than
> someone who hit twelve scorching line drives which were caught? He
batted
> .667 versus zero.
>
> Moreover, I think you can identify the good hitters from factors
other than
> stats, such as bat speed, swing, selectiveness etc.
And just how would you measure bat speed from the stands?
As for selectiveness, one reason that the best hitter could go 2 for 15
in that series is because he just happened to be a lot lsss selective
than normal during that series. If you had never seen these guys
before, and did not know anything about their stats, how would you
possibly determine that he was normally very selective?
Bill Bugge
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1109546697....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Answer my questions and I might answer yours. You're employing your usual
tactic of evading the issue by misdirection.
Bill
Sav...@aol.com
I think the only question you asked would be if I would award the MVP
to the player with the best career stats.
You've misunderstood my point. Your mission in observing these 4 games
is not to pick the MVP of the series, it's to identify who the best
players are so that your organization (you're a scout) can make the
right decisions when it comes to trades and drafting of players.
Bucky Dent was the MVP of the 1978 world series. If you watched that
series and knew nothing about any of the players, you could have
awarded Dent the MVP, but you may not have recognized that Reggie Smith
was actually a much better hitter than Dent, because Reggie had a bad
(5 for 25) series.
Now it comes time for you, as a scout, to evaluate the players in the
series. You could, based on that 6 games series, tell your organization
that they should pick up Brian Doyle, because you just saw him have a
great (7 FOR 16) series. Based strictly on WHAT YOU SAW in those 6
games, you could easily perceive Doyle as a better hitter than Reggie
Smith, or Garvey (5 for 24).
This is my point Bill, that without keeping track of numbers, you can't
just watch a few games and identify the best players.
Sav...@aol.com
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
> Bill Bugge wrote:
> > Moreover, I think you can identify the good hitters from factors
> other than
> > stats, such as bat speed, swing, selectiveness etc.
The only way to truly know if the batter is selective or not is to look
at his walk totals, his strikeout totals, and eben better, his pitches
seen per AB.
Oakland charts every AB for every one of their players. Each pitch is
markewd down as to whether or not it was in the strike zone, and
whether or not the natter swung at the pitch. They keep track of each
players percentage of balls swung at, as to how often, when they swung,
that they were swinging at balls that were in the strike zone, or out
of the strike zone.
So while you are right that selectivenmess is extremely important, in a
short 4 game series you will probablly not get enough data to draw a
proper conclusion on each batter's selectiveness.
Standard deciations are just too large in baseball.
A .275 hitter could easily go 4 for 4 in a game, and he could just as
easily go 0 for 15 in a 4 game series.
If you Dave Winfield (Mr. May) in the 1981 world series you could
conclude that he was an awful hitter, based on his 1 for 22 performance
in the series. If you knew nothing at all about his past numbers, and
simply watched those games fromm the stands, with no program, no stats
of any kind, you would think that Winfield was a poor offensive player,
wouldn't you?
fred.w...@gmail.com
Bill Bugge wrote:
>
> Answer my questions and I might answer yours. You're employing your
usual
> tactic of evading the issue by misdirection.
He's already ducked having to explain the idiotic things he said about
music by getting into baseball. You are a couple dodges too late.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> Tregembo wrote:
> > <Sav...@aol.com> wrote
> >
> >
> > > I don't even see why the listener would want to listen to 10 or 12
> > > tracks in a row by the same artist. That's boring. Most people
> would
> > > rather hear a mix of music
> >
> > Covered in someone else's response but clearly a huge number of
> artists
> > albums are sold vs. various artists albums. Whether pre-sequencing
> JUST for
> > that artist's music or post sequencing for the music AND the message.
> I'm
> > sure Ronco, Rhino & KTEL have made a buck over the years but don't
> compare
> > to any popular artist's catelogue.
>
> But if we all had the power to order any CD that we wanted with any mix
> of songs in any order, that would be different. Far more CDs sell by
> individual artists, mainly for legal reasons, not because people would
> prefer it that way if given a choice.
Most attempts to market such custom compliations have been dismal
failures. Granted there were always limits on what songs were available
for legal reasons, but if the idea were so popular they would have done
well enough to get more catalogs available for them.
> Over the years when I was DJing I would often have a customer ask me to
> make them a tape of specific songs that they wanted, always from a mix
> of artists.
Because if they wanted one artist's stuff, they'd just buy it.
> Far more people listen to music on the radio than people who purchase
> music regularly, and all market research shows that people prefer a mix
> of different artists when they are listening to music.
Can you point me to such market research?
As far as I know, radio stations don't play a mix of artists because
people don't like hearing all one artist, but because people don't all
agree on the same artists. It's not that Phil Collins fans don't want to
hear an hour of Phil Collins, but that the people who don't like Phil
Collins might sit through one song by him, but not through an hour.
> But
> > on a smaller scale, there are Elvis, Beatles and Sinatra shows every
> weekend
> > in almost every major market in the U. S.
>
> Yes, there are fanatics on some of the most popular artists of all time
> like that, but most people still prefer a mix of music. And on those
> shows, they do not play an entire album in the sequence that it was
> released in.
Because they're trying to appeal to fans who already own the albums.
> > Comparatively I KNOW I'm a tiny collector/buyer/listener than most
> here, but
> > I always listen to an album from start to finish at least once and
> > often...often, sequencing or not.
>
> Why?
>
> Do you feel some sense of commitment to have to listen to the entire
> album in order as is was intended to be played or something?
>
> Maybe it's just a different mindset. I've always been a singles
> collector who bought albums for convenience, cost, stereo versions,
> etc... as I outlined in a different post. To me, it was always about
> individual songs, and I've never bought into this thing about the songs
> on an album having anything to do with each other.
It's sad, really, that someone who spends so much time on music so
limits the way he appreciates it.
Sav...@aol.com
I'd say the opposite, that it's sad that most people just fall into
line with the way that the record companies push them.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> > I'd say the opposite, that it's sad that most people just fall into
> > line with the way that the record companies push them.
>
> bury your nose in some more industry sales/airplay charts, so you can
> figure out what music to like.
Here are songs that never made any chart and are among my top favorites
of all time:
5 ¦ Honey Hush ¦ Johnny Burnette Trio - 56
6 ¦ Rub A Little Boogie ¦ Champion Jack Dupree - 54
7 ¦ Spoonful ¦ Howlin' Wolf - 60
9 ¦ Midnight Cannonball ¦ Joe Turner - 55
10 ¦ What About Your Daughter? ¦ J.B. Lenoir - 57
11 ¦ Gumbo Blues ¦ Smiley Lewis - 52
15 ¦ Good Rocking Tonight ¦ Elvis Presley - 54
16 ¦ Head Happy With Wine ¦ Sticks McGhee - 53
17 ¦ Matchbox ¦ Carl Perkins - 57
18 ¦ The Train Kept A'Rollin' ¦ Johnny Burnette Trio - 56
19 ¦ Before You Accuse Me ¦ Bo Diddley - 57
Eleven of my twenty favorite (55%) recordings of all time never made
any chart, pop, R & B or country.
24 ¦ All Mama's Children ¦ Carl Perkins - 56
25 ¦ End Of The Road ¦ Jerry Lee Lewis - 56
27 ¦ Dark Is The Night (part 1) ¦ B.B. King - 56
28 ¦ Baby I Need You ¦ El Dorados - 54
29 ¦ Stand By Me ¦ Guitar Slim - 55
30 ¦ Modern Don Juan ¦ Buddy Holly - 56
31 ¦ One Hand Loose ¦ Charlie Feathers - 56
33 ¦ All By Myself ¦ Johnny Burnette Trio - 56
35 ¦ I'm Left, You're Right, She's Gone ¦ Elvis Presley - 55
38 ¦ I Don't Care If The Sun Don't Shine ¦ Elvis Presley - 54
41 ¦ Gone, Gone, Gone ¦ Carl Perkins - 55
And 22 of my 41 favorite favorites (54%) of all time never made any
chart, pop, R & B or country.
Apparently a record making the charts does not have much bearing on my
personal taste Mike.
I am currently listening to "Drunk, Drunk, Drunk" by the
Kidds....hardly a hit record.
A person can be interested in which records were popular without having
it affect their personal taste Mike.
Sav...@aol.com
> > line with the way that the record companies push them.
>
> bury your nose in some more industry sales/airplay charts, so you can
> figure out what music to like.
Mike, I've never bought current records for myself based on charts.
When I DJ'd I had to keep up with hits, but for my personal stuff, I've
always bought mainly older material.
My interest in the charts concerning the past is in documenting the
popular records of past years to get an understanding of the evolution
of the music. I fail to see how me looking for the R & B hits of 1950
in 1982 would constitute "falling in line with the way that the record
companies were pushing me."
Most of the records I was looking for not even in print.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com, neurotically crunching numbers as usual:
>
> > And 22 of my 41 favorite favorites (54%) of all time never made any
> > chart, pop, R & B or country.
>
> musical aesthetic is a direct reaction to the charts, whether it's in
> agreement or otherwise. You're more of a slave to music-biz marketing
> than most people.
Mike, most of these songs were out before I was born. Most were out of
print when I first bought them. How can I be a slave to marketing?
If I was slave to marketing I would have been buying current product
when I was a teenager, instead of collecting original 45s by people
like Fats Domino and Chuck Berry.
I was so unaffected by record company marketing that I never even heard
something like "Stairway To Heaven" until about 5 years after it was
out, despite the fact that I was 14 years old in 1971, and it was the
most popular song among most of the kids in my high school.
When the rest of the kids my age were buying the popular albums of the
day, I was busy looking for Charlie Feathers records and original 78s
from the early 50s.
The fact that I am knowledgable about the charts does not have anything
to do with which records I personally like. That knowledge was acquired
years after I bought most of these records.
Sav...@aol.com
So the record companies in 1980 were attempting to market long out of
print black music to a 23 year old white guy. They wanted me to spend
my money on old out of print 78s rather than to but current product?
In 1980 I bought a load of about 200 original R & B 78s for about
$600.00.
I guess I must be thick, I don't see how that makes me fall in line
with record company marketing.
I'd say that you are much more what they are aiming at, somebody who
buys a decent amount of new releases every year, and will buy many
things by artists that are not really selling very well.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > So the record companies in 1980 were attempting to market long out
of
> > print black music to a 23 year old white guy. They wanted me to
spend
> > my money on old out of print 78s rather than to but current
product?
> >
> > In 1980 I bought a load of about 200 original R & B 78s for about
> > $600.00.
> >
> > I guess I must be thick, I don't see how that makes me fall in line
> > with record company marketing.
>
How
> does this make you more righteous?
No I'm not. R & B records were not marketed to any white people in
1950. I fall completely out of any marketing strategies that any record
companies ever had.
> And what happened to you not complaining about what other people are
> interested in?
I'm not complaing about anything Mike. I started a discussion as to why
people feel compelled to listen to an album from start to finish even
after they have already decided that there are some tracks on the album
that they don't like very much.
This thread is now up to about 100 posts, so people must be interested
in discussing this.
What you do is try and kill threads by putting a damper on the thing in
the thread that interests people, because it doesn't happen to interest
you. If a thread doesn't imterest you, just ignore it.
There are obviously many people in these groups who enjoy discussing
radio station charts, and all iinds of "accounting" things that you
aren't interested in. You're not going to change any of those people,
anymore than you will be changed into going to the library to research
old charts on microfilm.
Bill Bugge
>
>
> This is my point Bill, that without keeping track of numbers, you
> can't just watch a few games and identify the best players.
I think your point is that reading a box score is more enjoyable than seeing
a game.
And I think it carries over to your feelings about music.
Another way of putting it is that aesthetics are not as important as record
keeping, neither in baseball or in music.
--
Bill