You HAD To Be There----Or Did You?
Roger Ford
How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
(preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
happening)?
Bruce (if I'm reading him right) says it was NOT neccessary for him to
have been there.....indeed he seems to look on the fact of NOT being
there and coming very late to 50's music as a positive boon since he
says it enables him to have a much more objective approach to the
music.uncluttered by the nostalgia,sentimentality and emotionalism
towards it that most of the rest of us carry in varying degrees.
I dont really buy that...for starters I don't believe that coming to
trhe music late gives the listener any kind of advantage,objective or
otherwise,at all.
Yes,Bruce,Bob and Dean are living proof that it is possible to be a
50's music fan (and a pretty damn knowlegeable one too!) WITHOUT
having experienced the times first hand but I do think that on balance
you really HAD to be there....and I base my opinion on the fact that I
KNOW it hurt me badly in some ways that I missed out on a lot of the
50's music myself first hand----due in my case,not to any major fault
with my age (tho I could have done with being born five years
earlier!) but rather to location problems,especially as far as 50's
R&R,R&B and doowop was concerned.
Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
(and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
of the time and no first hand perspective.
What comments do others have on this subject?
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!
Edward Bielcik
>I have a question for everyone here......
>
>How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
>that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
>experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
>(preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
>happening)?
>Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
>emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
>(and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
>choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
>way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
>way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
>of the time and no first hand perspective.
Is it possible to be objective about a record that reminds you of
your first love?
Regards
Ed
Dean F.
> How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
> that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
> experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
> (preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
> happening)?
I came of age in the '70s and early '80s and acn listen to some of the
godawfulest pop dreck of those decades (and there was plenty of it!) with a
bemused grin, rather than by reacting violently, simply because I heard that
music when it was new. However, at this late date, I generally avoid that
kind of stuff in favor of what I consider to be the best music of the '70s
and '80s. I'll take the Staple Singers over Shaun Cassidy any old time!
> Bruce (if I'm reading him right) says it was NOT neccessary for him to
> have been there.....indeed he seems to look on the fact of NOT being
> there and coming very late to 50's music as a positive boon since he
> says it enables him to have a much more objective approach to the
> music.uncluttered by the nostalgia,sentimentality and emotionalism
> towards it that most of the rest of us carry in varying degrees.
I have to agree with Bruce.
I don't know how many older people over the years have become offended when
I pointed out that one of their favorite '50s or '60s hits, from a purely
musical standpoint, was pure garbage. At this point, however, I'm willing to
keep my mouth shut and simply let those folks enjoy their memories.
(Actually, I have Bruce to thank for indirectly teaching me to be more
tolerant of other people's tastes. So thanks, Bruce!)
> Yes,Bruce,Bob and Dean are living proof that it is possible to be a
> 50's music fan (and a pretty damn knowlegeable one too!) WITHOUT
> having experienced the times first hand but I do think that on balance
> you really HAD to be there....
Why, thank you, Rog! I owe whatever knowledge I've accumulated to a
combination of talking with knowledgable older collectors (like you), and
reading the wealth of information available in books and on the liner notes
of the album and CD comps I own. I was particularly impressed with Donn
Fileti's liner notes to the Relic LPs that I bought in the '80s.
There were two major contributing factors to my developing a love of '50s
rock 'n' roll:
1. In the early to mid 1970s, the music of rock 'n' roll's first decade
enjoyed a huge revival. As a kid during that era, I listened to oldies shows
on the radio, I watched "Happy Days" on TV, and when I about seven, my
parents and I saw "American Graffiiti" at the drive-in. (Remember those?)
2. When I eight years old, my father ordered a multi-LP oldies boxed set
from a TV ad. That was how I became intimately familiar with some of the
biggest hits of 1955-1962 (or thereabouts). Four years later, I got my first
stereo as a birthday present and immediately took to scouting the record
stores, tag sales, flea markets and second-hand shops for vintage vinyl.
Twenty-three years later, I have about 1,500 singles, 1,000 albums, and (at
last count) 750 CDs. And this is six-and-a-half years after I conducted a
major vinyl purge!
> Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
> emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
> (and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
> choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
> way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
> way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
> of the time and no first hand perspective.
Again, I speak only for myself. But I for one am glad to be into the music
now, when so much incredible material that few (or even no!) people heard
back in the '50s continues to become available. A lot of the best '50s rock
'n' roll I've ever heard never charted nationally and, in some cases, was
never even released back then.
> What comments do others have on this subject?
I'm thankful that in general, older folks who are serious about the music
tend to welcome younger fans and collectors into the fold. The vast majority
of '50s music fanatics that I've met over the years were not "territorial"
about "their turf," but rather were thrilled that somebody 20-25 years
younger than they would be trying to keep the music alive after they were
gone.
And rest assured, y'all: as long as I'm alive and kicking, there'll be an
R&B, rockabilly, or doo-wop song playing somewhere!
--Dean (born in 1966)
Eramon1
>I don't know how many older people over the years have become offended when
>I pointed out that one of their favorite '50s or '60s hits, from a purely
>musical standpoint, was pure garbage.
If you consider time to be a dimension then I suggest we can't possibly see a
record from the past in context unless we were there.
A record can be perfect for its time but not perfect for *this* time. What made
it perfect before might become fashionable again (or might not) and what might
be seen as garbage today could be re-evaluated later as a classic.
I'd also include one's hormonal history at a certain time as being important.
How else could "Love Grows", a piece of fluff if I ever heard one, ever be
considered better than "Will You Love Me Tomorrow"? And (by the same logic)
vice versa?
To not have been there means a piece is missing in any evaluation.
-Eric
SavoyBG
>How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
>that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
>experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
>(preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
>happening)?
>Bruce (if I'm reading him right) says it was NOT neccessary for him to
>have been there
>Yes,Bruce,Bob and Dean are living proof that it is possible to be a
>50's music fan (and a pretty damn knowlegeable one too!)
>WITHOUT
>having experienced the times first hand but I do think that on balance
>you really HAD to be there
When all you old farts are dead, the three of will get together and discuss it.
>t I
>KNOW it hurt me badly in some ways that I missed out on a lot of the
>50's music myself first hand----due in my case,not to any major fault
>with my age (tho I could have done with being born five years
>earlier!)
> but rather to location problems,especially as far as 50's
>R&R,R&B and doowop was concerned.
Perhaps you're better off as you are. You could have grown up in some sterile
market like Phoenix, and you would possibly never have developed a taste for R
& B. Even worse, you could have grown up with Ed and his buddies and virtually
only like Doo-Wops :-)
Bruce Grossberg
Roger Ford
>>From: mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford)
>
>>How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
>>that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
>>experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
>>(preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
>>happening)?
>
>>t I
>>KNOW it hurt me badly in some ways that I missed out on a lot of the
>>50's music myself first hand----due in my case,not to any major fault
>>with my age (tho I could have done with being born five years
>>earlier!)
>
>> but rather to location problems,especially as far as 50's
>>R&R,R&B and doowop was concerned.
>
>Perhaps you're better off as you are. You could have grown up in some sterile
>market like Phoenix, and you would possibly never have developed a taste for R
>& B. Even worse, you could have grown up with Ed and his buddies and virtually
>only like Doo-Wops :-)
>
Actually whenever I dwell on this subject I always cheer myself up and
look on the bright side by considering for a second just how much
WORSE things really could have been----I mean I could have been born
and lived in some God forsaken rock 'n' roll-less hellhole on Earth
like Commie China or someplace like that!
SavoyBG
>I was particularly impressed with Donn
>Fileti's liner notes to the Relic LPs that I bought in the '80s.
I've known Donn for almost 30 years now. Very unique man, and incredibly
knowledgable about this music. He co-hosted with George Lavatelli and I when we
presented the results of our 1959 vocal groups survey on WFUV back in 1999.
Right now he's collecting travel guides from the early 1900's, paying some
pretty high prices on e-bay.
I wrote the liner notes for two of the Relic releases, Buster Brown and Arthur
"Big Boy" Crudup, CD's that came out in the 90's.
Bruce Grossberg
Mike Holcombe
Ford) wrote:
>Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
>emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
>(and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
>choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
>way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
>way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
>of the time and no first hand perspective.
>ROGER FORD
>------------------------
I don't think there is any objectivity to musical taste. I have spent
a long while playing Fifties music for my contemporaries born in the
mid-Forties, and for the younger set. I have seen no objective
standard that enables me to predict how either group will react to a
particular recording.
In surveys of devoted fans of any genre (doo wop, rockabilly, general
pop) there is sufficient divergence of opinion to make the judging of
ice skating look like a comparatively predictable affair. The further
away from the event, the more erratic the judgement. That doesn't make
anyone less right, but the experience of living through it at least
gives the older set more time to sort through their opinions.
That those opinions are influenced by things other than what is in the
grooves is not the exclusive province of any vintage.
Prince Partridge (or Patridge) anyone? -- Mike H.
______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Binaries.net = SPEED+RETENTION+COMPLETION = http://www.binaries.net
Jack Grouell
You did not have to be there to have an appreciation for the music of a
particular time - but if you were there, your reaction to specific songs and
your emotional involvement when listening to that music will be far
different from someone who was not there. As a simple test, listen to the
American Graffiti sound track, then watch the movie, then listen to the
sound track again. I guarantee you will have a totally different
appreciation for the music when you can connect it to scenes from the movie.
Factor this by at least 100 to understand how having particular music as
part of your everyday experiences amplifies the emotional connection and the
intensity of experiencing that music again many years later.
Jack
born 1943
"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c6abe58...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
Dean F.
"SavoyBG" wrote:
> I wrote the liner notes for two of the Relic releases, Buster Brown and
Arthur
> "Big Boy" Crudup, CD's that came out in the 90's.
I don't have those CDs, but if you wrote the liner notes, Bruce, I'm
guessing they're pretty damned accurate! (And no, I wasn't being a
smart-ass. I may find you annoying from time to time, but I also respect
your knowledge.)
Bob Roman
Ford) wrote:
>I have a question for everyone here......
>
>How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
>that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
>experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
>(preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
>happening)?
A couple issues are being mixed here. Is the important issue living
through the period of the music, or is it the person's age when first
hearing the music? A lot of the hits from the '50s -- by Elvis,
Chuck, Richard, Fats -- I've known since I was an infant. They are
part of the culture. So in that sense I am entitled to be nostalgic
about them, in my way, as anyone.
But I get the sense what you are saying now is that the important
issue is what music you shared with your friends during your
coming-of-age years: What music was played on your first date; what
music was on the radio the first time she let you touch her; what
music was on the radio the first time she let you go farther... Maybe
it's true you can't get past those things in making an "objective"
judgement, but that can't be all there is.
Yes, of course nostalgia can influence how you see an old record. But
let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. It's possible to
appreciate a record for the qualities it has as well as for the
memories associated with it. If it was all just nostalgia, what would
be the point of having a conversation about it?
It is possible to look at an old record and find something new in it.
In the past 15 years I've learned to better appreciate the artistry
Little Richard put into his music. Before that I liked him just
because he sounded proto-punk -- I didn't see the difference between
his versions and versions by the Beatles, the MC5, or the Blasters.
Now I know better.
Similarly, it's possible to look at old favorites and find them
lacking. When I was 12, 13 my favorite artist was Bob Seger. His
were the first two records I ever bought with my own money. But when
I bought one of those on CD a couple years ago I was very
disappointed. It didn't grow with me.
Bob Roman
David Stockhoff
Great thread going here. I guess I am even more out of the picture
here. Not only did I not grow up in the 1950s but I missed the 70s
revivle too. But, over my short years, I have found a great
appreciation for music of the 1950s. Part of my love comes from being
a bit of a "dreamer". Every image I have of that era (other than the
civil rights issues) show a simpler, easier time. Neighbors were more
than the guy next door, he had a name! You knew everyone and people
treated others with respect. Is this just me?
I do feel that living through a period makes your appreciation for the
music stronger! But, anyone at anyage can really dig these sounds and
appreciate it artistry.
David :0)
(Born 1979)
http://www.doowopcaferadio.com
Tom Vitale
60's (having grown up in Newark) and didn't start to really get into 50's
music until the 70's. When I see the nostalgia stuff, not only doesn't it
mean anything to me, but I find it somewhat corny, and trivializing of the
music. I enjoy the music for what it is.
Roger Ford <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3c6abe58...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
Bob Roman
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>I guess the stuff I feel most sentimental about is 60s music, which is the
>music of my adolescence.
>
>When people say Ronnie Spector couldn't sing very well, I can't see it. Her
>voice still kills me.
That has nothing to do with nostalgia. She had/has a thin voice, but
she communicates the material well with it.
Bob Roman
Edward Bielcik
>
>Perhaps you're better off as you are. You could have grown up in some sterile
>market like Phoenix, and you would possibly never have developed a taste for R
>& B. Even worse, you could have grown up with Ed and his buddies and virtually
>only like Doo-Wops :-)
Bruce, the first part of this post is mainly for you, but the rest
will try to answer Roger's question.
Believe it or not, I'm not at all offended by your remark Bruce. It
was the culture that I grew up in. Doo wop isn't just what we
*liked*, it was part of what we *were*. Group harmony is the "folk
music" of the city. I harmonized in hallways with my buddies the same
way that a guy in Missisppi might have sat on his porch and strummed
his guitar. The music was us and we were the music. Groups like The
Crests, Mystics, Passions, Earls, Dion and the Belmonts, etc. all
came from the city streets, just like me. So of course the
identification with this form of music is very strong and almost
impossible to be objective about.
Now then, this discussion started in another string. And I think I
can explain why you really did have "to be there" to understand why
many of us have a point of view so different from Bruce's. I was
going to go on a bit and try to explain why the lyrics to *most* of
the popular music of the late 50's-early 60's wasn't all that
important to us. And why the penile/vaginal thing is pretty silly.
So here goes.
First, the way we listened to music is very different from the way
kids listen to it now. In fact, it was probably different from the
way *you* listened to music. The kids in my neighborhood hung out on
the roofs of tenements, on the docks, in neighborhood parks, on the
stoops, and just about everywhere else but at home. <g> Many of us
carried tiny transistor radios around so we would have tunes while we
made out with our girl friends, played cards, drank cheap wine, and
just hung out. Everyplace we went we had tunes, but we had little
choice of what we were listening to. There were no portable tape
recorders. In fact I didn't know anyone that even had one at home.
So we just listened to what was on. And from a squeeky little no
fidelity radio at that! Which means we were going to hear Leslie
Gore, The Volumes, The Ronettes, Neil Sedaka, Chubby Checker, Frank
Sinatra, The Earls, and Sue Thompson, all in a row, without any choice
or selection.
This is very important to note and repeat. We had almost *no choice*
as to what we were listening to. Of course you might pick a favorite
staion and DJ, but popular music was popular music, so if you weren't
listening to a DJ with a specialty show, like Allan Fredricks, or a
heavier R&B leaning, like Jocko, you might be listening to damned near
*anything* that was popular. What's more, we didn't always have a
choice of station. We listened to whatever we could tune in, which,
with those shitty little radios, wasn't much. <g>
Now then, every once in a while a record would come on that would make
us take notice. "Blue Moon", "The Duke of Earl", "Rama Lama Ding
Dong", "Do You Love Me", "Bristol Stomp", "Remember Then", "Heart and
Soul" and some others were big with my crowd. Those were the records
that we bought and played at dances, at parties, and at home until
they were worn out. But *most* of the music that we listened to was
just background noise.
Understand this. It *was* just background noise. So we paid *very
little* attention to the lyrics. Leslie Gore, Joannie Summmers, Ricky
Nelson, Tommy Roe, Bobby Vee, Robin Ward, Trini Lopez, Andy Williams,
Jay & The Americans, Gene Pitney, and god only knows how many others,
went in one ear and out the other without stopping for a second. And,
therefore, it wasn't a gender thing at all. No penile. No vaginal.
Either the *sound* grabbed us or it didn't.
We were not self styled "historians" or critics. We probably didn't
get to hear 90% of the music that was produced in the USA. And,
believe me, we didn't *care*, because we knew that as soon as one
record lost popularity there would be another one to take its place,
and there was always *something* on the radio.
The only way that I and my friends digressed from this rather simple
way of enjoying our music was to try to dig up doo wops that were
earlier, or from another area, that we might like better than what was
on the local stations. And, being from Manhattan, we were lucky
enough to have Times Square Records within walking distance. So we
searched around in the "dollar" and "two dollar" records for good
stuff, and of course, we found plenty. <g> There were other record
stores in the area that carried group oldies as well, so we never
lacked for tunes. And we were able to stick with what we loved.
Anyway, that's the story. No deep thoughts about the *meaning* of the
music no thoughts about who was the most deserving for his
contribution, no thoughts about exploitation, and certainly no grading
system.
So we who were there, and those who came to love the music later on,
are discussing records from a completely different point of view.
Both are valid in their own ways, but really from different planets.
Regards
Ed
Bob Roman
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>"Bob Roman" <Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3c6b5363....@news.supernews.com...
>> That has nothing to do with nostalgia. She had/has a thin voice, but
>> she communicates the material well with it.
>---------------
>Kinda like Josephine Baker, huh?
>(:^)
Unfortunately I can't be objective about Josephine Baker. I lost my
virginity to a harelipped Parisian prostitute while getting a backrub
from Josephine in the '30s.
Bob Roman
SavoyBG
> I lost my virginity in my 30s.
A little late, huh?
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>From: bie...@worldnet.att.net (Edward Bielcik)
>Understand this. It *was* just background noise.
> Leslie Gore, Joannie Summmers, Ricky
>Nelson, Tommy Roe, Bobby Vee, Robin Ward, Trini Lopez, Andy Williams,
>Jay & The Americans, Gene Pitney, and god only knows how many others,
>went in one ear and out the other without stopping for a second.
Someone must have been paying attention for these artists to all have top ten
national hits, and most of them with # 1 songs.
Bruce Grossberg
Jack Warner
knowledge with collecting. As to age, I respect anyone who enjoys the music
& if a collector, views it as something more than an investment. I'm glad
that there's some young blood in the hobby, otherwise the whole thing folds
it's tent & disappears in a few years. The body of knowledge needs to
incorporate the old stories however or it all becomes some kind of lab
experiment too sterile to be interesting.
"Tom Vitale" <vit...@NOSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:%bFa8.79795$th4.25...@news02.optonline.net...
Edward Bielcik
>Unfortunately I can't be objective about Josephine Baker. I lost my
>virginity to a harelipped Parisian prostitute while getting a backrub
>from Josephine in the '30s.
You too?!!
Regards
Ed
Cathy D
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I have a question for everyone here......
>
> How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
> that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
> experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
> (preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
> happening)?
No, it is not necessary to have lived through the 50's or 60's to
appreciate the music. No one alive today heard the music of Bach,
Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, etc. when it was originally performed and
yet many thousands of people appreciate that kind of music. The
difference between living during the time a music is popular and coming
to the music at a later date is that your reasons for liking a song may
include nostaglic ones such as memories of a first date, your first
kiss, a particular girlfriend or boyfriend, etc. Whereas someone coming
to the music at a later date may not asscociate those kind of memories
with the song. However, whatever your reasons for liking/disliking a
song those reasons are still subjective.
> Bruce (if I'm reading him right) says it was NOT neccessary for him to
> have been there.....indeed he seems to look on the fact of NOT being
> there and coming very late to 50's music as a positive boon since he
> says it enables him to have a much more objective approach to the
> music.uncluttered by the nostalgia,sentimentality and emotionalism
> towards it that most of the rest of us carry in varying degrees.
Liking or disliking a song comes down to personal taste, and your taste
in music is going to affect what songs you like. It think it is highly
unlikely that if a particular song playing on the radio doesn't fit
your personal taste that you are going to associate it with a
particular memory. If the song does fits ones taste than it will come
to be associated with a particular memory. I think that's true whatever
the circumstances. The songs that will become associated with your
memories are going to be the songs that fit your personal taste. And
personal taste can be a changeable thing. You may enjoy hearing a song
for the memories it brings back but I don't think that it necessarily
follows that you still believe it is a great song.
For a song to be acclaimed as a great song by the majority of people
there has to be more to the song than just great memories because of
our individual tastes in music and because of our individual
experiences when hearing that song for the first time.
Cathy :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Roger Ford
Bielcik) wrote:
>
>>
Terrific post Ed....just a few comments if I may....
>>Perhaps you're better off as you are. You could have grown up in some sterile
>>market like Phoenix, and you would possibly never have developed a taste for R
>>& B. Even worse, you could have grown up with Ed and his buddies and virtually
>>only like Doo-Wops :-)
>
>Bruce, the first part of this post is mainly for you, but the rest
>will try to answer Roger's question.
>
>Believe it or not, I'm not at all offended by your remark Bruce. It
>was the culture that I grew up in. Doo wop isn't just what we
>*liked*, it was part of what we *were*. Group harmony is the "folk
>music" of the city. I harmonized in hallways with my buddies the same
>way that a guy in Missisppi might have sat on his porch and strummed
>his guitar. The music was us and we were the music. Groups like The
>Crests, Mystics, Passions, Earls, Dion and the Belmonts, etc. all
>came from the city streets, just like me. So of course the
>identification with this form of music is very strong and almost
>impossible to be objective about.
>
This is the totally "alien" part to me of course as there was never
any of this "four guys harmonizing under a street lamp" stuff going on
in London----but though we never hung out singing in hallways and on
street corners we DID hang out in the dirty,tough East London streets
in probably much the same way as you guys did,absorbing what little
music we could----our main disadvantage being that the access to music
for us kids here at that time was much,much more limited than it was
in NYC
>Now then, this discussion started in another string. And I think I
>can explain why you really did have "to be there" to understand why
>many of us have a point of view so different from Bruce's. I was
>going to go on a bit and try to explain why the lyrics to *most* of
>the popular music of the late 50's-early 60's wasn't all that
>important to us. And why the penile/vaginal thing is pretty silly.
>So here goes.
>
Ed,I agree with this 101%!
We just came off this whole lyrics argument but to repeat,I was just
like you---I never took much notice of the lyrics then and I still
don't today.Its the overall *SOUND* of the record that counts!
And it's by that sound that the record basically stands or falls.
>First, the way we listened to music is very different from the way
>kids listen to it now. In fact, it was probably different from the
>way *you* listened to music. The kids in my neighborhood hung out on
>the roofs of tenements, on the docks, in neighborhood parks, on the
>stoops, and just about everywhere else but at home. <g> Many of us
>carried tiny transistor radios around so we would have tunes while we
>made out with our girl friends, played cards, drank cheap wine, and
>just hung out. Everyplace we went we had tunes, but we had little
>choice of what we were listening to. There were no portable tape
>recorders. In fact I didn't know anyone that even had one at home.
>So we just listened to what was on. And from a squeeky little no
>fidelity radio at that! Which means we were going to hear Leslie
>Gore, The Volumes, The Ronettes, Neil Sedaka, Chubby Checker, Frank
>Sinatra, The Earls, and Sue Thompson, all in a row, without any choice
>or selection.
>
We too just listened to what came on the radio----except that over
here the BBC playlist would have been MUCH worse---much more mundane
and boring,not to mention "square"---than the example playlist you
gave!
>This is very important to note and repeat. We had almost *no choice*
>as to what we were listening to. Of course you might pick a favorite
>staion and DJ, but popular music was popular music, so if you weren't
>listening to a DJ with a specialty show, like Allan Fredricks, or a
>heavier R&B leaning, like Jocko, you might be listening to damned near
>*anything* that was popular. What's more, we didn't always have a
>choice of station. We listened to whatever we could tune in, which,
>with those shitty little radios, wasn't much. <g>
>
If you had a good radio set you could get the AFN station (American
Forces Network) in Germany pretty clear...whose signal was strong
enough to reach across most of Britain.
AFN,not suprisingly given their target audience (serving American
G.I's)----was the "hippest" station around-----I listened to them as
much as possible because they played nearly all American records,they
played lots of rock 'n' roll and they played the LATEST USA records
ages before we got them here in the UK----you almost always heard the
new Elvis FIRST on AFN!
Next best station was Radio Luxembourg which was at least partially
teen orientated and if you hit the right show with the right deejay
you could hear a solid couple of hours of decent stuff.
Lastly and definitely leastly was the staid old BBC who just never
really got their heads round rock 'n' roll----at least until the
advent of The Beatles (and more importantly the competition from the
60's pirate radio stations!!)----and for years buried said collective
heads in the sand hoping against hope that the big bad rock 'n' roll
demon would go away
>Now then, every once in a while a record would come on that would make
>us take notice. "Blue Moon", "The Duke of Earl", "Rama Lama Ding
>Dong", "Do You Love Me", "Bristol Stomp", "Remember Then", "Heart and
>Soul" and some others were big with my crowd. Those were the records
>that we bought and played at dances, at parties, and at home until
>they were worn out. But *most* of the music that we listened to was
>just background noise.
>
Same here.Certain records stood out but most of it was just background
noise.But nevertheless it was the soundtrack to our lives! .
>Understand this. It *was* just background noise. So we paid *very
>little* attention to the lyrics. Leslie Gore, Joannie Summmers, Ricky
>Nelson, Tommy Roe, Bobby Vee, Robin Ward, Trini Lopez, Andy Williams,
>Jay & The Americans, Gene Pitney, and god only knows how many others,
>went in one ear and out the other without stopping for a second. And,
>therefore, it wasn't a gender thing at all. No penile. No vaginal.
>Either the *sound* grabbed us or it didn't.
>
That is how records have always acted on me.They always either grabbed
me or they did'nt.
And it was nothing to do with the lyrics or how good the vocalist was
or how proficient the lead guitarist might be----all those things
could be spot on yet the record turned out limp or boring or
conversely those things could be really shitty yet the *sound* of the
record might be so cool that its STILL a GREAT record!
>We were not self styled "historians" or critics. We probably didn't
>get to hear 90% of the music that was produced in the USA. And,
>believe me, we didn't *care*, because we knew that as soon as one
>record lost popularity there would be another one to take its place,
>and there was always *something* on the radio.
>
And best of all we were'nt into all the academic navel examining
bullshit that sadly accompanies too many conversations about rock 'n'
roll these days----and there was none of the "I wonder if it's cool
for me to say I like this record?" pondering stuff that seems to go on
today----the records were the records---cool or uncool--- and thats
all they were.
Ed,you could be writing my own thoughts down here EXACTLY!
>The only way that I and my friends digressed from this rather simple
>way of enjoying our music was to try to dig up doo wops that were
>earlier, or from another area, that we might like better than what was
>on the local stations. And, being from Manhattan, we were lucky
>enough to have Times Square Records within walking distance. So we
>searched around in the "dollar" and "two dollar" records for good
>stuff, and of course, we found plenty. <g> There were other record
>stores in the area that carried group oldies as well, so we never
>lacked for tunes. And we were able to stick with what we loved.
>
Subsitute "TRANSAT" for "TIMES SQUARE RECORDS" and substitute "LONDON"
for "NEW YORK CITY" and I could have equally well written the above
(and make it "R&B" instead of "doowops"! :-)
>Anyway, that's the story. No deep thoughts about the *meaning* of the
>music no thoughts about who was the most deserving for his
>contribution, no thoughts about exploitation, and certainly no grading
>system.
>
Absolutely! Who the fuck cared about any of this?
>So we who were there, and those who came to love the music later on,
>are discussing records from a completely different point of view.
>Both are valid in their own ways, but really from different planets.
>
Except that I refuse to buy this idea currently being put forth by
some of the younger set that somehow coming to the records late gives
them some kind of "objective edge" over the rest of us in assessing
the music.Total bullshit!
Bob Roman
>[...] The
>difference between living during the time a music is popular and coming
>to the music at a later date is that your reasons for liking a song may
>include nostaglic ones such as memories of a first date, your first
>kiss, a particular girlfriend or boyfriend, etc. Whereas someone coming
>to the music at a later date may not asscociate those kind of memories
>with the song. However, whatever your reasons for liking/disliking a
>song those reasons are still subjective.
>
>Liking or disliking a song comes down to personal taste, and your taste
>in music is going to affect what songs you like.
But Cathy, if it's all subjective, are you saying there is nothing to
the idea that "quality" resides in the work itself -- that some works
are simply better than others? Because it you are, don't we also have
to assume there's nothing to the idea of "talent"?
Bob Roman
Edward Bielcik
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>This is a great post, Ed.....but it's not quite as simple as you put it
>here, because it doesn't account for your being a jazz fan too. If you were
>just da boyz in da hood, how did you end up having that college-boy taste
>for jazz?
>DianeE
Di
I was lucky enough to have a buddy that wasn't a bop. He was just as
tough as anyone else in our neighborhood, but he didn't buy into the
gang life. The guy had the balls to do whatever he wanted to do and
could back it up. I admired that a lot. He liked to read, like I
did, so we developed a friendship based on that. He was also a big
Jazz fan, so when I hung out at his place it wasn't much of a stretch
to leave the station tuned to WADO after Jocko or Fredricks went off
the air. As you probably know, WADO was also the home of "Symphony
Sid", the most popular Jazz DJ in NYC at that time. His show was on
from midnight until 5 or 6 AM. WADO was an amazing station, if I
remember correctly they played latin music all day, then went to
Jocko, then the race results from Allan Fredricks who also had a one
hour music show, then into Symphony Sid's all night Jazz program..
Anyway, I managed to turn a few of my other friends on to the "cooler"
Jazz artists, like Herbie Mann. This wasn't much of a stretch as Mann
did a lot of Afro-Cuban which anybody can dig. His albums were popular
at parties where things got a little wilder than average, if you know
what I mean. <g>. And, you know?, I never really thought of Jazz as
being for college kids. I just thought it was great. <g>
Regards
Ed
Edward Bielcik
>
>But Cathy, if it's all subjective, are you saying there is nothing to
>the idea that "quality" resides in the work itself -- that some works
>are simply better than others? Because it you are, don't we also have
>to assume there's nothing to the idea of "talent"?
Bob
If all we're talking about is "talent", whether in the writing,
production, or performance of a cut, you're missing the boat entirely.
The more I think about this the more I realize that it's impossible
for someone who "wasn't there" to *fully* appreciate the music.
The music was created *at that time* for a *specific audience* living
in *that* culture. It was aimed directly at *my* taste and *my* way
of thinking. Which means that the feelings I felt when I heard "Blue
Moon" for the first time, as a teenager, sitting on a stoop in early
60's NYC, can't be *anything* like the person who buys a CD and hears
it for the first time, as a middle aged man, sitting in his living
room in 2002. The big difference is that *I* was the target audience
and you are not. So It's not possible for you to *feel* the music the
same way as me, because I actually *was* the "Duke of Earl".
Want my autograph? <g>
Regards
Duke
Edward Bielcik
>Terrific post Ed....just a few comments if I may....
Thanks Rog.
>Same here.Certain records stood out but most of it was just background
>noise.But nevertheless it was the soundtrack to our lives! .
And it doesn't seem to matter that we from different cultures. We
were teens in the same *era* which means that we were the same target
audience whether in GB or the USA. Of course our tastes wouldn't be
*exactly* the same, as my taste wouldn't be the same as someone the
same age as me living in South Carolina. But there was plenty of R&R
to go around, and something for everyone.
>And best of all we were'nt into all the academic navel examining
>bullshit that sadly accompanies too many conversations about rock 'n'
>roll these days----and there was none of the "I wonder if it's cool
>for me to say I like this record?" pondering stuff that seems to go on
>today----the records were the records---cool or uncool--- and thats
>all they were.<
Right! We heard a great new sound. We got excited. Just like we
were supposed to. <g>
>>Anyway, that's the story. No deep thoughts about the *meaning* of the
>>music no thoughts about who was the most deserving for his
>>contribution, no thoughts about exploitation, and certainly no grading
>>system.
>>
>Absolutely! Who the fuck cared about any of this?
I still dont.
>>So we who were there, and those who came to love the music later on,
>>are discussing records from a completely different point of view.
>>Both are valid in their own ways, but really from different planets.
>>
>Except that I refuse to buy this idea currently being put forth by
>some of the younger set that somehow coming to the records late gives
>them some kind of "objective edge" over the rest of us in assessing
>the music.Total bullshit!
I think objectivity toward R&R is over rated. <g>
Regards
Ed
Bob Roman
Bielcik) wrote:
>The music was created *at that time* for a *specific audience* living
>in *that* culture. It was aimed directly at *my* taste and *my* way
>of thinking. Which means that the feelings I felt when I heard "Blue
>Moon" for the first time, as a teenager, sitting on a stoop in early
>60's NYC, can't be *anything* like the person who buys a CD and hears
>it for the first time, as a middle aged man, sitting in his living
>room in 2002. The big difference is that *I* was the target audience
>and you are not.
Oh, bullshit. Music merely of it's time is hackwork. Great music
transcends its time. Mozart, Wagner, and Ellington wrote for their
audience as well. That doesn't mean we can't appreciate it now.
Bob Roman
Edward Bielcik
>He didn't say you couldn't *appreciate* it, Bob. He just said there is a
>difference between the way he experiences it and the way you experience it.
>
>When I listen to Robert Johnson's music, recorded 10 or 11 years before I
>was born, I appreciate the hell out of it, but there is no way that my
>experience of the record is the same as the experience of the people who
>heard his records on their Graphonolas in the rural deep South in the late
>1930s.
Di
I said he couldn't *fully* appreciate it, and I meant it. He's not a
teenager in 1961. The music wasn't produced for him. It was produced
for *our* culture many years ago. His head is absolutely *not* in the
same place.
We can all go to Africa, for instance, and listen to tribal drums. We
hear the beat and enjoy the rhythyms, but we aren't going to
experience the music in the same way as the tribal natives. It's not
meant for *us*. We're not in the culture. So we can only dig it on
it's most superficial level comparing the music to our own experience,
which has nothing to do with *their* experience. That doesn't mean we
won't dig it a *lot*, but not to the degree that *they* dig it, and
certainly not in the same way.
Last year I argued exactly the opposite point. I believed that you
*could* be objective about music, but now, after Bruce pulled out his
microscope and calculater and coldly assigned numeric values to pieces
of our culture, I realized that trying to be *that* objective makes no
sense at all.
Regards
Ed
Bob Roman
Bielcik) wrote:
>I said he couldn't *fully* appreciate it, and I meant it. He's not a
>teenager in 1961. The music wasn't produced for him. It was produced
>for *our* culture many years ago. His head is absolutely *not* in the
>same place.
No one appreciated Van Gogh in his time. No one appreciated the work
in the time it was made for. Does that mean that no one has *ever*
appreciated Van Gogh fully?
>We can all go to Africa, for instance, and listen to tribal drums. We
>hear the beat and enjoy the rhythyms, but we aren't going to
>experience the music in the same way as the tribal natives. It's not
>meant for *us*. We're not in the culture. So we can only dig it on
>it's most superficial level comparing the music to our own experience,
>which has nothing to do with *their* experience. That doesn't mean we
>won't dig it a *lot*, but not to the degree that *they* dig it, and
>certainly not in the same way.
There is certainly something to this. All art exists in a context.
But I still believe great art can transcend its context. "For Your
Precious Love" transcends its context. LWJ's "Fever" transcends its
context.
>Last year I argued exactly the opposite point. I believed that you
>*could* be objective about music, but now, after Bruce pulled out his
>microscope and calculater and coldly assigned numeric values to pieces
>of our culture, I realized that trying to be *that* objective makes no
>sense at all.
There are two different issues. One is whether artistic quality is a
real thing, more than mere opinion. I believe it is. The other is
whether artistic quality can be measured. I don't believe it can.
Bob Roman
Cathy D
<Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
An artist can have all the talent in the world, but that doesn't mean
that I will like the result. For instance, most people consider Frank
Sinatra to be a great artist and I wouldn't disagree. However, I
personally don't care for very many of Frank's songs because they do
nothing for me-- his style of music isn't to my taste.
Roger Ford
>In article <3c6c81f3....@news.supernews.com>, Bob Roman
><Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2002 11:39:04 -0400, Cathy D <cath...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >[...] The
>> >difference between living during the time a music is popular and coming
>> >to the music at a later date is that your reasons for liking a song may
>> >include nostaglic ones such as memories of a first date, your first
>> >kiss, a particular girlfriend or boyfriend, etc. Whereas someone coming
>> >to the music at a later date may not asscociate those kind of memories
>> >with the song. However, whatever your reasons for liking/disliking a
>> >song those reasons are still subjective.
>> >
>> >Liking or disliking a song comes down to personal taste, and your taste
>> >in music is going to affect what songs you like.
>>
>> But Cathy, if it's all subjective, are you saying there is nothing to
>> the idea that "quality" resides in the work itself -- that some works
>> are simply better than others? Because it you are, don't we also have
>> to assume there's nothing to the idea of "talent"?
>
>An artist can have all the talent in the world, but that doesn't mean
>that I will like the result. For instance, most people consider Frank
>Sinatra to be a great artist and I wouldn't disagree. However, I
>personally don't care for very many of Frank's songs because they do
>nothing for me-- his style of music isn't to my taste.
>
I don't neccessarily agree with you about Sinatra who I would agree
has talent and whose work I like a fair amount of.
But I DO agree with your argument that "talent" is NOT that important
when it comes to own own opinions and tastes----I can take your own
example and substitute The Beatles for Sinatra-----viirtually all the
World is going to support "The Beatles had great talent" premise but
as I've said umpteen times before,their music does nothing for me and
I don't care for it----and most importantly there is NO WAY that makes
me any less of a music fan because of that fact!
Bob Roman
>In article <3c6c81f3....@news.supernews.com>, Bob Roman
><Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> But Cathy, if it's all subjective, are you saying there is nothing to
>> the idea that "quality" resides in the work itself -- that some works
>> are simply better than others? Because it you are, don't we also have
>> to assume there's nothing to the idea of "talent"?
>
>An artist can have all the talent in the world, but that doesn't mean
>that I will like the result. For instance, most people consider Frank
>Sinatra to be a great artist and I wouldn't disagree. However, I
>personally don't care for very many of Frank's songs because they do
>nothing for me-- his style of music isn't to my taste.
This is what I wrote 2 years ago, when this subject was discussed
then. I think we are not too far apart.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me (5/14/00):
> There are standards of craft agreed upon by craftsmen, such
> that it is a defendable position to say that Beethoven's Ninth
> Symphony is "objectively" better than a monkey banging two pot
> lids together. But Roger is right that those standards do not
> map necessarily map onto objective reality. It is possible to
> build an aesthetic system that favors the monkey. Of course,
> doing so may qualify as a type of mental illness.
Mark D, challenging:
>Isn't your last sentence just a way of denying your own
>argument? That is, you really do seem to believe that Beethoven
>is objectively better than the monkey but you've also seem to
>have bought into the anti-elitist nonsense that a claim of
>objective superiority in anything threatens principles of
>equality. You end up waffling by imagining a relativistic
>aesthetics and then conceding that some aesthetic systems
>are probably less crazy than others. Which is it gonna be? As
>for me, I'm happy to declare that I really do know the
>difference between shit and Shinola under whatever various
>aesthetic systems you care to imagine.
Me again:
>I do believe that Beethoven is better than the monkey. I also
>believe "What'd I Say," "Johnny B. Goode," "Your Cheating
>Heart," and "For Your Precious Love" are the four best records
>of the fifties. I could defend both opinions, because within my
>aesthetic system I know I am right. But it's not nonsense to
>concede that other aesthetic systems are possible. One
>aesthetic system might emphasize songwriting craftsmanship more
>than the craft of singing. Another might emphasize musicianship
>above all else. A third might claim that the only point of art
>is the direct experience of emotion, and that any craftsmanship
>can get in the way (In the '70s there was a trend of listening
>to the songs of whales -- is listening to the percussion of
>monkeys so much further down that road?). I believe I could
>objectively tell "shit from Shinola" along various aesthetic
>dimensions, but I also believe that choosing which dimensions
>should be emphasized is necessarily subjective.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
wrote:
I don't pretend to understand what most of this incredibly complicated
but to me meaningless exchange is about but one thing I'm sure about
is that the music we discuss on here is no way complex or convoluted
enough to require discussing in such impossibly way out terms.
If it was hardly any of us would understand it would we?
Sorry Bob but I think I prefer Cathy's much simpler explanation
Roger Ford
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>"Bob Roman" <Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3c6ca0a0....@news.supernews.com...
>------------------
>He didn't say you couldn't *appreciate* it, Bob. He just said there is a
>difference between the way he experiences it and the way you experience it.
>
>When I listen to Robert Johnson's music, recorded 10 or 11 years before I
>was born, I appreciate the hell out of it, but there is no way that my
>experience of the record is the same as the experience of the people who
>heard his records on their Graphonolas in the rural deep South in the late
>1930s.
You're right Di,and on a more personal note I ocassionally like
listening to some of that 1930's and 1940's big band stuff----I *like*
those records on my own terms but since I never heard them when they
were MEANT to be heard---at the time they were made and set against
that contemporary background----there IS something missing and I can
never hear them and like them in the same way that my Mother did.
Roger Ford
wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 04:45:46 GMT, bie...@worldnet.att.net (Edward
>Bielcik) wrote:
>
>>I said he couldn't *fully* appreciate it, and I meant it. He's not a
>>teenager in 1961. The music wasn't produced for him. It was produced
>>for *our* culture many years ago. His head is absolutely *not* in the
>>same place.
>
>No one appreciated Van Gogh in his time. No one appreciated the work
>in the time it was made for. Does that mean that no one has *ever*
>appreciated Van Gogh fully?
>
I don't think these comparison arguments ever work against rock 'n'
roll.Who the hell knows if Van Gogh was ever appreciated properly? How
many of us care? But on rock 'n' roll I do care and I'm with Ed---to
fully and I mean fully appreciate and get into a 1961 rock 'n' roll
record you really have to have been a 1961 teenager.
I'm not saying that someone younger can't *like* (or dislike) the
record----of course they can.But....something is always missing.
As I found out only too well---for different reasons than age---when I
came late to many of the records that people on here take forgranted.
>>We can all go to Africa, for instance, and listen to tribal drums. We
>>hear the beat and enjoy the rhythyms, but we aren't going to
>>experience the music in the same way as the tribal natives. It's not
>>meant for *us*. We're not in the culture. So we can only dig it on
>>it's most superficial level comparing the music to our own experience,
>>which has nothing to do with *their* experience. That doesn't mean we
>>won't dig it a *lot*, but not to the degree that *they* dig it, and
>>certainly not in the same way.
>
>There is certainly something to this. All art exists in a context.
>But I still believe great art can transcend its context. "For Your
>Precious Love" transcends its context. LWJ's "Fever" transcends its
>context.
>
Here's an example of where not being a 1958 teenager has to
hurt---Bob,I don't see how "For Your Precious Love" can possibly mean
as much to you as it might since for this record to have MAXIMUM
impact you really HAD to have heard it at (or very near) the time.
This is a legendary proto-soul record,an absolute key pioneer of the
60's soul music that was to follow.
Yes,of course I accept that you can like (even love) the record but if
you never heard it in the right context i.e. BEFORE you heard a lot of
60's soul then I think at least a little of the magic must be lost.
I know I feel this way about certain records I never heard at the
proper time (due to my geographical problem).
Something HAS to be missing,Bob!
>>Last year I argued exactly the opposite point. I believed that you
>>*could* be objective about music, but now, after Bruce pulled out his
>>microscope and calculater and coldly assigned numeric values to pieces
>>of our culture, I realized that trying to be *that* objective makes no
>>sense at all.
>
>There are two different issues. One is whether artistic quality is a
>real thing, more than mere opinion. I believe it is. The other is
>whether artistic quality can be measured. I don't believe it can.
>
Artistic quality? You mean like saying that the artistic quality of
Ray Charles' work is vastly superior to that of Rosie & The Originals?
But on a record for record level I'd probably place "Angel Baby" ahead
of at least three quarters--probably more---of Ray Charles' records.
And I doubt that---objectively---anybody here can tell me I'm wrong.
See,these "artistic" arguments are always ultimately meaningless
because they fall down so easy!
Rockabi101
market like Phoenix, and you would possibly never have developed a taste for
R & B. Even worse, you could have grown up with Ed and his buddies and
virtually
only like Doo-Wops :-)
>
>
Sterile! With labels like Don Ray, Elko, Liberty Bell, MCI, Porter, Rev, Tex,
Viv and more he would have still been exposed to a lot of great rockabilly.
Can't call that a musically sterile environment.
Bob Roman
>>Perhaps you're better off as you are. You could have grown up in some sterile
>>market like Phoenix, and you would possibly never have developed a taste for
>>R & B. Even worse, you could have grown up with Ed and his buddies and
>>virtually only like Doo-Wops :-)
>>
>Sterile! With labels like Don Ray, Elko, Liberty Bell, MCI, Porter, Rev, Tex,
>Viv and more he would have still been exposed to a lot of great rockabilly.
>Can't call that a musically sterile environment.
And yet the best of the NY doo-wop AND the SW rockabilly both caught
on throughout the country, despite not being the audience the music
was "made for." Great art transcends its place and time.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
wrote:
>On 15 Feb 2002 12:24:03 GMT, rocka...@aol.com (Rockabi101) wrote:
Yeah right,rockabilly caught on through the country so much that the
only genuine national Top 40 chart entry in the genre was Carl
Perkins' "Blue Suede Shoes"
Roger Ford
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3c6ceaac...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>{quoting Bob]
>> >There are two different issues. One is whether artistic quality is a
>> >real thing, more than mere opinion. I believe it is. The other is
>> >whether artistic quality can be measured. I don't believe it can.
>> >
>> Artistic quality? You mean like saying that the artistic quality of
>> Ray Charles' work is vastly superior to that of Rosie & The Originals?
>>
>> But on a record for record level I'd probably place "Angel Baby" ahead
>> of at least three quarters--probably more---of Ray Charles' records.
>>
>> And I doubt that---objectively---anybody here can tell me I'm wrong.
>------------------
>You're wrong.
What does a mere woman know? :)
SavoyBG
>Last year I argued exactly the opposite point. I believed that you
>*could* be objective about music,
Why don't you flip a coin?
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
> The other is
>whether artistic quality can be measured. I don't believe it can.
Then why contradict your beliefs and have a "hall of fame" where you ask voters
to measure the artists quality of artists and songs by pitting them against
each other, and requiring artists and songs to be ranked in order.
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>viirtually all the
>World is going to support "The Beatles had great talent" premise
Don't know about that. I know lots of people who think otherwise.
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>You're wrong. Though of course, you're thinking of the UK version of "Angel
>Baby," minus the infamous worst sax solo ever.
The worst sax solo ever is on the alternate version of "The Jones Girl" by the
Five Satins.
Bruce Grossberg
Mark Dintenfass
> I have a question for everyone here......
I have already missed most of a pretty good argument, but I'll weigh in
anyway.
>
> How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
> that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
> experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
> (preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
> happening)?
> Bruce (if I'm reading him right) says it was NOT neccessary for him to
> have been there.....indeed he seems to look on the fact of NOT being
> there and coming very late to 50's music as a positive boon since he
> says it enables him to have a much more objective approach to the
> music.uncluttered by the nostalgia,sentimentality and emotionalism
> towards it that most of the rest of us carry in varying degrees.
The real argument here begins with Bruce's claim for superior
objectivity, which you quite properly reject. I'd even agree with you
that musical likes and dislikes are never wholly objective. Where we
still disagree is your insistence that it's all subjective. Bruce is
probably right that hearing music new on the radio when you are young
creates all sorts of emotions that remain part of your later response
to that music. He's also probably right that those emotions are
strongest (or perhaps just freshest and most uncomplicated) during our
teenage years, which is why so many people cling to the music they grew
up with. Where he seems wholly wrong or wrongheaded is in his belief
that listening to music from earlier times somehow frees you from such
emotional responses. From an early age and for various personal
reasons, everyone, I believe, develops certain general musical likes
and dislikes, and then judges whatever comes along (whenever is comes
along) according to them. For example, as Diane has said, Bruce has a
general aversion to violins and desire for horns in r&b records. Is
that because horns are objectively better than violins in r&b. No, not
at all. It's rather because for personal (that is, subjective) reasons,
Bruce seems to associate emotional honesty with horns and pop slickness
with violins, or something like that. Further, he seems to prefer
roughness to smoothness in music, and he further seems to associate
roughness with masculinity and smoothness with femininity, and he seems
to have a strong personal aversion to what he considers overly feminine
music. These are matters of taste (tastes, BTW, I often share with
Bruce), but Bruce wants to assert them (aggressively, as is his style)
as matters of superior objective judgement. But taste remains taste,
personal and at least partially subjective, whatever your situation in
regards to the musical history.
> I dont really buy that...for starters I don't believe that coming to
> trhe music late gives the listener any kind of advantage,objective or
> otherwise,at all.
>
> Yes,Bruce,Bob and Dean are living proof that it is possible to be a
> 50's music fan (and a pretty damn knowlegeable one too!) WITHOUT
> having experienced the times first hand but I do think that on balance
> you really HAD to be there....and I base my opinion on the fact that I
> KNOW it hurt me badly in some ways that I missed out on a lot of the
> 50's music myself first hand----due in my case,not to any major fault
> with my age (tho I could have done with being born five years
> earlier!) but rather to location problems,especially as far as 50's
> R&R,R&B and doowop was concerned.
>
> Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
> emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
> (and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
> choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
> way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
> way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
> of the time and no first hand perspective.
>
> What comments do others have on this subject?
My own position is that having grown up with the music does indeed make
my response to it somewhat different from Bruce's, Bob's, or Dean's. I
feel extremely lucky to have been at the right place at the right time.
For example, I have a vivid memory of hearing the then little known Ray
Charles for the first time, singing "I've Got a Woman" on the Allen
Freed show--a kind of "wow" experience. Part of my experience of Ray
Charles is the memory of following his career and buying his records,
of the discovery over time of his enormous talents, of wondering what
he might accomplish next, of being exhilirated by my first radio
experience of "What'd I Say," etc. Those are my associations, and they
are personal, and that amount of subjectivity obviously lingers over
any later experience of Charles' music. BUT there are definite limits
to the subjectivity. When, for example, Bob places "What'd I Say" among
the top four records of the 50s, as I do also, I have to believe that
we are MOSTLY hearing the same sort of quality, reacting to it in a
similar way, and coming to a conclusion about its worth that is largely
independent of my nostalgia. That is, there must be something that is
actually there objectively in the record for us both to be hearing, and
some reasonably objective part of us that manages to hear the same, or
at least a very similar, thing. Bob can't have my personal experience
of watching Ray Charles develop, and I can't have his personal
experience of discovering Charles retrospectively, but that seems
relatively trivial compared to the experience of the music that we can
share.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
Mark Dintenfass
<bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Is it possible to be objective about a record that reminds you of
> your first love?
I can separate the hazy emotional fondness I feel for Johnny Mathis'
"Misty" due to personal experience from my objective judgement that it
is an over-produced and somewhat cloying record.
Mark Dintenfass
<soulexpre...@attbi.com> wrote:
> > Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
> > emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
> > (and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
> > choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
> > way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
> > way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
> > of the time and no first hand perspective.
>
> Again, I speak only for myself. But I for one am glad to be into the music
> now, when so much incredible material that few (or even no!) people heard
> back in the '50s continues to become available. A lot of the best '50s rock
> 'n' roll I've ever heard never charted nationally and, in some cases, was
> never even released back then.
FWIW, about ninety percent of the music I listen to nowadays is music I
did not hear in the '50s or '60s, but discovered much later. Often it
is music I've discovered just recently. Nostalgia doesn't explain why I
like so much obscure 50s music; it seems more likely that, as Dean
says, a lot of good music that was made in the 50s, and we have a very
similar experience, despite our age difference, when we discover it.
SavoyBG
>Sterile! With labels like Don Ray, Elko, Liberty Bell, MCI, Porter, Rev,
>Tex,
>Viv and more he would have still been exposed to a lot of great rockabilly.
>Can't call that a musically sterile environment.
Doubtful that many people heard any of those records back then.
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>And yet the best of the NY doo-wop AND the SW rockabilly both caught
>on throughout the country,
Not true at all. There's plenty of Doo-Wops that are monstrous in NY, but that
never caught on nationally.
The Closer You Are, Sunday Kind Of Love, Tonight, Tonight etc.
From among the Channels, Harptones, Solitaires and Valentines, none of these
groups had a national hit in the 50's, not on the pop chart, or the R & B
chart.
Neither the Paragons or the Jesters cracked the top 75 nationally on the pop
chart.
Many of the most popular NY Doo-Wops were virtually unknown in the 50's,
outside of NY and a couple of other Eastern cities.
Bruce Grossberg
Mark Dintenfass
<bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Anyway, that's the story. No deep thoughts about the *meaning* of the
> music no thoughts about who was the most deserving for his
> contribution, no thoughts about exploitation, and certainly no grading
> system.
One small area of disagreement about your otherwise excellent
description of what it was like to listen to the radio back then. I
think we certainly did have a grading system. As I remember it, we had
very strong likes and dislikes, and we expressed them by turning the
dial! For example, we went for a ride with our buddies, and aside from
looking for girls (and looking out for cops, because we usually
speeding), we spent a lot of time searching for a station that was
playing a song we liked, and turning off stations that were playing a
song we disliked, and even arguing about which station to tune in.
That's a grading system, Ed.
One other small point. You said the words were unimportant, but you
also said you spent a lot of time singing the songs you liked. You
couldn't sing them without listening to the words carefully enough to
learn them, and if you learned them, they must have said something to
you at some level or other.
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> We just came off this whole lyrics argument but to repeat,I was just
> like you---I never took much notice of the lyrics then and I still
> don't today.Its the overall *SOUND* of the record that counts!
To repeat: the fact that the sound of a record mattered a lot, which I
am willing to agree to, doesn't mean that the lyrics were wholly
unimportant.
Mark Dintenfass
<bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> If all we're talking about is "talent", whether in the writing,
> production, or performance of a cut, you're missing the boat entirely.
>
> The more I think about this the more I realize that it's impossible
> for someone who "wasn't there" to *fully* appreciate the music.
This position seems as extreme as Bruce's. Bruce says those who were
there can't fully appreciate the music because they hear it through a
haze of nostalgia and emotionalism. You say that the nostalgia and
emotionalism are an important part of a "full" appreciation. Why can't
we say that the experiences are different without insisting that one is
inherently superior to the other.
> The music was created *at that time* for a *specific audience* living
> in *that* culture. It was aimed directly at *my* taste and *my* way
> of thinking. Which means that the feelings I felt when I heard "Blue
> Moon" for the first time, as a teenager, sitting on a stoop in early
> 60's NYC, can't be *anything* like the person who buys a CD and hears
> it for the first time, as a middle aged man, sitting in his living
> room in 2002. The big difference is that *I* was the target audience
> and you are not. So It's not possible for you to *feel* the music the
> same way as me, because I actually *was* the "Duke of Earl".
Maybe it's just that I'm a few years older than you, Ed, but the music
that was aimed directly at my taste and my way of thinking by the
record companies, who assumed I was a typical white teenager, consisted
to a large extent of cover versions of r&b, and later Tommy Sands, Sal
Mineo, Tab Hunter, Fabian, Frankie Avalon, watered down Elvis and his
flood of imitators, etc. I found myself having to do a lot of picking
and choosing (and turning the radio dial) to get past this stuff to the
music I really liked. And in the mid-50s, some of the music I liked
best wasn't meant for me, as a white teenager, at all. It was music
made and marketed for black people.
Again maybe as a matter of a slight age difference, much of early 60s
doowop you seemed to like best never appealed all that much to me. I
like "Duke of Earl," but at the time it seemed merely a repetition of
better and earlier records, and "Blue Moon" by the Marcels has always
struck me as a kind of final crack-up of the vocal group tradition.
Mark Dintenfass
<Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well, I will probably never appreciate Wagner, but the ability to
outlast its original time and audience is certainly one of the things
that defines artistic quality.
Mark Dintenfass
DianeE <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> Well, this is true on one level. Either it rocks you or it doesn't. If you
> try to explain why, you end up sounding like Dave Marsh.
Is that really so bad? Get past some bullshit and some authoritarian
judgements (which is part of his vocation) and you find a pretty good
and knowledgeable writer with reasonably good taste.
Mark Dintenfass
DianeE <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> When I listen to Robert Johnson's music, recorded 10 or 11 years before I
> was born, I appreciate the hell out of it, but there is no way that my
> experience of the record is the same as the experience of the people who
> heard his records on their Graphonolas in the rural deep South in the late
> 1930s.
Sure it's not the same experience. No two people ever have the same
experience. But experience can be shared and communicated. That's one
of the purposes of music. Listen to Robert Johnson and you begin to get
at least some sense of what it might be like to have been in the rural
deep south in the 30s, listening to a Graphonola. Music allows us to
get past our own experience and into someone else's. For me, that's one
of the best things about it.
Edward Bielcik
>. As I remember it, we had
>very strong likes and dislikes, and we expressed them by turning the
>dial! For example, we went for a ride with our buddies, and aside from
>looking for girls (and looking out for cops, because we usually
>speeding), we spent a lot of time searching for a station that was
>playing a song we liked, and turning off stations that were playing a
>song we disliked, and even arguing about which station to tune in.
>That's a grading system, Ed.
That's just trying to be selective. I don't view it as the same as
assigning a numerical vlaue.
You had a car?! Shit. We were stuck with the subway. <g>
>
>One other small point. You said the words were unimportant, but you
>also said you spent a lot of time singing the songs you liked. You
>couldn't sing them without listening to the words carefully enough to
>learn them, and if you learned them, they must have said something to
>you at some level or other.
But only the songs we liked. We ignored everything else. And
learning the words to a song isn't the same as finding some real
*value* in them. Pete, our lead singer, always complained about
singing "Castle in the Sky" because the lyrics were boring and
repetative. We made him sing it anyway because we could manage the
harmony. <g>
Regards
Ed
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >There is certainly something to this. All art exists in a context.
> >But I still believe great art can transcend its context. "For Your
> >Precious Love" transcends its context. LWJ's "Fever" transcends its
> >context.
> >
> Here's an example of where not being a 1958 teenager has to
> hurt---Bob,I don't see how "For Your Precious Love" can possibly mean
> as much to you as it might since for this record to have MAXIMUM
> impact you really HAD to have heard it at (or very near) the time.
>
> This is a legendary proto-soul record,an absolute key pioneer of the
> 60's soul music that was to follow.
>
> Yes,of course I accept that you can like (even love) the record but if
> you never heard it in the right context i.e. BEFORE you heard a lot of
> 60's soul then I think at least a little of the magic must be lost.
>
> I know I feel this way about certain records I never heard at the
> proper time (due to my geographical problem).
>
> Something HAS to be missing,Bob!
Yes, something is missing if you didn't hear FYPL in '58. I had that
experience and was bowled over by it. But something is missing from my
experience that might be contained in Bob's--the anticipation of
knowing a record is historically important before you hear it, and the
gratification of discovering that its importance and significance has
not been over-rated. Both my experience and Bob's, I believe, might be
equally powerful, though in somewhat different ways.
Edward Bielcik
>>Last year I argued exactly the opposite point. I believed that you
>>*could* be objective about music,
>
>Why don't you flip a coin?
Well Bruce, I'm glad you asked.
My opinions aren't carved in stone. I don't feel that I'm the last
word on everything. My opinion can, and does change with new
information. I see that as a *good* thing. If I argued every point
without listening to the other guy's opinion that would just make me
an arrogant fool. And I would also be doing myself a disservice by
not gaining something from the discussion. Trying to push an opinion
on others without being open minded myself would be a waste of time.
Ed
Mark Dintenfass
<bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >. As I remember it, we had
> >very strong likes and dislikes, and we expressed them by turning the
> >dial! For example, we went for a ride with our buddies, and aside from
> >looking for girls (and looking out for cops, because we usually
> >speeding), we spent a lot of time searching for a station that was
> >playing a song we liked, and turning off stations that were playing a
> >song we disliked, and even arguing about which station to tune in.
> >That's a grading system, Ed.
>
> That's just trying to be selective. I don't view it as the same as
> assigning a numerical vlaue.
You seemed to be saying that you just took the music the radio gave
you. I recall being highly selective about the music I listened to. I
agree that assigning points creates a silly air of pseudo-objectivity,
but even "bad, good, very good" is a grading system.
Cathy D
<sav...@aol.com> wrote:
I'm not going to get into an argument over this but if the Beatles
didn't have great talent then why did people like Leonard Bernstein
(and others) come out and make statements about how talented they were?
They had nothing to gain by doing so. The Beatles did things with their
music that R&R/Pop musicians had never done. They were very innovative,
and that takes talent! That doesn't mean to say that everyone has to
like the Beatles, but anyone who denies they had talent is not bringing
any objectivity *at all* to the table!
Cathy :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Edward Bielcik
>This position seems as extreme as Bruce's. Bruce says those who were
>there can't fully appreciate the music because they hear it through a
>haze of nostalgia and emotionalism. You say that the nostalgia and
>emotionalism are an important part of a "full" appreciation. Why can't
>we say that the experiences are different without insisting that one is
>inherently superior to the other.
What's wrong with listening to music without *fully* appreciating it?
I listen to Jazz all the time wishing that I could play a sax like
Mulligan and knowing full well that I could never dig the music the
way a musician can. I still enjoy it, but I'm certainly not going to
pretend to be an "expert".
Same goes for music that was directly aimed at Blacks. I probably
*didn't* appreciate the early stuff in the same way. But that was a
relatively short period of time in R&R history. It all changed damned
fast when the companies recoginzed that there was a buck to be made by
delivering the music to *all* teenagers.
Regards
Ed
Edward Bielcik
>----------------
>I think you and I are actually saying the same thing here, Ed, if you
>re-read my post.
I know. I was expanding on the idea for the rest of the group.
>Bruce has stated *repeatedly* that his "album ratings" are completely
>subjective, just his opinion, etc., but some people (both here and in the
>60s group) seem to be unable to grasp that concept.<
I can grasp it, I just don't believe that *he* believes he's being
subjective. <g>
Regards
Ed
Eramon1
>You're wrong. Though of course, you're thinking of the UK version of "Angel
>Baby," minus the infamous worst sax solo ever.
The sax solo problem is, I think, that the drums break down towards the end.
The rhythm gets all screwed up. If it really is the worst then it's probably
the combo of the sax and drums. The sax itself reminds me of Ron Holden's Love
You So. Would that also be one of the worst solos?
-Eric
Edward Bielcik
>
>You seemed to be saying that you just took the music the radio gave
>you. I recall being highly selective about the music I listened to.
Not us. We just left the radio on and did what we did. If I spent
the whole night flipping the dial I wouldn't have had the *time* to do
the *important* things. <g> Anyway, Jocko was good enough for me. <g>
I
>but even "bad, good, very good" is a grading system.
Yes it is. And a pretty human and natural one I'd say. Assigning a
numeric value out to the hundredths is anal IMO.
Regards
Ed
Rick Schubert
>From among the Channels, Harptones, Solitaires and Valentines, none of these
>groups had a national hit in the 50's, not on the pop chart, or the R & B
>chart.
Minor correction: The Harptones (with the Shytans) did hit the
Billboard pop chart in 1954 (#25) with "Why Should I Love You?" on
Bruce 109. But you already knew that:
And I *still* haven't heard the song.
-- Rick Schubert <r...@san.rr.com>
Mark Dintenfass
<bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >
> >This position seems as extreme as Bruce's. Bruce says those who were
> >there can't fully appreciate the music because they hear it through a
> >haze of nostalgia and emotionalism. You say that the nostalgia and
> >emotionalism are an important part of a "full" appreciation. Why can't
> >we say that the experiences are different without insisting that one is
> >inherently superior to the other.
>
> What's wrong with listening to music without *fully* appreciating it?
Nothing. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? I often have music
playing in the background and am only half-consious of it. Actually, I
don't know what a "full" appreciation might be. The main point I was
making was that no particular kind of "appreciation" of music is
inherently better than another.
> I listen to Jazz all the time wishing that I could play a sax like
> Mulligan and knowing full well that I could never dig the music the
> way a musician can. I still enjoy it, but I'm certainly not going to
> pretend to be an "expert".
I know musicians so jaded by their familiarity with music that they can
hardly bear most of it.
>
> Same goes for music that was directly aimed at Blacks. I probably
> *didn't* appreciate the early stuff in the same way. But that was a
> relatively short period of time in R&R history. It all changed damned
> fast when the companies recoginzed that there was a buck to be made by
> delivering the music to *all* teenagers.
True, but most of what r'n'r delivered, most of what topped the charts
and filled the radio stations, was mediocre or worse. We recall the
good stuff and tend to forget out the hours we spent listening to the
bad stuff. The tension between commercialism and quality in music--as
in all else--is always complex, and much of what sells best in any
field isn't what is qualitatively best. One of the reasons I think a
measure of objectivity is a good thing to seek is that it can help sort
out what's good from what's temporarily popular.
Bob Moke
wrote:
>Minor correction: The Harptones (with the Shytans) did hit the
>Billboard pop chart in 1954 (#25) with "Why Should I Love You?" on
>Bruce 109. But you already knew that:
No, that's one of the many never-on-Billboard songs that were included
in the J. Whitburn "Pop Memories" book (see pp 8 & 10).
You need "Pop Hits 1940-1954" for the exclusively Billboard data.
(spoilsport) Bob
Rockabi101
>Sterile! With labels like Don Ray, Elko, Liberty Bell, MCI, Porter, Rev,
>Tex,
>Viv and more he would have still been exposed to a lot of great rockabilly.
>Can't call that a musically sterile environment.
Doubtful that many people heard any of those records back then.
Bruce Grossberg
>
Not totally true. There were several Phoenix artists from the 50s and early 60s
that had recording success. Donnie Owens charted with "Need You." Al Casey
had at least three Billboard chart records. Duane Eddy (though he actually
lived in Tucson) frequently played in the Phoenix area. Sanford Clark's "the
Fool" got to #7. And, Waylon Jennings (a local Tucson resident uring the late
50s-early 60s period) was doing some recording and playing in local clubs (and
did have some later chart success.)
All in all, not that musically sterile an area.
SavoyBG
about "vaginal" records.
They are both 60 years old, and they said that none of the guys that they hung
out with would ever have played a Shirelles song on the jukebox. Those records
were for the girls. They played records like "Fannie Mae" and "Let's Go, Let's
Go, Let's Go." Records like "The Wind" by the Jesters and "Blue Moon," and "My
True Story."
The guys that I know who are between 48 and 53 now do like some of that stuff,
so perhaps the age difference means something. If you were around 12 or 13 in
1960, maybe you really liked "Will You Love Me Tomorrow," but the guys who were
18 and over already by then didn't have any use for those records.
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>Minor correction: The Harptones (with the Shytans) did hit the
>Billboard pop chart in 1954 (#25) with "Why Should I Love You?" on
>Bruce 109. But you already knew that:
No it didn't. That's one of those records that Whitburn added in to his "Pop
Memories" book based on information from other publications.
There were times in the 50's when he added in big R & B records at the bottom
of the charts, because Billboard may have only had a top 15 or a top 20 at that
time.
Bruce Grossberg
Bob Roman
>>From: Robert...@hotmail.com (Bob Roman)
>> The other is
>>whether artistic quality can be measured. I don't believe it can.
>
>Then why contradict your beliefs and have a "hall of fame" where you ask voters
>to measure the artists quality of artists and songs by pitting them against
>each other, and requiring artists and songs to be ranked in order.
Ranking can be an interesting exercise. Like your grading system, it
can spark conversation. But I don't believe any individual's rank
order of favorites is an objective measure of quality. Voting in the
Hall of Fame is more an exercise in democracy than anything else -- a
way to measure your taste against others'.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
<mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>In article <3c6abe58...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk>, Roger Ford
><mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I have a question for everyone here......
>
>I have already missed most of a pretty good argument, but I'll weigh in
>anyway.
>>
>> How neccessary was it to have actually lived thru the period of music
>> that we discuss----the fifties and early sixties----and to have
>> experienced those times,complete with the music,at first hand
>> (preferably with some degree of awareness of what exactly was
>> happening)?
>> Bruce (if I'm reading him right) says it was NOT neccessary for him to
>> have been there.....indeed he seems to look on the fact of NOT being
>> there and coming very late to 50's music as a positive boon since he
>> says it enables him to have a much more objective approach to the
>> music.uncluttered by the nostalgia,sentimentality and emotionalism
>> towards it that most of the rest of us carry in varying degrees.
>
>The real argument here begins with Bruce's claim for superior
>objectivity, which you quite properly reject. I'd even agree with you
>that musical likes and dislikes are never wholly objective. Where we
>still disagree is your insistence that it's all subjective.
Only because I never seem to see any truly *objective* (and I don't
mean Bruce's definition of "objective" I mean PROPER objective!)
statements about rock 'n' roll and R&B on here.
As far as I can see the only real objective stuff you can say about
these records are unarguable,unassailable things like the name of the
act that recorded them,the label they were on and its number,the
writer,the chart position the records reached and who played on
them---all items where there is no room for argument or differing
views.
Just about everything else is a matter of opinion,even when that
opinion is Bruce's....and therefore subjective
Thats my (subjective) opinion anyway! :-)
> Bruce is
>probably right that hearing music new on the radio when you are young
>creates all sorts of emotions that remain part of your later response
>to that music. He's also probably right that those emotions are
>strongest (or perhaps just freshest and most uncomplicated) during our
>teenage years, which is why so many people cling to the music they grew
>up with. Where he seems wholly wrong or wrongheaded is in his belief
>that listening to music from earlier times somehow frees you from such
>emotional responses. From an early age and for various personal
>reasons, everyone, I believe, develops certain general musical likes
>and dislikes, and then judges whatever comes along (whenever is comes
>along) according to them. For example, as Diane has said, Bruce has a
>general aversion to violins and desire for horns in r&b records. Is
>that because horns are objectively better than violins in r&b. No, not
>at all. It's rather because for personal (that is, subjective) reasons,
>Bruce seems to associate emotional honesty with horns and pop slickness
>with violins, or something like that.
We know he does''nt think too much of "There Goes My Baby" so I
suppose we should have guessed he was never going to like "Will You
Love Me Tommorrow" that much either
>Further, he seems to prefer
>roughness to smoothness in music, and he further seems to associate
>roughness with masculinity and smoothness with femininity, and he seems
>to have a strong personal aversion to what he considers overly feminine
>music.
I guess if he really thinks that "roughness" always = male and
"smoothness" likewise = female he either can't be getting out much.:-)
>These are matters of taste (tastes, BTW, I often share with
>Bruce), but Bruce wants to assert them (aggressively, as is his style)
>as matters of superior objective judgement. But taste remains taste,
>personal and at least partially subjective, whatever your situation in
>regards to the musical history.
>
I think this thread has established one golden rule (which I'm sure we
all knew already).
Nobody's objective (whatever that is) or subjective judgement or any
other kind of judgement they're using on here towards the records
discussed is INHERENTLY superior to anyone else's
>> I dont really buy that...for starters I don't believe that coming to
>> trhe music late gives the listener any kind of advantage,objective or
>> otherwise,at all.
>>
>> Yes,Bruce,Bob and Dean are living proof that it is possible to be a
>> 50's music fan (and a pretty damn knowlegeable one too!) WITHOUT
>> having experienced the times first hand but I do think that on balance
>> you really HAD to be there....and I base my opinion on the fact that I
>> KNOW it hurt me badly in some ways that I missed out on a lot of the
>> 50's music myself first hand----due in my case,not to any major fault
>> with my age (tho I could have done with being born five years
>> earlier!) but rather to location problems,especially as far as 50's
>> R&R,R&B and doowop was concerned.
>>
>> Of course living those times means that nostalgia,sentimentality and
>> emotionalism---and other factors too---DID often color our judgement
>> (and continues to do so) resulting in some of the "quirky" oddball
>> choices that we still like----but I for one would rather it be this
>> way rather than having to look back on the 50's in a kind of sterile
>> way (like the way I view the 30's or 40's) with no first hand memories
>> of the time and no first hand perspective.
>>
>> What comments do others have on this subject?
>
>My own position is that having grown up with the music does indeed make
>my response to it somewhat different from Bruce's, Bob's, or Dean's. I
>feel extremely lucky to have been at the right place at the right time.
>For example, I have a vivid memory of hearing the then little known Ray
>Charles for the first time, singing "I've Got a Woman" on the Allen
>Freed show--a kind of "wow" experience. Part of my experience of Ray
>Charles is the memory of following his career and buying his records,
>of the discovery over time of his enormous talents, of wondering what
>he might accomplish next, of being exhilirated by my first radio
>experience of "What'd I Say," etc. Those are my associations, and they
>are personal, and that amount of subjectivity obviously lingers over
>any later experience of Charles' music. BUT there are definite limits
>to the subjectivity. When, for example, Bob places "What'd I Say" among
>the top four records of the 50s, as I do also, I have to believe that
>we are MOSTLY hearing the same sort of quality, reacting to it in a
>similar way, and coming to a conclusion about its worth that is largely
>independent of my nostalgia.
I too would probably place that record equally high----and I'm coming
to it from maybe the same kind of age group as you (or not much
less)....so yes,I heard it at the same time against a somewhat similar
musical background-----but from a whole vastly different culture and a
vastly different (at that time anyway) society.
But the key factor here is we both heard it in 1959 when it was really
MEANT to be heard.A *lot* of our subsequent thinking and opinion about
the record stems from those intitial hearings AT THAT TIME----and of
course through the succeeding years (decades?) I think that fact
counts for an awful lot and is getting overlooked here.
Then you have the added thing that by the time Bob heard it was was
already a recognized classic----so Bob almost certainly did'nt arrive
at his opinion of the record totally independently----the smart money
thinking about its status was already in place.
As I said before something HAS to be missing by arriving at
records---especially crucial "key" records like this,in the scheme of
things,at such a late date..
And I am NOT "knocking" that fact----I too came to hundreds of key R&B
and doowop records that would have been everyday sounds to you in the
50's very late and I am VERY aware that,however much I like them now
my experience of them would have been much greater still had I heard
them at the proper time!
>That is, there must be something that is
>actually there objectively in the record for us both to be hearing, and
>some reasonably objective part of us that manages to hear the same, or
>at least a very similar, thing. Bob can't have my personal experience
>of watching Ray Charles develop, and I can't have his personal
>experience of discovering Charles retrospectively, but that seems
>relatively trivial compared to the experience of the music that we can
>share.
Both views of the music are valid....its just that one is much more
desirable (and therefore perhaps a teeny bit more valid?) than the
other
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!
Roger Ford
>In article <20020215094642...@mb-fx.aol.com>, SavoyBG
><sav...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> >From: mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford)
>>
>> >viirtually all the
>> >World is going to support "The Beatles had great talent" premise
>>
>> Don't know about that. I know lots of people who think otherwise.
>
>I'm not going to get into an argument over this but if the Beatles
>didn't have great talent then why did people like Leonard Bernstein
>(and others) come out and make statements about how talented they were?
>They had nothing to gain by doing so. The Beatles did things with their
>music that R&R/Pop musicians had never done. They were very innovative,
>and that takes talent! That doesn't mean to say that everyone has to
>like the Beatles, but anyone who denies they had talent is not bringing
>any objectivity *at all* to the table!
>
Though I personally don't care for them or their music I would not
deny that The Beatles had song writing talent and,I suppose,sufficient
talent as musicians to get across what they were doing.Their vocal
talents always seemed a bit limited to me but I can see why others
would like them and find them innovative as you described them.
.
Roger Ford
>>From: mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger Ford)
>
>>viirtually all the
>>World is going to support "The Beatles had great talent" premise
>
>Don't know about that. I know lots of people who think otherwise.
>
Alright I'll rephrase.
A majority of the world popular music audience would probably support
"The Beatles had great talent" premise.
Robert J. Boyne
Intercourse Off.
I was 17+ in 1960 and appreciated "WYSLMT" then and now.
Not to mention vaginas, so I wont.
Robert J.
--
Robert J. Boyne.Sutton Group West Coast Realty.North Vancouver/British Columbia.Cell. 604-644-6973.
***************************************************************************************
" I have the good sense to know that unheard songs are often sweeter".
Email - rjb...@shaw.ca
Home page - http://www.realtor-lower-mainland.com
Roger Ford
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:150220021542299466%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
>> In article <3c6d318e...@netnews.att.net>, Edward Bielcik
>> <bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > What's wrong with listening to music without *fully* appreciating it?
>>
>> Nothing. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? I often have music
>> playing in the background and am only half-consious of it. Actually, I
>> don't know what a "full" appreciation might be.
>---------------
>It's like Ed said, a full appreciation is when the music is part of your own
>culture.
What about where the listener is an English 1950's teenager growing up
in London in a culture a world away from the one where his favorite
music originated....a culture where R&B is foreign and almost totally
alien.
Can he ever attain "full appreciation"?
Bob Roman
Ford) wrote:
>On Fri, 15 Feb 2002 08:51:57 -0600, Mark Dintenfass
><mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote:
>>The real argument here begins with Bruce's claim for superior
>>objectivity, which you quite properly reject. I'd even agree with you
>>that musical likes and dislikes are never wholly objective. Where we
>>still disagree is your insistence that it's all subjective.
>
>Only because I never seem to see any truly *objective* (and I don't
>mean Bruce's definition of "objective" I mean PROPER objective!)
>statements about rock 'n' roll and R&B on here.
If there's no such thing as getting "better," what's the point of a
musician practicing? What's the point of a songwiter developing his
craft. You can point to examples where a great record comes out of
shoddy craftsmanship, where everything seems to miraculously come
together. So can I. But 99 cases out of 100, quality craftsmanship
is more important than praying for a miracle.
Bob Roman
Roger Ford
wrote:
Bob,I have a couple of shelves of records marked "DRECK" that are
stuff I never play,nor do I like that are there simply because they
are rare and may earn me some big $$$s at some future time..
Now,I can certainly point to thousands and thousands of records played
by top flight musicians on material composed by ace composers that
certainly contain "quality craftsmanship" but where said records do
nothing at all for me and if I possessed them would quite rightly find
themselves having this "DRECK" label attached to them assuming I even
kept them.
What does this "quality craftmanship" thing prove,Bob?
Mark Dintenfass
DianeE <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> "Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3c6e2660...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
> > On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:38:06 GMT, "DianeE"
> > <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
> > >news:150220021542299466%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
> > >> In article <3c6d318e...@netnews.att.net>, Edward Bielcik
> > >> <bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > What's wrong with listening to music without *fully* appreciating it?
> > >>
> > >> Nothing. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? I often have music
> > >> playing in the background and am only half-consious of it. Actually, I
> > >> don't know what a "full" appreciation might be.
> > >---------------
> > >It's like Ed said, a full appreciation is when the music is part of your
> own
> > >culture.
> >
> > What about where the listener is an English 1950's teenager growing up
> > in London in a culture a world away from the one where his favorite
> > music originated....a culture where R&B is foreign and almost totally
> > alien.
> >
> > Can he ever attain "full appreciation"?
> -------------
> Not in the sense Ed meant it. But "full appreciation," in this sense of the
> phrase, is not something to be *attained*. It's an accident of time and
> place.
>
> You might say that as an American child, a lover of Disney cartoons, in the
> 50s, I "fully appreciated" the score of "Lady And The Tramp." It was aimed
> at me, and I responded to it by getting my mother to buy me "The Siamese Cat
> Song." Does that mean I *like* "The Siamese Cat Song" better than "Earth
> Angel" (which I didn't "fully appreciate" because I was 6 when it came out)?
> Um, no.
The problem we're having is in the word "fully." It implies that there
is just one best way to appreciate something, the "full" way, and that
every other kind of appreciation is less than that. That's what I
believe is not true. Roger's appreciation of "Earth Angel," or yours,
is no doubt different from mine, since I heard it fresh and new at just
the right age, in just the right place, and neither of you did. But I
would never claim that my appreciation of the song at any given moment
is somehow better than yours or Roger's. Or that my appreciation of it
the first time I heard it is "fuller" than my appreciation of it the
fortieth time I heard it, since each time I hear it the experience is
at least a little different. Yes, probably I appreciated it more at
fifteen than you did at six, but if we were to sit down and listen to
it together right now, some of what we experienced would be the same,
some would be different and personal, but neither "appreciation" would
be any "fuller" than the other.
Roger Ford
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3c6e2660...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 04:38:06 GMT, "DianeE"
>> <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Mark Dintenfass" <mdint...@xxnew.rr.com> wrote in message
>> >news:150220021542299466%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com...
>> >> In article <3c6d318e...@netnews.att.net>, Edward Bielcik
>> >> <bie...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > What's wrong with listening to music without *fully* appreciating it?
>> >>
>> >> Nothing. Did I say there was anything wrong with it? I often have music
>> >> playing in the background and am only half-consious of it. Actually, I
>> >> don't know what a "full" appreciation might be.
>> >---------------
>> >It's like Ed said, a full appreciation is when the music is part of your
>own
>> >culture.
>>
>> What about where the listener is an English 1950's teenager growing up
>> in London in a culture a world away from the one where his favorite
>> music originated....a culture where R&B is foreign and almost totally
>> alien.
>>
>> Can he ever attain "full appreciation"?
>-------------
>Not in the sense Ed meant it. But "full appreciation," in this sense of the
>phrase, is not something to be *attained*. It's an accident of time and
>place.
>
Hold on!
Answer me this then.
By the same yardstick that Ed and yourself are using to measure
here,can any of the multitude of guys and girls on this ng who were
American teenagers in the 50's fully appreciate....let's see....Elvis
Presley?
After all Elvis sprang to initial fame in what was basically another
culture right? In the Deep South in conditions far removed from those
in New York City.A cultural divide that was different,but not much
less drastic than the huge cultural gap that existed between NYC and
London.
By that token I'd maintain that to FULLY appreciate Elvis and all his
works you HAD to have been a teenager growing up somewhere in the
Memphis area in 1954 and have heard that Sun 78 of "That's All Right"
and "Blue Moon Of Kentucky" playing regularly on Dewey Phillips' "Red
Hot And Blue" show and witnessed this crazy guy shake around and tear
the place up on stage
Mark Dintenfass
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> As far as I can see the only real objective stuff you can say about
> these records are unarguable,unassailable things like the name of the
> act that recorded them,the label they were on and its number,the
> writer,the chart position the records reached and who played on
> them---all items where there is no room for argument or differing
> views.
>
> Just about everything else is a matter of opinion,even when that
> opinion is Bruce's....and therefore subjective
How about statements about influence or historical importance?
"The guitar break of 'Johnny B. Goode' is crucially important to the
development of guitar-driven rock music."
How about statements judging craftsmanship?
"Buddy Holly was a more accomplished guitar player than Elvis Presley."
How about statements about sound quality?
"Atlantic records, in general, have much better sound quality than
Chess records."
The fact that one can argue about a statement doesn't necessarily make
that statement wholly subjective.
Bob Roman
Ford) wrote:
>Now,I can certainly point to thousands and thousands of records played
>by top flight musicians on material composed by ace composers that
>certainly contain "quality craftsmanship" but where said records do
>nothing at all for me and if I possessed them would quite rightly find
>themselves having this "DRECK" label attached to them assuming I even
>kept them.
>
>What does this "quality craftmanship" thing prove,Bob?
Enrico Caruso singing "Who Do You Love," backed by the Dave Brubeck
Quartet, would be dreck. Great singer, great musicians, great song --
and dreck. But that says nothing to disprove that great singers are
usually better than poor singers, great musicians are usually better
than poor musicians, and great songs usually turn out better than poor
songs. Part of craftsmanship, the craft of the producer, is to match
artists to material.
Bob Roman
Edward Bielcik
>> Same goes for music that was directly aimed at Blacks. I probably
>> *didn't* appreciate the early stuff in the same way. But that was a
>> relatively short period of time in R&R history. It all changed damned
>> fast when the companies recoginzed that there was a buck to be made by
>> delivering the music to *all* teenagers.
>
>True, but most of what r'n'r delivered, most of what topped the charts
>and filled the radio stations, was mediocre or worse. We recall the
>good stuff and tend to forget out the hours we spent listening to the
>bad stuff.<
Hat was the point in my original post. In one ear and out the other.
>One of the reasons I think a
>measure of objectivity is a good thing to seek is that it can help sort
>out what's good from what's temporarily popular.<
By whom and for what reason? And setting artificial boundaries that
some use to help decide what's "good" or not, like assigning a cut to
the "vaginal" category, only shows that objectivity ain't all that
it's cracked up to be. (no pun intnended). <g>
Regards
Ed
SavoyBG
>
>If there's no such thing as getting "better," what's the point of a
>musician practicing? What's the point of a songwiter developing his
>craft.
For the music I like best, most times an artist's best records are either right
at the beginning of his career, or shortly thereafter.
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>How about statements about influence or historical importance?
>
>"The guitar break of 'Johnny B. Goode' is crucially important to the
>development of guitar-driven rock music."
Take the word "crucially" out of there and I might agree.
Guitar driven rock music would have developed just fine if that record had
never existed, or if that record didn't contain a guitar break.
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>What about where the listener is an English 1950's teenager growing up
>in London in a culture a world away from the one where his favorite
>music originated....a culture where R&B is foreign and almost totally
>alien.
>
>Can he ever attain "full appreciation"?
>
Obviously not :-)
Bruce Grossberg
SavoyBG
>A majority of the world popular music audience would probably support
>"The Beatles had great talent" premise.
>
Not so sure about that either. The vast majority of the world popular music
audience does not speak English, and would probably have no opinion on this.
Bruce Grossberg
Cathy D
<mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> And I am NOT "knocking" that fact----I too came to hundreds of key R&B
> and doowop records that would have been everyday sounds to you in the
> 50's very late and I am VERY aware that,however much I like them now
> my experience of them would have been much greater still had I heard
> them at the proper time!
I don't think that your experience of them would have necessarily been
*greater*. I think *different* would be a better word to describe how
you (or anyone hearing the music at a later date) would have
experienced it. (A great song is a great song no matter when you hear
it.) There are many, many songs that I never heard in the 50's and yet
I don't feel that I am lacking in appreciation for them, or that my
experience would have been *greater* for hearing them in their time. I
like many of them just as much as anything I heard back then, but
doubtless I am experiencing them in a *different* way.
I know I am quibbling in the above over your choice of words, but in
what way do you feel that your experience would have been *greater* (as
opposed to *different*)?
Cathy :)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Cathy D
<Robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You're losing me here, Bob. I don't see what this has to do with the
subject matter of this thread. Talented artists (be they musicians,
singers, producers, etc.) are more likely to produce works that will be
acclaimed by the majority of the public as being worthy of purchase by
said public. So, *in general* talent counts, but on a *individual*
basis our personal taste accounts for what we, as individuals, buy, and
that taste may or may not accord with the general public's taste.
Roger Ford
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:3c6e6ad5...@news-text.blueyonder.co.uk...
>> >>[Roger]
>at about where the listener is an English 1950's teenager growing up
>> >> in London in a culture a world away from the one where his favorite
>> >> music originated....a culture where R&B is foreign and almost totally
>> >> alien.
>> >>
>> >> Can he ever attain "full appreciation"?
>> >-------------
>[Diane]
>> >Not in the sense Ed meant it. But "full appreciation," in this sense of
>the
>> >phrase, is not something to be *attained*. It's an accident of time and
>> >place.
>> >
>[Roger]
>> Hold on!
>>
>> Answer me this then.
>>
>> By the same yardstick that Ed and yourself are using to measure
>> here,can any of the multitude of guys and girls on this ng who were
>> American teenagers in the 50's fully appreciate....let's see....Elvis
>> Presley?
>>
>> After all Elvis sprang to initial fame in what was basically another
>> culture right? In the Deep South in conditions far removed from those
>> in New York City.A cultural divide that was different,but not much
>> less drastic than the huge cultural gap that existed between NYC and
>> London.
>>
>> By that token I'd maintain that to FULLY appreciate Elvis and all his
>> works you HAD to have been a teenager growing up somewhere in the
>> Memphis area in 1954 and have heard that Sun 78 of "That's All Right"
>> and "Blue Moon Of Kentucky" playing regularly on Dewey Phillips' "Red
>> Hot And Blue" show and witnessed this crazy guy shake around and tear
>> the place up on stage
>-----------------------
>Yes. Absolutely. In the sense that Ed meant it, this is entirely correct.
>
Ok now I'll admit that to my way of thinking this is correct too
>To me, this is a semantic problem. "Appreciate" is being used here in a
>special sense of the word.
>
Absolutely! See below......
>I think the point Ed was making was valid, that you have a *deeper
>connection*, an *added dimension* if you will, when you listen to the music
>*of your own culture* (or sub-culture). I used religious music as a very
>obvious example.
>
>BUT when Ed goes on to say that this means his appreciation of
>late-50s/early-60s doowopp is *better* than yours, or Bob's, that's where I
>get off the bus, and I'll have to let Ed account for himself.
>
Nope,afraid I stay on the bus ----well at least to the next stop! :-)
Although I can,of course" *like* (or even love) these records,on
another level and in an obvious way,by virtue of the different
cultures we grew up in and or different backgrounds---plus the ease of
acess for Ed to late 50's/early 60's doowop (there's only ONE "p" Di
so don't take the pee! :-) and most importantly his FAMILIARITY with
it in those early years Ed surely *MUST* have some kind of deeper---or
at least CLOSER---appreciation of doowop---especially NYC
doowop----than I have or probably can ever *hope* to have.
No matter how much I study this subject,how many books I read,how many
American guys I talk to or however large my r&r collection eventually
gets I can NEVER NEVER NEVER be in the position of having been a
1950's American teenager so therefore having absolutely NO first hand
knowledge of NYC before about 1970 Ed is bound to lose me on this
stuff to a large extent.
I *know* (or I think I know) what he is saying but I CANNOT RELATE
DIRECTLY to what he is saying.And I suppose I never will.
That I know the bit about the subject that I do I think is a major
achievement in itself.
Just imagine this....me lecturiing Ed (or any other NYer) on the
subleties and niceties of obscure NY doowop groups would be akin to
either Ed or yourself trying to tell me about British skiffle right?
Yeah,I'm sure you know quite a bit about it BUT I WAS THERE.
And when it comes to NY doowop ED WAS THERE---and I was'nt :-( .
>Which, BTW, he's been doing very well lately. I've really enjoyed this
>whole thought-provoking discussion over the past few days.
>
The discussion must be more vaginal than we thought,huh? :-)
Bob Roman
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>I think the point Ed was making was valid, that you have a *deeper
>connection*, an *added dimension* if you will, when you listen to the music
>*of your own culture* (or sub-culture). I used religious music as a very
>obvious example.
I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. But let me ask, who
had a deeper appreciation, in the sense you're using it, of Brill
Building pop? The teenagers it was aimed at, or the other artists at
the Brill Building?
Bob Roman
Mark Dintenfass
<sav...@aol.com> wrote:
The Beatles were remarkably popular in countries where the people did
not speak English--or so I've heard.
Dean F.
"DianeE" wrote:
> Every time I open up Marsh's "Heart Of
> Rock And Soul" book I want to fling it out the window. The only reason I
> don't is that it's somebody else's book.
I first got that book in the fall of 1989. As I read it, I was sufficiently
curious to begin seeking out the 600 or so songs that I didn't already have
in my collection. I subsequently developed an intense passion for '60s Soul
music, which led to my creating the radio show that I've hosted for the past
four-and-a-half years--a radio show, Diane, that I seem to recall your
liking quite a bit.
In a nutshell: if Dave Marsh had not written "The Heart of Rock and Soul,"
there never would have been a "Soul Express" show. Something to bear in mind
the next time you're tempted to fling Dave's book out the window.
Roger Ford
I don't always agree with Bruce but I do agree on this and not just in
r&r either-----and there are examples by any number of acts to testify
that this is so.
Rick Schubert
Thanks (and also to Bob Moke) for the correction. Was "Why Should I
Love You?" a big R&B record?
-- Rick Schubert <r...@san.rr.com>
Roger Ford
wrote:
>On Sat, 16 Feb 2002 14:23:25 GMT, mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk (Roger
And I'm still saying that there are thousands of such records as you
describe that are *dreck*!
Your argument does'nt seem to be getting anywhere here,Bob :-(
Dean F.
"DianeE" wrote:
> Well, if you can figure out what the fuck he's talking about, you're a
> better man than I am, Gunga Dean.
I would HOPE I'm a better man than you are, Diane! :-p
But seriously: I'd wager that if you were to hear any of the CDs I made last
year in which I chronicled all 1,001 of Dave's picks, you'd enjoy the hell
out of most of what you heard. Forget Dave's misguided (albeit
well-intended) intellectualizing about the records. What truly matters is
the music, a lot of which I personally consider damned good.
Roger Ford
Whilst not beccessarily disagreeing with them,the only one of these
I'd properly call objective is the last one but I can produce quite a
few Atlantic and Chess singles to "prove" that this is not as
watertight as you seem to think..
Buddy Holly may have been a better guitar player but it did him no
good in a one on one with Elvis whose overall body of 50's work is not
only more important but is also in my (subjective :-) opinion better
so the objective fact you mention is really not that important!
The Chuck Berry statement is I think,almost wholly subjective and
moreover can't be proved,merely guessed at.
Anyway none of this is what I really have in mind when applying
objectivity to rock 'n ' roll records-----I need to see an OBJECTIVE
list of the 100 best rock 'n'' roll records of the 50's.
THEN I'll begin to buy objectivity! .
Mark Dintenfass
<soulexpre...@attbi.com> wrote:
I'm glad there's someone else around here who appreciates Marsh. I also
learned about a lot of good music from him. There are no doubt errors
in his book, but there will be errors in every book of that kind. I
wonder what specifically gets people like Diane so riled up about him.
Roger Ford
But since the USA is by far the world's greatest record market----and
the world's #1 record producer----it follows that a majority of the
pop records issued in the world are in English.
I can't speak for other countries but I've travelled over a great deal
of Europe and English-speaking pop records are very common in all
those countries and of course The Beatles were huge in all of them.
The Beatles were also incredibly popular in India and also behind the
Iron Curtain where their records were very hard to obtain .
Add the #2 record market (Japan) to all these plus the USA and the UK
(#3 record market) and I submit you have a sizeable chunk of the total
world market.
The only big guns missing here are the Communist Chinese and who gives
a fuck about them?
Roger Ford
I agree with Diane,I mean I read the Marsh book,it was ok in parts but
some of it was real heavy going and I often found myself wondering
what on earth is he going on about.
Why do these people feel it neccessary to do all this
intellectualizing about something as basic and as simple as rock 'n'
roll?