RESULTS, Year Three - Great Artists - Rec.1970s HoF
Bob Roman
finally time to announce the third induction class of Great Artists to the
Rec.Music.Rock-Pop-R&B.1970s Hall of Fame.
The new inductees, in alphabetical order, are:
Earth Wind & Fire
Fleetwood Mac
Marvin Gaye
Paul Simon
The Spinners
Twenty-four ballots were cast, requiring twelve votes for induction. These
were the vote totals:
Fleetwood Mac - 17
Marvin Gaye - 16
Paul Simon - 15
Earth Wind & Fire - 13
The Spinners - 13
The Allman Brothers Band - 11
The Bee Gees - 11
The Clash - 11
Deep Purple - 11
The Kinks - 11
Curtis Mayfield - 11
Paul McCartney/Wings - 11
Black Sabbath - 10
Bob Dylan - 10
Iggy Pop/Stooges - 7
Queen - 7
Richard & Linda Thompson - 7
Miles Davis - 6
King Crimson - 5
Little Feat - 5
Can - 4
Yes - 3
I have to say, I found these results surprising.
Thanks to all who participated.
--
Bob Roman
Mark Dintenfass
<robert...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Fleetwood Mac - 17
> Marvin Gaye - 16
> Paul Simon - 15
> Earth Wind & Fire - 13
> The Spinners - 13
> The Allman Brothers Band - 11
> The Bee Gees - 11
> The Clash - 11
> Deep Purple - 11
> The Kinks - 11
> Curtis Mayfield - 11
> Paul McCartney/Wings - 11
> Black Sabbath - 10
> Bob Dylan - 10
> Iggy Pop/Stooges - 7
> Queen - 7
> Richard & Linda Thompson - 7
> Miles Davis - 6
> King Crimson - 5
> Little Feat - 5
> Can - 4
> Yes - 3
>
> I have to say, I found these results surprising.
Pleasantly surprising. I guess the tide is shifting around here toward
soul sounds and away from art-rock.
--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply
Sav...@aol.com
What surprised you?
Bob Roman
>> I have to say, I found these results surprising.
>
> What surprised you?
I was surprised because traditionally this hasn't been a soul-dominated
discussion group. I can understand Marvin being a favorite, but EWF and the
Spinners are not groups that get a lot of mention here.
I was surprised because Yes did very poorly. I know they polarize people,
but they do get a lot of mention here, so I didn't think they would be
bringing up the bottom.
I was surprised that Paul Simon did better than Dylan, since Dylan does
better in the album survivor contests.
I'm not surprised that Fleetwood Mac was inducted, but I was suprised they
led the field.
--
Bob Roman
Intheway
Mark Dintenfass wrote:
>
> Pleasantly surprising. I guess the tide is shifting around here toward
> soul sounds and away from art-rock.
I think prog/art gets discussed a bit more than soul because there are
some very articulate and prolific prog advocates in the group right
now. But I think the vote has less to do with any "tide" than the
appearance that our prog contingent hasn't found itself with any real
consensus choices on the final ballots. By the apparent makeup of our
group, where no one type of music has a majority on enthusiasts,
inductees have to appeal outside some artificially drawn genre lines,
but there has to be some solid support within the usual fans of the
genre, too. When Yes, who were probably the most successful group of
the genre (and who would probably be my first choice to go in), isn't
capable garnering more than three votes, I think it goes more to the
diversity of the stuff we put under the prog heading, and the lumping
together of the diverse prog opinions in the group, than it does to any
greater tendency of group thought.
I would like to think that you're right, and that Curtis Mayfield
deservedly gets in next year as the tide continues to rise, but I
wouldn't be terribly surprised to see him stay with less than half the
votes for years to come. He's strongly supported by the soul loving
contingent among us, but seems not to have much attraction to anyone
else.
And thanks, Bob, for running this again.
Sav...@aol.com
Bob Roman wrote:
> <Sav...@aol.com> wrote...
> >> I have to say, I found these results surprising.
> >
> > What surprised you?
>
> I was surprised because traditionally this hasn't been a soul-dominated
> discussion group. I can understand Marvin being a favorite, but EWF and the
> Spinners are not groups that get a lot of mention here.
I think SOME voters are showing a responsibility to induct artists
based on the merits of their achievements in the busines, and as
artists, as opposed to just listing their own personal favorites,
without regard to their relative obscurity.
>
> I was surprised because Yes did very poorly. I know they polarize people,
> but they do get a lot of mention here, so I didn't think they would be
> bringing up the bottom.
I agree with you there. When Yes can't even get half of the votes of
Richard And Linda Thompson something is strange.
Nobody has yet mentioned the relative non-support for Queen. I've seen
plenty of artist lists where peopl rank them as one of the greatest
acts of all time. It must be that the voters here are a bit more
mature, as Queen seems to be a favorite of teenagers, even now, plus
they seem to have a much better standing with fans outside of America.
Our inductees this time around were almost all American, save for the
British portion of Fleetwood Mac.
> I was surprised that Paul Simon did better than Dylan, since Dylan does
> better in the album survivor contests.
Did he do well with anything other than "Blood On The Tracks?"
I think the voters recognize that Paul was more consistent throughout
the decade.
> I'm not surprised that Fleetwood Mac was inducted, but I was suprised they
> led the field.
Again, SOME voters are attempting to be more objective about this,
rather than merely voting for their personal favorites.
Sav...@aol.com
have to get half of this crazy cross section of voters to agree on
letting someone in. Seven different acts fell one vote short, and I
didn't vote for 4 or 5 of them.
Hall Of Fame page has been updated:
Todd Lucas
Bob Roman wrote:
> Twenty-four ballots were cast, requiring twelve votes for induction. These
> were the vote totals:
> The Allman Brothers Band - 11
> The Bee Gees - 11
> The Clash - 11
> Deep Purple - 11
> The Kinks - 11
> Curtis Mayfield - 11
> Paul McCartney/Wings - 11
Wow, seven artists fall one vote short.
Todd
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> Bob Roman wrote:
>>
> > I was surprised that Paul Simon did better than Dylan, since Dylan does
> > better in the album survivor contests.
>
> Did he do well with anything other than "Blood On The Tracks?"
>
> I think the voters recognize that Paul was more consistent throughout
> the decade.
>
There isn't even a question about who did more consistently good work
throughout the decade. FWIW, I completely agree with Bruce.
Imagine if Dylan had ACTUALLY BEGUN his career in 1970 and pursued it
from there, with the resulting output for the decade of:
1970 Self Portrait
1970 New Morning
1973 Pat Garrett & Billy the Kid [Soundtrack]
1973 Dylan
1974 Planet Waves
1974 Before the Flood [live]
1975 Blood on the Tracks
1976 Desire
1976 Hard Rain [live] Columbia
1978 Street Legal Columbia
1979 Slow Train Coming
1979 At Budokan [live] Columbia
So what's salvageable here?
Yes, of course, Blood On The Tracks, and one decent live album, the
first one, Before The Flood. Self-Portrait and Live At Budokan have
been roundly panned, and New Morning, Planet Waves and Desire are far
below his established standard of brilliance in the 1960s;
they're okay. "Dylan" was Columbia's revenge, OUT-TAKES from the
dismal Self-Portrait, for Dylan's brief exile at Asylum. Hard Rain and
Street Legal might be taken as mediocrities, and Slow Train Coming is
the first of a three Christian albums.
Did somebody say Hall of Fame?
compare this the 70's output of Paul Simon, John Prine, Van Morrison,
Neil Young, or Richard & Linda Thompson all almost solid throughout or
at least fewer misfires, and there is no stable argument. An artist
shouldn't get points for what they did in a previous decade in our
format.
-L.I.
JGM
I thought a couple of these got a half-vote head start. Or something.
JGM
Bob Roman
> Todd Lucas wrote:
>> Wow, seven artists fall one vote short.
>
> I thought a couple of these got a half-vote head start. Or something.
That's only in the nomination process.
--
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
>
> Blood on the Tracks is a masterpiece.
It's a pretty good album.
Desire isn't, but comes very close.
About as close as you've come to being a succussful musician. It's just
a fair album.
Before the Flood is a superb live album,
decnt at best.
> and Planet Waves and New Morning are quite good.
fair minus
DianeE
"Bob Roman" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11p8o3u...@news.supernews.com...
I personally am surprised that EWF and The Spinners beat out The Bee Gees
and The Allman Brothers Band, but I suppose the vote could just have easily
have gone the other way. I'm very happy that Marvin Gaye and Paul Simon
coasted in, and although I don't *like* the 70s incarnation of Fleetwood
Mac, they certainly sold a shitload of records and were almost as
"quintessentially 70s" as The Bee Gees.
DianeE
Mark Dintenfass
Intheway <fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass wrote:
> >
> > Pleasantly surprising. I guess the tide is shifting around here toward
> > soul sounds and away from art-rock.
>
> I think prog/art gets discussed a bit more than soul because there are
> some very articulate and prolific prog advocates in the group right
> now. But I think the vote has less to do with any "tide" than the
> appearance that our prog contingent hasn't found itself with any real
> consensus choices on the final ballots. By the apparent makeup of our
> group, where no one type of music has a majority on enthusiasts,
> inductees have to appeal outside some artificially drawn genre lines,
> but there has to be some solid support within the usual fans of the
> genre, too. When Yes, who were probably the most successful group of
> the genre (and who would probably be my first choice to go in), isn't
> capable garnering more than three votes, I think it goes more to the
> diversity of the stuff we put under the prog heading, and the lumping
> together of the diverse prog opinions in the group, than it does to any
> greater tendency of group thought.
I purposely didn't use the term "prog" because it says so little and
begs the question of whether that kind of music actually was
"progress.". Still, there weren't that many prog groups splitting the
vote. When Yes and Can bring up the rear, then that variety of music
seems to have much less support than I anticipated.
> I would like to think that you're right, and that Curtis Mayfield
> deservedly gets in next year as the tide continues to rise, but I
> wouldn't be terribly surprised to see him stay with less than half the
> votes for years to come. He's strongly supported by the soul loving
> contingent among us, but seems not to have much attraction to anyone
> else.
It still seems odd to me that Mayfield would garner less support than
the Spinners, who I would have thought appeal to a more specialized
taste, or Earth, Wind, and Fire, who at least one soul fan (me) didn't
vote for. After all, Mayfield should appeal to those who believe lyrics
and/or innovation are very important, and, IIRC, he was highly visible
(or audible) on radio stations that didn't play a lot of soul,
especially the Superfly soundtrack stuff. We'll have to wait until next
year to see who's right. From my point of view, Mayfield is second only
to Marvin Gaye as the soul giant of the 70s.
Sav...@aol.com
Mark Dintenfass wrote:
>
> It still seems odd to me that Mayfield would garner less support than
> the Spinners, who I would have thought appeal to a more specialized
> taste, or Earth, Wind, and Fire, who at least one soul fan (me) didn't
> vote for. After all, Mayfield should appeal to those who believe lyrics
> and/or innovation are very important, and, IIRC, he was highly visible
> (or audible) on radio stations that didn't play a lot of soul,
You absolutely don't recall correctly. The Spinners and E, W & F each
had WAY more hit songs on the pop charts than Mayfield did from 1970 to
1979.
Top 40 pop chart hits - 1970-1979
Spinners - 13
EWF - 14
Mayfield - 5
And one of Mayfield five was a song called "Kung Fu" which just hit #
40. He was essntially done for the decade after the "Superfly" album.
> especially the Superfly soundtrack stuff. We'll have to wait until next
> year to see who's right. From my point of view, Mayfield is second only
> to Marvin Gaye as the soul giant of the 70s.
I think your view is quite distorted. The Spinners, EWF, the O'Jays,
Aretha, James Brown, The Isley Brothers, Gladys & the Pips, Joe Simon,
The Temptations, Al Green, Stevie Wonder and a host of other artists
were all much more significant than Mayfield in the 1970s.
Intheway
Mark Dintenfass wrote:
>
> I purposely didn't use the term "prog" because it says so little and
> begs the question of whether that kind of music actually was
> "progress.". Still, there weren't that many prog groups splitting the
> vote. When Yes and Can bring up the rear, then that variety of music
> seems to have much less support than I anticipated.
You may be on to something here. I just seem to remember a pretty
broad range of groups during the nomination phase, with only Yes and
Can getting enough support to reach the final ballot.
>
> It still seems odd to me that Mayfield would garner less support than
> the Spinners, who I would have thought appeal to a more specialized
> taste, or Earth, Wind, and Fire, who at least one soul fan (me) didn't
> vote for. After all, Mayfield should appeal to those who believe lyrics
> and/or innovation are very important, and, IIRC, he was highly visible
> (or audible) on radio stations that didn't play a lot of soul,
> especially the Superfly soundtrack stuff. We'll have to wait until next
> year to see who's right. From my point of view, Mayfield is second only
> to Marvin Gaye as the soul giant of the 70s.
The support for the Spinners didn't surprise me, although I also
thought Mayfield would get in first. To me, Mayfield is one of a
handful of the true musical giants of the past 50 years, and he should
have been a first year inductee of any Hall of Fame covering the years
of his career. I put him ahead of Gaye and Stevie Wonder. After them,
there's a crowd. This is not to denigrate the Spinners, who provide an
important connection, and transition, between Motown (and,
interestingly, that "obscurity" Harvey Fuqua) and the Philly sound of
Thom Bell, and their body of work deserves recognition. There's no
shame in being in Mayfield's shadow, just because everyone is.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
To me, Mayfield is one of a
> handful of the true musical giants of the past 50 years, and he should
> have been a first year inductee of any Hall of Fame covering the years
> of his career. I put him ahead of Gaye and Stevie Wonder.
Preposterous, and I like the Impressions better than Gaye or Wonder,
but Mayfield is not even in their league as a musical giant.
Intheway
This, of course, will come as a great surprise to anyone who looks
beyond Top 40 chart performance as an indication of artistic merit.
I hate to cite a book because, as we know, not everyone will ever look
at one that primarily contains words, but Craig Werner's "Higher
Ground: Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin, Curtis Mayfield and the Rise
and Fall of American Soul" makes it pretty clear that Mayfield's work
as a producer, writer and film composer was not only of considerable
importance, it had considerable musical impact, besides. Mayfield
moved pretty much away from the single as his mode of expression during
this period.
Yes, there were some clunkers in there, especially when he dumbed down
his work to make it appealing to the disco crowd. At that time, few
artists could have avoided that problem. Even with that stuff, his 70s
output contained some brilliant stuff after "Superfly," chart
performance notwithstanding.
I really wish Bruce could be right about one of these some time, just
so he doesn't think I'm picking on him for pointing out when he gets it
wrong.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> >
> He was essntially done for the decade after the "Superfly" album.
> >
>
> This, of course, will come as a great surprise to anyone who looks
> beyond Top 40 chart performance as an indication of artistic merit.
The statement was made in response to Mark's remark that Mayfield's
music was heard more on non-soul stations more than the music of the
Spinners and Earth, Wind & Fire, schmuck.
>Mayfield's work as a producer, writer and film composer was not only of considerable
> importance,
We are inducting artists here, not producers and songwriters and film
composers, but if you want to include songs written for other artists
IN THE 70s, Mayfield lags well behind Stevie Wonder on the strength of
"Tell Me Something Good" and It's A Shame" alone.
Mark Dintenfass
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
We measure importance quite differently.
Mark Dintenfass
<Sav...@aol.com> wrote:
I happened to be in Columbus, Ohio, on business just when Mayfield's
first solo album was released, and a radio station I latched onto, by
luck, in the motel room was playing the entire album. I guess someone
back then must have thought he was rather important.
Intheway
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> Intheway wrote:
> > Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > He was essntially done for the decade after the "Superfly" album.
> > >
> >
> > This, of course, will come as a great surprise to anyone who looks
> > beyond Top 40 chart performance as an indication of artistic merit.
>
> The statement was made in response to Mark's remark that Mayfield's
> music was heard more on non-soul stations more than the music of the
> Spinners and Earth, Wind & Fire, schmuck.
>
Don't get all cranky on us, Captain Koko, but you're still wrong. There
were radio stations that were not Top 40 stations that played Mayfield
regularly through the 70s. We went over that when you declared Scott
Muni a racist.
So, despite all the evidence to the contrary, which your response
doesn't address, you are sticking to the claim that Mayfield was "done"
after Superfly?
You never have been one to let facts get in the way of your opinions,
Cappy, so don't go changing on my account.
>
> >Mayfield's work as a producer, writer and film composer was not only of considerable
> > importance,
>
> We are inducting artists here, not producers and songwriters and film
> composers,
Nice edit, Captain Koko, but you've been caught at it once too often.
His soundtrack work (which he produced and wrote) *was* a great deal of
his work as an artist during the decade.
but if you want to include songs written for other artists
> IN THE 70s, Mayfield lags well behind Stevie Wonder on the strength of
> "Tell Me Something Good" and It's A Shame" alone.
Interesting opinion. Too bad it's just a troll.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
>
> So, despite all the evidence to the contrary, which your response
> doesn't address, you are sticking to the claim that Mayfield was "done"
> after Superfly?
Done as a "Top 40" pop chart artist, yes he was.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
>
> Nice edit, Captain Koko, but you've been caught at it once too often.
>
I like that name, between Koko Taylor and the Koko label, it works out
well.
http://2005.sxsw.com/music/conference/panels/?action=bio&id=B114852
cordially, even to green toothed albinos,
ck
P.S. - Grow the mustache a little longer, maybe it'll cover up the
teeth.
Brett A. Pasternack
> Mike G wrote:
>
>>Blood on the Tracks is a masterpiece.
>
>
> It's a pretty good album.
If you cared about lyrics, you'd know it's a masterpiece.
Sav...@aol.com
If you didn't care about lyrics, you'd know that it's just a pretty
good album.
Bob Roman
> Imagine if Dylan had ACTUALLY BEGUN his career in 1970 and pursued it
> from there, with the resulting output for the decade of:
>
> 1970 Self Portrait
> So what's salvageable here?
I agree there's nothing here to really knock your socks off, but if the
worst of it were edited out (like the pointless live version of Like a
Rollng Stone) it certainly would not deserve the 0-star review it got in
Rolling Stones that started with the line "What is this shit?"
It's interesting that the user reviews of Self Portrait on Amazon are almost
exclusively praise, and defending it against critical attacks.
I think if it had come out two years earlier it would have been better
reviewed -- sort of a companion to the Beatles' White Album. The White
Album was the sound of the Beatles battling against one another. Self
Portrait sounds the same within one man.
--
Bob Roman
yougotl...@yahoo.com
output, too.
1970 "McCartney"
1971 "Ram"
1971 Wild Life
1973 Red Rose Speedway
1973 Band on the Run
1975 Venus and Mars
1976 Wings at the Speed of Sound
1976 Wings Over America [live]
1977 Thrillington
1978 London Town
1979 Back to the Egg
It was stronger than Lennon's or Harrison's or Starr's, for sure.
As art, I don't know that he did as well as Dylan, or maybe he did, or
slightly better.
Was there anything on above albums vital or essential, other than
"Maybe I'm Amazed"?
Okay, "Jet". And? And???
"Listen What The Man Said", "Juniors Farm", "Let 'Em In" and a handful
(just a handful or two) of others worth frequent listenings.
It's a toss up for me whose 1970s' catalog is better (or worse),
Dylan's or McCartney's.
Funny, I don't think any of us have any doubts about Neil Young, or
Eric Clapton.
Was McCartney solo as important an artist in this decade as Joni
Mitchell? She beats him in songs, tunesmithing and gravitas and depth
forwards backwards sideways up and down - that's the difference between
a great artist and somebody with a pedestrian or journeyman career.
Although he was a lot less self-absorbed than say, a Jackson Browne.
In retrospect, aside from the skyscraper moment of "Maybe I'm Amazed",
which would have been a Beatles single had they not broken up, I'd say
his overall music reached its proper level of achievement - on par with
that of The Monkees.
Some thoughts,
-L.I.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Pueril...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > > >>Blood on the Tracks is a masterpiece.
> > > >
> > > > It's a pretty good album.
> > >
> > > If you cared about lyrics, you'd know it's a masterpiece.
> >
> > If you didn't care about lyrics, you'd know that it's just a pretty
> > good album.
>
> album, beyond "Tangled Up in Blue"?
I bought it when it was out, schmuck, I liked "Lily, Rosemary And The
Jack Of Hearts" at the time, never thought very much of "Tangled Up In
Blue," didn't have a good beat. Still have the close to new original
copy.
Intheway
Mike G wrote:
>
> > never thought very much of "Tangled Up In
> > Blue," didn't have a good beat.
Our dear Captain Troll is just admitting he wouldn't recognize a solid,
and perfectly executed, backbeat shuffle, if it came up and shook hands
with him. Richard Crooks, who is superb on the entire album, shows in
"Tangled Up In Blue" how much he learned in New Orleans playing for Dr.
John. Many drummers will tell you that kind of shuffle is tricky to
play, and plenty of great drummers can't nail it like Crooks did. (The
list of those who can starts with Earl Palmer and may end with Levon
Helm.)
Now if we could imagine, for a moment, that Cappy was talking about
going to Dylan concerts in the late 90s and hearing him transform TUIB
into something different nearly every night, he might be onto
something, as Dylan manipulated everything about the song, including
the rhythm. But what are the odds Bruce went out to hear Dylan?
It's got to be tough, being a music historian when you can't understand
lyrics and can't follow a beat. What's left?
Oh, of course.
Chart position!
LMAO.
Bob Roman
> Was McCartney solo as important an artist in this decade as Joni
> Mitchell? She beats him in songs, tunesmithing and gravitas
Just a thought, but... Everyone from Paul Simon to Elvis Costello says that
Paul McCartney is the most natural and instinctive melodist they've ever
met. Songwriting comes so easy to him that I think sometimes he relied too
heavily on his gift and didn't work hard enough at the craft.
--
Bob Roman
Sav...@aol.com
Does anybody a little less pale agree with this assessment?
I don't exactly see paul Simon and Elvis Costello as some sort of polar
opposites the way that you present them.
What do (or did) these supposed jazz melodic geniuses like Mingus think
of McCartney's melodies?
Phaeton
> A lot of people are apparently very impressed with this artist's
> output, too.
> Was there anything on above albums vital or essential, other than
> "Maybe I'm Amazed"?
> Okay, "Jet". And? And???
I kind of like "Mull Of Kintyre". No, really.
Cheers, Csaba
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CSABA I. HARANGOZO |d|i|g|i|t|a|l| phaeton at iinet dot net dot au
---------------------------------------------------------------------
EARTH::AUSTRALIA:[SYDNEY]HARANGOZO.CSABA;1, delete? [N]:
Brett A. Pasternack
No, I'd just ignorant of what makes this a great album. (Which isn't, by
any stretch, just the lyrics, but the lyrics and the way they work in
the songs is a big part of it.)
Different records are masterpieces for different reasons. Just because
you can't or won't appreciate this one on its own terms doesn't mean it
isn't great. It is.
Brett A. Pasternack
> A lot of people are apparently very impressed with this artist's
> output, too.
>
>
> 1970 "McCartney"
>
> 1971 "Ram"
>
> 1971 Wild Life
>
> 1973 Red Rose Speedway
>
> 1973 Band on the Run
>
> 1975 Venus and Mars
>
> 1976 Wings at the Speed of Sound
>
> 1976 Wings Over America [live]
>
> 1977 Thrillington
>
> 1978 London Town
>
> 1979 Back to the Egg
> Was there anything on above albums vital or essential, other than
> "Maybe I'm Amazed"?
> Okay, "Jet". And?
"The Back Seat Of My Car"
> And???
"Daytime Nighttime Suffering". Well, that was a single (b-side), not an
album track. OK, "Beware My Love". Or "Spin It On". Or "Too Many People".
> Was McCartney solo as important an artist in this decade as Joni
> Mitchell? She beats him in songs, tunesmithing and gravitas and depth
> forwards backwards sideways up and down - that's the difference between
> a great artist and somebody with a pedestrian or journeyman career.
Joni beats him in tunesmithing? Absurd.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Wait a minute. Why don't we compare some of the more well-known songs
of each, although, however comparing hers only against Macca's 1970's
post-Beatles work, because that is how he is being measured here for
our purposes, as a 70's artist.
Ergo, some of Mitchell's most notable creations, such as compiled in
Hits, or elsewhere:
Urge For Going
Chelsea Morning
For Free
Big Yellow Taxi
Woodstock
The Circle Game
Carey
California
You Turn Me On I'm A Radio
Raised On Robbery
Help Me
Free Man In Paris
River
A Case Of You
Both Sides, Now
Versus some of Macca's post-Beatles output:
Band On The Run
Ebony and Ivory
Hi, Hi, Hi
Jet
Juniors Farm
Let 'Em In
Listen to What the Man Said
Live and Let Die
Maybe I'm Amazed
Mull of Kintyre
My Love
Silly Love Songs
Smile Away
Take It Away
Too Many People
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey
With A Little Luck
Now, do you still think McCartney had better stuff - worth more
frequently listening, especially? Maybe "Maybe I'm Amazed", the next
Beatles single, and the enduring and almost haunting "Urge For Going"
by Mitchell (both 1970, by the way) can be matched up and called a
draw, or close to it, for a creative effort.
Then you have a lot of throwaways by Macca, or featherweights, such as
the title track
from "Band On The Run", "Hi Hi Hi", "Take It Away", "Silly Love Songs",
"Smile Away" and other nonsense, and then a lot of light harmless
pleasantries like "With A Litle Luck" and "Let 'Em In", and
journeyman/middlin' efforts like "My Love", which will never be
confused for greatness with "She's Always A Woman To Me", such that one
my ask a dj to play it at a wedding, etc.etc.; and the obligatory
politcal correctness of Ebony & Ivory, somehow not as anthemic as "All
You Need Is Love" (to say the least). "Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey"
makes a for good revisit or reprise to "Yellow Submarine" era Paul, but
somehow that's not the first song you cite to people of succeeding
generations whenever one wanted to talk about how great the Fab Four
were - probably last on the list.
Which basically leaves Jet, Juniors Farm and/or Mull of Kintyre left
for songs with any weight, soul, moxie or punch (musical or
intellectual or cultural) to do battle with the Mitchell numbers cited.
No, not much left in the tank after you remove all the lightweights.
Now what was your point about Macca having superior tunesmithing?
-L.I.
Intheway
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> What do (or did) these supposed jazz melodic geniuses like Mingus think
> of McCartney's melodies?
They thought enough of them to record them several thousand times.
Here's a representative list of McCartney compositions that have been
recorded by jazz performers (Apologies in advance to Lennon fans if one
or two of his songs slip in here. I'm relying on someone else's master
list.)
Paul McCartney - All My Loving
Paul McCartney - And I Love Her
Paul McCartney - Birthday
Paul McCartney - Blackbird
Paul McCartney - Calico Skies
Paul McCartney - Coming Up
Paul McCartney - Drive My Car
Paul McCartney - Ebony And Ivory
Paul McCartney - Eleanor Rigby
Paul McCartney - For No One
Paul McCartney - Get Back
Paul McCartney - Get It
Paul McCartney - Golden Slumbers
Paul McCartney - Good Day Sunshine
Paul McCartney - Got To Get You Into My Life
Paul McCartney - Growing Up Falling Down
Paul McCartney - Here Today
Paul McCartney - Here, There And Everywhere
Paul McCartney - Hey Jude
Paul McCartney - Junk
Paul McCartney - Lady Madonna
Paul McCartney - Let It Be
Paul McCartney - Maybe I'm Amazed
Paul McCartney - My Brave Face
Paul McCartney - My Love
Paul McCartney - She's A Woman
Paul McCartney - That Would Be Something
Paul McCartney - The End
Paul McCartney - The Fool On The Hill
Paul McCartney - The Long And Winding Road
Paul McCartney - Things We Said Today
Paul McCartney - Vanilla Sky
Paul McCartney - We Can Work It Out
Paul McCartney - When I'm 64
Paul McCartney - Yesterday
And a sampling of jazz artists who have recorded McCartney songs:
Duke Ellington, Wes Montgomery, Sergio Mendes, Count's Rock Band,
Count Basie, John Abercrombie, Ray Bryant, Eddie Harris, Willis
"Gator" Jackson, Rahsaan Roland Kirk, Diana Krall, Ramsey Lewis,
Gary McFarland, David "Fathead" Newman, John Pizzarelli, Bud Shank,
Grady Tate, Sadao Wanatabe, the Jazz Crusaders, Bobby McFerrin, Jaco
Pastorius, Arturo Sandoval, Tony Williams, Hugh Hopper, Peter Calo, Tom
Grant, John Pizzarelli.
Sav...@aol.com
Ridiculous statement. It's great in the opinion of SOME people, that's
all. There are millions of people who will tell you that Yanni is
great.......does that make it so?
Just because you can't or won't appreciate Yanni on his own terms
doesn't mean he isn't great, he is.
Greatness is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, unless you want to
talk about greatness based on commercial success, as in selling
records, in which case "Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em" is MUCH greater
than "Blood On The Tracks."
ANY music that ANYBODY declares as great artistically is merely an
opinion, even if millions of people share the opinion. There will
always be millions of other people who disagree with the opinion.
There are literally milllions of people who don't even like Bob Dylan
AT ALL, let alone think that anything he ever did is great, or a
masterpiece.
Some people want their recording artists to have good singing voices.
Intheway
Savo...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Just because you can't or won't appreciate Yanni on his own terms
> doesn't mean he isn't great, he is.
LMAO
Quick word substitution:
Just because you can't or won't appreciate JAZZ on ITS own terms
> doesn't mean JAZZ isn't great, IT is.
What have you done with the real Captain Troll?
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > Ridiculous statement. It's great in the opinion of SOME people, that's
> > all. There are millions of people who will tell you that Yanni is
> > great.......does that make it so?
>
> stance, when it doesn't happen to suit your own agenda.
>
> Sorry, Puerile Troll, but Blood on the Tracks' "masterpiece"
> reputation is too established for you to tear it down with your
> shallow naysaying.
This has to be the dumbest post you've ever made here.
Todd
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Where does he (or you, yourself, Mike) get off calling someone else
puerile?
Maybe it goes in one ear and out the other, the fact that people who
live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, unless he thinks nobody is
picking up on his two-faced line here...or unless his life's ambition
is to be a con artist wherein he thinks the fault lies where he's
pointing the finger and not with himself. How useful he makes himself
around here; how much he adds to our discussions! Mike G. - what a
hail fellow met well!
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > > It's so funny how you selectively reverse your "popular = better"
> > > stance, when it doesn't happen to suit your own agenda.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Puerile Troll, but Blood on the Tracks' "masterpiece"
> > > reputation is too established for you to tear it down with your
> > > shallow naysaying.
> >
> > This has to be the dumbest post you've ever made here.
>
> insult?
>
I assume that you call Bruce's naysaying shallow because he doesn't
value the same things musically that you do. This from the guy who was
just carping about Hollies fans being so sure that their taste was dead
on accurate.
Bruce places more emphasis on a good beat than you do. That doesn't
make him wrong.
Bruce places less emphasis on lyrics than you do. That doesn't make
him wrong.
Bruce doesn't consider Blood On the Tracks a masterpiece. That doesn't
make him wrong.
Todd
Sav...@aol.com
> > > stance, when it doesn't happen to suit your own agenda.
> > >
> > > Sorry, Puerile Troll, but Blood on the Tracks' "masterpiece"
> > > reputation is too established for you to tear it down with your
> > > shallow naysaying.
> >
> > This has to be the dumbest post you've ever made here.
>
> insult?
>
Acclaimed music makes their lists up based on just a relatively small
numbers of opinions, mainly from rock critics. I'm not saying that
their lists are not pretty decent, esepcially from a rock presepctive,
but a "masterpiece" is always in the ear of the beholder.
Put it this way. There are far more music fans in the world who DON'T
think that "Blood On The Tracks" is a masterpiece, than those who do.
In your world, it's a msterpice.
In my world, "Sunday Kind Of Love" by thge Harptones and "Your Promise
To Be Mine" by the Drifters is a masterpeice, and "My babe" by Little
Walter is a masterpeice, and "Fever" by Little Willie john is a
masterpiece.
In other worlds, "Golden Teardrops" by the Flamingos is a masterpiece,
so much so that many people whgo are of that opinion are willing to pay
well into 4 figure prices for an original copy of the record.
http://members.aol.com/jerryskok/ugha500.htm
Close to 1,000 people voted on the above survey.
I doubt that you've ever heard "Golden Teardrops," but if you are
interested I'll send you the MP3 and you can tell us if you agree that
it is a masterpiece. If you don't, no big deal, but if I don't agree
that "Blood On The Tracks" is a masterpiece, that's just the way it
goes. Taste is taste.
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Me Too <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > I assume that you call Bruce's naysaying shallow because he doesn't
> > value the same things musically that you do.
> >
> > make him wrong.
> >
> > Bruce places less emphasis on lyrics than you do. That doesn't make
> > him wrong.
>
> than just his own opinion.
Which is exactly what you did in the original post.
With no regard for what the rest of the
> world thinks. And when he's judging Dylan on a yardstick which has
> very little to do with Dylan's own creative thrust, that's bogus.
> So, yes, he *can* say he thinks BOTT is only a "pretty good" album
> in his eyes, but you and I both know he's making a general
> proclamation about its objective worth. Witness the jab where he
> told someone else (Brent?) that the person would "know" the album
> is just pretty good, if he had the proper values.
It's Brett, and it's the same exact thing he said.
He told me if I had the proper values that I would realize that it was
a masterpiece, and I told him the same thing, that if head the proper
values that he would realize that it wasn't a masterpiece.
The point is that there is no such thing as "the proper values."
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> As usual, Bruce phrased his view as the "absolute truth," rather
> than just his own opinion. With no regard for what the rest of the
> world thinks.
You're headed right back into dumb territory again. Why exactly should
Bruce care what everyone else thinks? He can't hear the album for
himself?
>And when he's judging Dylan on a yardstick which has
> very little to do with Dylan's own creative thrust, that's bogus.
Not if that creative thrust doesn't appeal to him, it isn't.
> So, yes, he *can* say he thinks BOTT is only a "pretty good" album
> in his eyes, but you and I both know he's making a general
> proclamation about its objective worth.
I think Bruce has stated several times already that it's his subjective
taste doing the talking.
> Witness the jab where he
> told someone else (Brent?) that the person would "know" the album
> is just pretty good, if he had the proper values.
Yes, he was simply rephrasing something that Brett had already written
to him.
Todd
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
Translation, Todd pummelled you in this debate so you've got nothing
left to say.
Talking about masterpieces, and Acclamined Music" which you like to
quote, what do you think of these items that rank highly over there?
The top album from 2000:
1 Eminem The Marshall Mathers LP
The top album from 1998:
1 Lauryn Hill The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill
The top album from 1990:
1 Public Enemy Fear of a Black Planet
The # 18 album of all time:
18 Public Enemy It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back 1988
I'm sure lots of people consider these albums to be masterpeices.
What's your opinion?
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> Sav...@aol.com, aimlessly switching issues in his usual "If you
> hit a roadblock, just swerve right or left" fashion:
>
> > The top album from 2000:
> > 1 Eminem The Marshall Mathers LP
> >
> > The top album from 1998:
> > 1 Lauryn Hill The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill
> >
> > The top album from 1990:
> > 1 Public Enemy Fear of a Black Planet
> >
> > The # 18 album of all time:
> > 18 Public Enemy It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back 1988
> >
> > I'm sure lots of people consider these albums to be masterpeices.
> > What's your opinion?
>
> Nation of Millions... comes mighty close. Other PE fans might say
> the opposite.
>
> I have plenty of general respect for those other two albums (I
> used to have a copy of Lauryn Hill...I still have a copy of The
> Marshall Mathers LP somewhere), but they're borderline as far as
> my personal collecting slant goes.
>
> Well, I guess it's time for you to go back and maniacally pore
> over that site's dozens of pages some more until you can find some
> isolated albums which I don't like,
I wouldn't describe four albums that are listed as # 1 for their
respective years as "isolated."
Brett A. Pasternack
> Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>
>>Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>>>Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Mike G wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>Blood on the Tracks is a masterpiece.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>It's a pretty good album.
>>>>
>>>>If you cared about lyrics, you'd know it's a masterpiece.
>>>
>>>
>>>If you didn't care about lyrics, you'd know that it's just a pretty
>>>good album.
>>
>>No, I'd just ignorant of what makes this a great album. (Which isn't, by
>>any stretch, just the lyrics, but the lyrics and the way they work in
>>the songs is a big part of it.)
>>
>>Different records are masterpieces for different reasons. Just because
>>you can't or won't appreciate this one on its own terms doesn't mean it
>>isn't great. It is.
>
>
> Ridiculous statement. It's great in the opinion of SOME people, that's
> all.
No, there's more to it than that.
> There are millions of people who will tell you that Yanni is
> great.......does that make it so?
Of course not. You're replying to an argument I didn't make.
> Greatness is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, unless you want to
> talk about greatness based on commercial success, as in selling
> records, in which case "Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em" is MUCH greater
> than "Blood On The Tracks."
>
> ANY music that ANYBODY declares as great artistically is merely an
> opinion, even if millions of people share the opinion. There will
> always be millions of other people who disagree with the opinion.
But some of those opinions can be backed up better than others. A great
many things have been said and discussed about Blood On The Tracks, and
among the people who care about that kind of music, it's been found to
be a masterpiece. You argue with that--but by your own admission, you
don't care enough about lyrics to understand a record whose greatness is
even partially attributable to the lyrics.
> There are literally milllions of people who don't even like Bob Dylan
> AT ALL, let alone think that anything he ever did is great, or a
> masterpiece.
>
> Some people want their recording artists to have good singing voices.
Hey, there's nothing at all wrong with disliking Bob Dylan (although
whether his voice is "good" depends on what you're looking for). That's
why your statement elsewhere about "the right values" is an unfair
mischaracterization of my position. There are many kinds of music, and
no one enjoys all of it. For example, I've never had a taste for
classical music. But the difference between you and me is that, when
there is a world of experts telling me that Beethoven's Ninth or La
Traviata is a masterpiece, I don't get all defensive or claim that
they're just being pretentious. If people have cared about that music
for so long, and have found those to be among the greats of that music,
then they must be pretty special. Perhaps someday I'll learn enough to
appreciate them, and perhaps I won't, but either way, I'm going to have
respect for the people who do care about that music.
If you don't care about lyrics (or about improvisation, or about novels
or who knows what other forms of art, for that matter), that's fine. I'd
never say that the music that's considered great within your sphere of
knowledge isn't great. (Of course, I happen to like a lot of it, but
that's neither here nor there.) But if you proudly proclaim your
ignorance of everything else, when you then argue about that stuff, you
neither appear to have nor actually have any credibility. I can tell you
that if you understood BOTT, you'd think it was a masterpiece, because
we both know that you don't understand it and don't want to understand it.
Sav...@aol.com
Brett A. Pasternack wrote:
I can tell you that if you understood BOTT, you'd think it was a
masterpiece, because
> we both know that you don't understand it and don't want to understand it.
Even if you were correct that "I don't understand it, and don't want to
understand it," (which you're not), it would not follow that if I did
understand it that I would think it was a masterpiece.
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> Bored with you and your disingenousness.
I'm not sure where you thought I was being disingenuous. Certainly not
when I called your argument dumb, I hope.
Todd
Sav...@aol.com
Mike G wrote:
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > > Bored with you and your disingenousness.
> >
> > I'm not sure where you thought I was being disingenuous.
>
> Blood on the Tracks. Or if you're just arguing with me because you
> don't like me and saw an opportunity to take a few shots.
The debate has nothing to with what Todd's view of the album is,
schmuck.
The debate is on whether or not a factual statement can be made about
ANY album being a masterpiece.
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > > Bored with you and your disingenousness.
> >
> > I'm not sure where you thought I was being disingenuous.
>
> Blood on the Tracks.
That was never the issue. Way to change the subject.
>Or if you're just arguing with me because you
> don't like me and saw an opportunity to take a few shots.
Look who's talking.
Todd
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
> "Todd Lucas" <tlu...@onecliq.net> wrote:
>
> > > > > Bored with you and your disingenousness.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure where you thought I was being disingenuous.
> > >
> > > Well, for starters, I wonder if you even have a negative view of
> > > Blood on the Tracks.
> >
> > That was never the issue. Way to change the subject.
>
The issue was never whether or not I like the album. It was whether
Bruce was entitled to evaluate it based on his own likes and dislikes,
among other things.
Todd
Todd Lucas
Mike G wrote:
>
> Tell you what, Captain Disingenuous: If you can state a concrete
> position on Blood on the Tracks or on what makes a "masterpiece,"
> I'll give you a further reply. But the tickytacky personal
> persecution is beyond tedious and won't be answered again.
My concrete position is that I've never even heard the album. Even if
I had and thought it was a masterpiece, it wouldn't make Bruce wrong
because a masterpiece is mostly in the ear of the beholder, a very
personal and subjective assessment. Even the term "masterpiece" might
mean something different to you than it does Bruce. Maybe his standard
for calling something a masterpiece is higher than yours.
>
> Also, the issue was not "whether Bruce was entitled to evaluate it
> based on his own likes and dislikes," but whether Bruce's own
> likes and dislikes determine the album's overall objective
> importance. His view: Yes. You?
I could be wrong but I don't think Bruce ever said the album was
unimportant, except perhaps to him, personally. I thought he was
mostly offering his opinion of the music, nothing more. He's stated
repeatedly that his opinion is subjective.
Todd
Brett A. Pasternack
It's not supposed to follow from that statement; it follows from the
conclusions of the people who do understand it.
Sav...@aol.com
So you're trying to tell me that ANYBODY who understands it considers
it a masterpiece?
That's a convenient excuse. If somebody tells you that it's good, but
not a masterpiece, you just fall back on, "well, you don't really
understand the album."
Intheway
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
>
> So you're trying to tell me that ANYBODY who understands it considers
> it a masterpiece?
>
> That's a convenient excuse. If somebody tells you that it's good, but
> not a masterpiece, you just fall back on, "well, you don't really
> understand the album."
I think that's a total misreading.
If you understand the album, you would comprehend why many people
consider it a masterpiece. This conclusion does not require that you
consider it a masterpiece yourself. It merely requires that you
appreciate the criteria that other people use. Saying that it is a
strictly subjective matter denies the validity of anyone else's
criteria. That is a purely anti-intellegence argument.
Addressing the issue of how we can determine if something is a
masterpiece, I think the word gets overused. It was first employed in
the Middle Ages to describe the work submitted to the artisan guild to
qualify the maker to use the title "Master." It was meant to be
limited to works of supreme craftsmanship and technique. Therefore,
"masterpieces are quite rare. The best record of any given year, by
any standard you choose, may not be a masterpiece.
Some friends of mine use a simple test of "masterpiece" status as a way
of limiting their use of the term to those works that actually deserve
it. They take two recordings that they already consider to be worthy
of the classification. Play one of these, then any candidate
recording, then play the other. If you don't feel any drop in quality
in the new recording, you may have another masterpiece on your hands,
but to be more exacting, you repeat the test a number of times over an
extended period to see if the results hold up.
I have a different test. If I can put on a record and do anything else
that requires me to pay any attention (read, write, cook, clean), the
record can't be a masterpiece. A true masterpiece demands and holds
your attention, no matter how many times you've heard it. For me, that
rare status is the result of inspired concept, expert execution and
flawless production.
It's a very difficult chemistry to achieve, but I believe my criteria
are valid. Saying that masterpiece status is something strictly within
the "ear of the beholder" discredits every evaluation except the one
held by the denier. If there is someone claiming a specific record is
a "masterpiece," at the very least we should try to understand why. If
the reasons given actually go to the music on the record, we may not
agree with the accolade given, but we can appreciate the legitimacy of
the analysis.
Todd Lucas
Intheway wrote:
>
> If you understand the album, you would comprehend why many people
> consider it a masterpiece. This conclusion does not require that you
> consider it a masterpiece yourself. It merely requires that you
> appreciate the criteria that other people use. Saying that it is a
> strictly subjective matter denies the validity of anyone else's
> criteria. That is a purely anti-intellegence argument.
But that was precisely the argument you made a couple of months ago.
You claimed that there was no objective criteria to determine what's
good. Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning of the term
"masterpiece", I assume that a masterpiece has to be good.
> Saying that masterpiece status is something strictly within
> the "ear of the beholder" discredits every evaluation except the one
> held by the denier.
No moreso than saying something is a masterpiece discredits every
evaluation except the one being made by the person calling it a
masterpiece.
Todd
Intheway
Dave Allen wrote:
>
> I certainly hope you pull to the side of the road when a masterpiece
> comes on the car radio :-)
That's funny, but when I think about it, I can't tell you the last time
I heard a masterpiece on the car radio. I guess that says as much
about radio as it does the rarity of masterpieces.
DianeE
"Intheway" <fred.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134234310.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
So you're paying for satellite radio and you still never hear a masterpiece?
Not even The Temptations?
DianeE
Todd Lucas
If we hear that Fred's been in an accident, we'll know that he's
finally heard a masterpiece on his car radio.
Todd
Intheway
DianeE wrote:
>> -------------
> So you're paying for satellite radio and you still never hear a masterpiece?
> Not even The Temptations?
The satellite service is in my wife's car. I also have it in the
house, where I try not to drive.
Intheway
Todd Lucas wrote:
> Intheway wrote:
>
> >
> > If you understand the album, you would comprehend why many people
> > consider it a masterpiece. This conclusion does not require that you
> > consider it a masterpiece yourself. It merely requires that you
> > appreciate the criteria that other people use. Saying that it is a
> > strictly subjective matter denies the validity of anyone else's
> > criteria. That is a purely anti-intellegence argument.
>
> But that was precisely the argument you made a couple of months ago.
> You claimed that there was no objective criteria to determine what's
> good. Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning of the term
> "masterpiece", I assume that a masterpiece has to be good.
>
You are misunderstanding the argument I made previously. I said there
was no mandatory common ground for making an individual assessment of a
song, and without that common ground, "objective" evaluation was
impossible. I said, for an evaluation to be objective, two people
applying the same criteria have to come up with the same result.
Bruce's argument now denies the existence of ANY criteria except
personal enjoyment, which is a completely different thing.
> > Saying that masterpiece status is something strictly within
> > the "ear of the beholder" discredits every evaluation except the one
> > held by the denier.
>
> No moreso than saying something is a masterpiece discredits every
> evaluation except the one being made by the person calling it a
> masterpiece.
>
Only if the person making the masterpiece claims that his criteria, and
his criteria alone, are the grounds for determining what a masterpiece
is, which is exactly the point I was making. If you acknowledge that
there may be other, equally valid criteria, your premise doesn't stand
up.
Sav...@aol.com
Or that Dennis and some of his redneck cousins ran him off of the road.
Intheway
Yeah, there's about a big a risk of that happening of you getting
smart.
It is nice to see that you are no longer harboring fantasies of acting
on your own behalf, but that your equally incapable minions will do
your impossible dirty work for you.
Onward and upward, Captain Dildo, the Power Tool.
Intheway
Mike G wrote:
> Imagine the tenacity of his protest if I had said some doo-wop
> single was a "masterpiece," instead. Uh huh.
Then he'd just tell you about his fantasy of someone else punching you
in the nose.
DCar...@aol.com
on your own behalf, but that your equally incapable minions will do
your impossible dirty work for you.
Eminently possible, Candy Corn teeth!!!
And not dirty work at all!!!
It would be a most sanitizing civic duty performed by the battling
Rowan clan and.....oh....by the way.................
The easiest job imaginable!!!
Keep your feckless boasts towards those less propinquitous, brave
boy!!
Dennis C from Tennessee
Todd Lucas
> > unimportant, except perhaps to him, personally. I thought he was
> > mostly offering his opinion of the music, nothing more. He's stated
> > repeatedly that his opinion is subjective.
>
> lie.
Okay, he's stated that there's no way to factually prove something is a
masterpiece. It then follows there's no way to factually disprove it
either. In other words, it's a subjective assessment. I was able to
infer that from what he's written. I'm sorry if he didn't use the
exact words that I wrote above. My intent wasn't to lie to you. I'm
now finished with your pitiful ass.
Todd
Todd Lucas
Intheway wrote:
> Todd Lucas wrote:
> > Intheway wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > If you understand the album, you would comprehend why many people
> > > consider it a masterpiece. This conclusion does not require that you
> > > consider it a masterpiece yourself. It merely requires that you
> > > appreciate the criteria that other people use. Saying that it is a
> > > strictly subjective matter denies the validity of anyone else's
> > > criteria. That is a purely anti-intellegence argument.
> >
> > But that was precisely the argument you made a couple of months ago.
> > You claimed that there was no objective criteria to determine what's
> > good. Unless I'm misunderstanding your meaning of the term
> > "masterpiece", I assume that a masterpiece has to be good.
> >
>
> You are misunderstanding the argument I made previously. I said there
> was no mandatory common ground for making an individual assessment of a
> song, and without that common ground, "objective" evaluation was
> impossible. I said, for an evaluation to be objective, two people
> applying the same criteria have to come up with the same result.
Yes, I remember that now. But I guess the question then becomes, if
there is no common ground that's mandatory, then how can Bruce or
anyone else rightly be expected to appreciate the criteria that anyone
else uses. Essentially, you're saying that even the "objective"
criteria that someone may apply is "subjective" based on their own
values or taste.
> Bruce's argument now denies the existence of ANY criteria except
> personal enjoyment, which is a completely different thing.
I don't think it denies ANY other criteria, although it seems to me
that personal enjoyment is the most important criterion that many, if
not most people would use in labeling something a masterpiece, great or
whatever other term you can come up with. Given that there's no
mandatory objective crteria, what else really matters?
>
>
> > > Saying that masterpiece status is something strictly within
> > > the "ear of the beholder" discredits every evaluation except the one
> > > held by the denier.
Well, that's true but I don't see what's so bad about one man's
masterpiece being another man's garbage.
> >
> > No moreso than saying something is a masterpiece discredits every
> > evaluation except the one being made by the person calling it a
> > masterpiece.
> >
>
> Only if the person making the masterpiece claims that his criteria, and
> his criteria alone, are the grounds for determining what a masterpiece
> is, which is exactly the point I was making. If you acknowledge that
> there may be other, equally valid criteria, your premise doesn't stand
> up.
But you've already said that there isn't any equally valid criteria, so
objective evaluation is impossible.
Todd
Intheway
DCar...@AOL.com wrote:
>
> It would be a most sanitizing civic duty performed by the battling
> Rowan clan and.....oh....by the way.................
>
> The easiest job imaginable!!!
>
> Keep your feckless boasts towards those less propinquitous, brave
> boy!!
You use your family to threaten me on the Internet, and that somehow
makes you the brave one. You're a pitiful bag of pus and hot air,
Dennis. Do you think you actually scare me? Baby?
Now go fuck yourself.
Todd Lucas
Intheway wrote:
> You use your family to threaten me on the Internet, and that somehow
> makes you the brave one. You're a pitiful bag of pus and hot air,
> Dennis. Do you think you actually scare me? Baby?
>
I guess we'll find out if he ever announces that he's going to
Nashville.
Todd
Brett A. Pasternack
I don't and wouldn't do that. I'm telling you you don't understand the
album because your own stated interests and approach make it clear that
you don't.
I suppose, somewhere, there's someone who understands BOTT and doesn't
consider it a masterpiece; art is like that. But when there's as much
agreement about something as there is here, there's got to be something
to it.
You always say that if something becomes tremendously popular, it must
have happened for a reason. It's equally true that if something is as
universally praised by the people who take it seriously, there must be a
reason for that as well.
Greg Ioannou
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:PNKdnVwcZs0...@rcn.net...
> I suppose, somewhere, there's someone who understands BOTT and doesn't
> consider it a masterpiece; art is like that. But when there's as much
> agreement about something as there is here, there's got to be something to
> it.
I think I understand BOTT and don't really consider it a masterpiece.
Overall, I think it is a bit self-indulgent. The lyrics are clever but don't
really wow me the way that, say, Blonde on Blonde did. And the tunes just
have never sounded as fresh and compelling as many of his earlier tunes did.
I've always thought the album was a somewhat-successful attempt to return to
some of his earlier styles. His best album of the 70s, probably. But a
masterpiece? No -- Dylan's masterpieces came earlier in his career.
Greg
Intheway
>
> Yes, I remember that now. But I guess the question then becomes, if
> there is no common ground that's mandatory, then how can Bruce or
> anyone else rightly be expected to appreciate the criteria that anyone
> else uses.
I think you may appreciate another's standards without having to accept
them for yourself. I can appreciate yours, you can appreciate mine.
Bruce's current argument denies anyone can have any standards, so that
discussion is worthless.
Essentially, you're saying that even the "objective"
> criteria that someone may apply is "subjective" based on their own
> values or taste.
We can identify a number of common characteristics that have varying
weight in our individual determinations of "masterpieces." How we each
combine them to come up with our own formula is the subjective part.
(And that was the focus of my comments the last time around.) That
subjectivity doesn't make the components themselves subjective.
>
> > Bruce's argument now denies the existence of ANY criteria except
> > personal enjoyment, which is a completely different thing.
>
> I don't think it denies ANY other criteria,
Well, there was this statement earlier in the thread:
"Greatness is in the eye (or ear) of the beholder, unless you want to
talk about greatness based on commercial success, as in selling
records, in which case "Please Hammer, Don't Hurt 'Em" is MUCH greater
than "Blood On The Tracks.""
This statement appears, to me, to deny the viability of any criteria
for masterpiece status except "commercial success."
although it seems to me
> that personal enjoyment is the most important criterion that many, if
> not most people would use in labeling something a masterpiece, great or
> whatever other term you can come up with. Given that there's no
> mandatory objective crteria, what else really matters?
I think you've restated my argument regarding "mandatory" criteria
incorrectly.
As I have noted above, there may be more or less common agreement on a
set of musical or artistic elements that are present in a
"masterpiece." To my mind, in the most general sense, we are talking
about the originality of the artist's vision, the ability of the artist
to communicate that vision, and the production techniques and values
used to promote that communication. In short, everything in any
recording comes down to a combination of inspiration, skills and tools.
You and I may disagree about the relative importance of specific
elements (more cowbell?), but that doesn't mean that the elements are
not what we talk about as components of a masterpiece.
> > > > Saying that masterpiece status is something strictly within
> > > > the "ear of the beholder" discredits every evaluation except the one
> > > > held by the denier.
>
> Well, that's true but I don't see what's so bad about one man's
> masterpiece being another man's garbage.
That's a given, but it doesn't necessarily follow that a masterpiece
becomes garbage merely because someone else doesn't like it
> >
> > Only if the person making the masterpiece claims that his criteria, and
> > his criteria alone, are the grounds for determining what a masterpiece
> > is, which is exactly the point I was making. If you acknowledge that
> > there may be other, equally valid criteria, your premise doesn't stand
> > up.
>
> But you've already said that there isn't any equally valid criteria, so
> objective evaluation is impossible.
No, I haven't said that. I said there was no crtierion that everyone
*had* to agree on. As far as I am concerned, if you're looking at an
element that goes to some part of that triad of "inspiration, skills
and tools," that's all the validity you need.
Intheway
Todd Lucas wrote:
> >
>
> I guess we'll find out if he ever announces that he's going to
> Nashville.
As far as I am concerned, he's already made the threat. On the basis
of his last post, it's just a matter of when the sack of shit is up to
the trip and how many of his "family" he needs to back him up.
Am I going to change my life because one more asshole says that beating
me up is on his agenda? No. Either he follows through on his
family-supported "bravery" or he crawls back up Bruce's asshole. I
know which one is far more likely to happen.
Of course, since Dennis is John Hinckley to Captain Dildo the Power
Tool's Jodie Foster, anything can happen if Dennis wants badly enough
to impress his hero. He may not be satisfied simply fueling Cappy's
masturbation fantasies.
Baby.
Sav...@aol.com
There you go. EXACTLY what I said, the mere act of understanding the
album does not automatically make the album a masterpiece. Plenty of
people understand it fully, and have the same reaction as greg. I will
alos agree that it's his best album of the 70s, but it wouldn't make
his top 5 albums of all time IMO.
Sav...@aol.com
Intheway wrote:
> Todd Lucas wrote:
> > >
> >
> > I guess we'll find out if he ever announces that he's going to
> > Nashville.
>
>
> As far as I am concerned, he's already made the threat. On the basis
> of his last post, it's just a matter of when the sack of shit is up to
> the trip and how many of his "family" he needs to back him up.
>
> Am I going to change my life because one more asshole says that beating
> me up is on his agenda?
Don't you have to wonder why "beating you up" ends up on the agenda of
so many varied people around the world?
I don't see anybody else in any of these groups ever being threatened
with physical harm, except for you. There's got to be something about
you that provokes this reaction from these normally peaceful folks.
Intheway
Sav...@aol.com wrote:
> Don't you have to wonder why "beating you up" ends up on the agenda of
> so many varied people around the world?
No, because I consider the source; guys for whom an adolescent resort
to violence is a logical reaction to being exposed as fools.
Nor do I have to wonder why you think threatening violence is a
reasonable response to a post. You just don't have the tools to deal
with it in any other way.
It takes someone who believes he's really the victim in all this to
come up with the conclusion that I am the one responsible for his
infantile reactions. Your shortcomings, as many as there are of them,
are not my fault, Cappy. If your little playgroup has to physically
threaten me because you can't take it like you think you dish it out in
the newsgroup, none of you are really tall enough to get on this ride.
Nobody challenges you to physical combat over the things you say,
Cappy, because you're always arguing with someone more intelligent than
you, and they know that it's stooping to your level. I've seen
houseplants more intelligent than you, and they're also a whole lot
better adjusted.
Sav...@aol.com
ROFL.......
cordially, as always,
Captain Dildo