What Do You Care About in Your Music?

[The Machine!!!!!]

Rank these characteristics from most important to least important in terms of your enjoyment of music.

melody
harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
production/atmosphere
singer's voice/vocal ability
background vocals
rhythm/beats/percussion
instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
lyric meanings

Here's mine:

1. harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
2. instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
3. singer's voice/vocal ability
4. rhythm/beats/percussion
5. production/atmosphere
6. melody
7. poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
8. background vocals
9. lyric meanings

[tr...@iwvisp.com]

Melody
Singer's vocal ability
Rhythm, beat, percussion
Lyrics
Harmony, et al
Background vocals
Production/atmosphere
Instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
Poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes

Ray Arthur

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 3:03:21 PM UTC-4, tr...@iwvisp.com wrote:

> Poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes

You had this last, but to me it was one of the key aspects of "It's Only Make Believe."

[DianeE]

1 production/atmosphere
2 rhythm/beats/percussion
3 melody
4 harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
5 singer's voice/vocal ability
6 background vocals
7 poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
8 lyric meanings
9 instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.

But this isn't absolute, because sometimes the meaning of the lyrics is so
important (means so much to me because of some personal association), or the
instrumental prowess is so outstanding ("Wrap Your Troubles In Dreams" by
Louis Armstrong comes to mind), that that factor predominates.
Sometimes it's the singer's voice that blows me away (Aretha Franklin, let's
say) and sometimes the singer has an awful voice (Mick Jagger, let's say)
but the song and the performance are terrific.
Sometimes the background vocals are incredibly awesome (especially in gospel
and groups who evolved from gospel like The Impressions) and that becomes
the most important factor.
There just isn't any hard and fast rule for me.

Nice thought-provoking question though.

DianeE

[Steve Mc]

"DianeE" <Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote in message
news:ZuadnWQ5bqjsU1zO...@giganews.com...

Nicely put. I was thinking basically the same thing. Each song is gonna have
different reasons as to why we like them.
One thing I thought was missing from the list is the pure emotion of some
vocals, which I fell goes way deeper than singer's voice/vocal ability.

--



Steve Mc

DNA to SBC to respond

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <338c259d-2eee-47e2...@googlegroups.com>, The

Machine!!!!! <sav...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Rank these characteristics from most important to least important in terms of
> your enjoyment of music.
>
> melody
> harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
> production/atmosphere
> singer's voice/vocal ability
> background vocals
> rhythm/beats/percussion
> instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
> poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
> lyric meanings

I agree with those who have said that different pieces of music create
different responses, making the question moot, but in general, I like,
in rough order:

1. singer's voice (but not necessarily vocal ability as a music teacher
would define it)
2. harmony (though I've never really understood how to always detect
chord changes) and melody, both of which seem to me indivisible
3. language cleverly used, which takes in two of the categories above
4. production (if that means something other than atmospherics}
5. instrumental prowess of the Chuck Berry/Fats Domino kind but not of
the Eric Clapton kind
6. rhythms with or without percussion
7. background vocals, which would come higher if we were limiting
ourselves to group vocals, but are simply absent from much of the music
I like best and thus have to come last

--
--md
_________
Remove xx's from address to reply

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:11:43 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

3. language cleverly used, which takes in two of the categories above

You don't get to change the categories to suit your needs.

What more important to you?

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <0c6220b9-915e-49cf...@googlegroups.com>, The

Machine!!!!! <sav...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Saturday, July 12, 2014 9:11:43 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:
>
> 3. language cleverly used, which takes in two of the categories above
>
> You don't get to change the categories to suit your needs.

Of course I do.

>
> What more important to you?
>
> poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
> lyric meanings

I said what I think. Period.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Saturday, July 12, 2014 11:02:58 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> I said what I think. Period.

Cop out.

[Frank]

Why should Mark be limited to the 10 things you deem most important if there's something you didn't list that he looks for in a song?

[Frank]

Or even 9 things?

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 12:17:21 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> Why should Mark be limited to the 10 things you deem most important if there's something you didn't list that he looks for in a song?

That's not what happened. He copped out and combined two of the things I listed rather than having the guts to decide which of the two was more important to him.

[Roger Ford]

These are not set in stone of course and can often vary from record to
record---otherwise how could something like "Angel Baby" (Rosie & The
Originals) score so high for me?

melody
singer's voice/vocal ability
instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
rhythm/beats/percussion
poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
production/atmosphere
background vocals
lyric meanings


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!

[Bill B]

<tr...@iwvisp.com> wrote in message
news:e8033212-5872-47dd...@googlegroups.com...

I'd add originality, cleverness (as Mark did), sincerity or lack thereof,
and emotion ( a fine line between acceptable and histrionics).

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 7:32:36 AM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:

> emotion ( a fine line between acceptable and histrionics).

That's part of singer's voice/vocal ability. Part of the ability is to convey emotion believably.

[Frank]

Sometimes people need only or two reasons to like a song. There's no need to list 9 things and then rank them to know if you like the song. "Those Were the Days" from "All in the Family" is a good example.

The lyrics set the tone for the theme of the whole series. You immediately get the idea after hearing it once...assuming lyrics are important to you. In this case, it's imperative.... And Edith's voice is funny. The other seven things mean nothing to me in this case.

[tr...@iwvisp.com]

Chalk it up as an anomaly. IOMB became my favorite song before I understood the elements of what makes music. Getting to know Conway personally later just enhanced the original choice. Certainly the lyrics of that song are very important, in that the melody is simply the expansion and manipulation of a scale.

Ray

[Bob Roman]

The Machine!!!!! wrote:
> Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> > I said what I think. Period.
>
> Cop out.

No, he was informing you that your list was too simplistic. You did not recognize that fact because he did so politely.

--
BR

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:35:17 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
> The Machine!!!!! wrote: > Mark Dintenfass wrote: > > I said what I think. Period. > > Cop out.

> No, he was informing you that your list was too simplistic. You did not recognize that fact because he did so politely. -- BR

By combining two elements from my list into one element he was making the list more simplistic and less detailed.

[Bob Roman]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 4:10:05 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:
> These are not set in stone of course and can often vary from record to
> record---otherwise how could something like "Angel Baby" (Rosie & The
> Originals) score so high for me?

That's because no one really reacts to music according to an ordered list of its qualities. How you react to any recording is always dependent on what qualities grab you (or repel you) in that specific recording. And unless you are a computer the qualities that grab (or repel) you will vary from recording to recording.

--
BR

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 9:47:08 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:

> On Sunday, July 13, 2014 4:10:05 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote: > These are not set in stone of course and can often vary from record to > record---otherwise how could something like "Angel Baby" (Rosie & The > Originals) score so high for me?

> That's because no one really reacts to music according to an ordered list of its qualities. How you react to any recording is always dependent on what qualities grab you (or repel you) in that specific recording. And unless you are a computer the qualities that grab (or repel) you will vary from recording to recording. -- BR

But most people react to certain qualities (amd don't react to other qualities) more often than other qualities.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 4:10:05 AM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:

melody
singer's voice/vocal ability
instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
rhythm/beats/percussion
poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
production/atmosphere
background vocals
lyric meanings

==========================================

This surprises me that your first priority is melody. Considering how you love certain songs by certain acts and hate the same song by other acts. I guess that's why singer's voice/vocal ability is next.

At least you have lyric meanings where it belongs, at the bottom :=-)

[The Machine!!!!!]

I'm adding two more things:

melody
harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
production/atmosphere
singer's voice/vocal ability
background vocals
rhythm/beats/percussion
instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
lyric meanings

hook
makeup of instruments used

Here's mine revised:

1. harmony/chord changes/counter-melody
2. makeup of instruments used
3. instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
4. singer's voice/vocal ability
5. rhythm/beats/percussion
6. hook
7. production/atmosphere
8. melody
9. poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
10. background vocals
11. lyric meanings

[Bob Roman]

The Machine!!!!! wrote:

> Bob Roman wrote:

> > That's because no one really reacts to music according to an ordered
> > list of its qualities. How you react to any recording is always dependent
> > on what qualities grab you (or repel you) in that specific recording. And
> > unless you are a computer the qualities that grab (or repel) you will vary
> > from recording to recording. -- BR
>
> But most people react to certain qualities (amd don't react to other
> qualities) more often than other qualities.

If "most" people are so rigid I feel sorry for them.

--
BR

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 10:00:33 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:

> If "most" people are so rigid I feel sorry for them. -- BR

That does not make one rigid if he sets up something like this:

1. harmony/chord changes/counter-melody - 18%
2. makeup of instruments used - 15%
3. instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc. - 14%
4. singer's voice/vocal ability - 12%
5. rhythm/beats/percussion - 10%
6. hook - 8%
7. production/atmosphere - 7%
8. melody - 6%
9. poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes - 5%
10. background vocals - 4%
11. lyric meanings - 1%

[Bob Roman]

The Machine!!!!! wrote:

> That does not make one rigid if he sets up something like this:
>
> 1. harmony/chord changes/counter-melody - 18%
> 2. makeup of instruments used - 15%
> 3. instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc. - 14%
> 4. singer's voice/vocal ability - 12%
> 5. rhythm/beats/percussion - 10%
> 6. hook - 8%
> 7. production/atmosphere - 7%
> 8. melody - 6%
> 9. poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes - 5%
> 10. background vocals - 4%
> 11. lyric meanings - 1%

Why? Would a rigid person break it down to decimals?

--
BR

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 10:38:27 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:

> Why? Would a rigid person break it down to decimals? -- BR

No, a rigid person's list would look more like this:

> That does not make one rigid if he sets up something like this:
>

> 1. harmony/chord changes/counter-melody - 40%
> 2. makeup of instruments used - 40%
> 3. instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc. - 5%
> 4. singer's voice/vocal ability - 5%
> 5. rhythm/beats/percussion - 3%
> 6. hook - 2%
> 7. production/atmosphere - 1%
> 8. melody - 1%
> 9. poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes - 1%
> 10. background vocals - 1%

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <8563949c-5c72-43b1...@googlegroups.com>, Bob

Rigid rather than simplistic, I think. Plus, his underlying agenda
seems to be looking for another argument about the significance of
lyrics. I sidestepped.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:08:51 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> Plus, his underlying agenda seems to be looking for another argument about the significance of lyrics. I sidestepped. -- --md _________ Remove xx's from address to reply

I did not create this. Many people have answered it here:

https://rateyourmusic.com/board_message?message_id=5329211

[Frank]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 10:38:27 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:
> The Machine!!!!! wrote:
>
>
>
> > That does not make one rigid if he sets up something like this:
>
> >
>
> > 1. harmony/chord changes/counter-melody - 18%
>
> > 2. makeup of instruments used - 15%
>
> > 3. instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc. - 14%
>
> > 4. singer's voice/vocal ability - 12%
>
> > 5. rhythm/beats/percussion - 10%
>
> > 6. hook - 8%
>
> > 7. production/atmosphere - 7%
>
> > 8. melody - 6%
>
> > 9. poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes - 5%
>
> > 10. background vocals - 4%
>
> > 11. lyric meanings - 1%
>
>

> Do you like Archie and Edith singing "Those Were the Days"? Lyrics are #1 for that particular song by a mile even for a person who only judges lyrics as 1% important.
> When someone breaks down to the percentage point the importance of what it means to him and uses it, that's not arbitrary and rigid? You should work for the Elias Sports Bureau Department of Meaningless Stats. What happens when a hook is so great, you have to give it 11% rather than 8%. You gotta make up 3 percentage points elsewhere? Too arbitrary. Every song you like or not does not need 11 subdivisions to decide if you enjoy it. For simplicity sake, just listen to the record. If you like it, great. If you don't that's fine too

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:22:40 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> You should work for the Elias Sports Bureau

I'd love to.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Sunday, July 13, 2014 11:22:40 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> Do you like Archie and Edith singing "Those Were the Days"?

Yes, it's in my top 100 for 1971.

> Lyrics are #1 for that particular song by a mile even for a person who only judges lyrics as 1% important.

Not for me. There's nothing at all in the lyrics that I think are of ANY consequence....

First verse:

Boy the way Glenn Miller played
Songs that made the Hit Parade
Guys like us we had it made
Those were the days

For me almost all of the appeal of the record is in these 3 categories:

poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
production/atmosphere

singer's voice/vocal ability

Second verse also has no lyrics of consequence as far as I am concerned.

And you knew where you were then
Girls were girls and men were men
Mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again

Third verse also has nothing of consequence

Didn't need no welfare states
Everybody pulled their weight
Gee our old La Salle ran great
Those were the days

What makes it good for me is Edith screeching reading of the first line of the second verse, their accents, the way they announciate the words phonetically and the corny piano accompaniment from Edith.

There is a funny line in the longer version of the song, where Archie sings "Freeks were in a circus tent."

But as far as the version that is played on the TV show, the "meaning of the lyrics" rates a zero for me.

[Frank]

It just explains with clever lyrics that Archie had a 40s/50s mentality and somewhat confused about life as he was living it in the early 70s.....which is basically the show. Archie is confronted with blacks, feminists, Hispanics,war protesters, gays, hippies, drugs. All these things were anathema to him when he grew up as the lyrics suggest. "Those Were the Days" reflects Archie's mentality of coping with the life he was currently living.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 12:11:57 AM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> It just explains with clever lyrics that Archie had a 40s/50s mentality and somewhat confused about life as he was living it in the early 70s.....which is basically the show. Archie is confronted with blacks, feminists, Hispanics,war protesters, gays, hippies, drugs. All these things were anathema to him when he grew up as the lyrics suggest. "Those Were the Days" reflects Archie's mentality of coping with the life he was currently living.

But it has NOTHING to do with why I like the recording.

[Sharxster]

"Bob Roman" <robert...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4127103-b32c-473f...@googlegroups.com...

Well said.

[Sharxster]

"The Machine!!!!!" <sav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:0fb090d3-8551-4294...@googlegroups.com...

In truth, Bruce doesn't like the AITF theme because of all those
delicious anti-LIEbrawl pokes.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 2:00:14 AM UTC-4, Sharxster wrote:

> In truth, Bruce doesn't like the AITF theme because of all those delicious anti-LIEbrawl pokes.

Bruce does like the theme.

[Marc Dashevsky]

In article <120720142011436925%mdint...@xxnew.rr.com>, mdint...@xxnew.rr.com says...
>
> In article <338c259d-2eee-47e2...@googlegroups.com>, The
> Machine!!!!! <sav...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > Rank these characteristics from most important to least important in terms of
> > your enjoyment of music.
> >
> > melody
> > harmony/chord changes/counter-melody

> > production/atmosphere
> > singer's voice/vocal ability

> > background vocals
> > rhythm/beats/percussion
> > instrumental prowess/solos/bass lines, etc.
> > poetic devices/rhythm of words/rhymes
> > lyric meanings
>

> I agree with those who have said that different pieces of music create
> different responses, making the question moot, but in general, I like,
> in rough order:
>
> 1. singer's voice (but not necessarily vocal ability as a music teacher
> would define it)
> 2. harmony (though I've never really understood how to always detect
> chord changes) and melody, both of which seem to me indivisible
> 3. language cleverly used, which takes in two of the categories above
> 4. production (if that means something other than atmospherics}
> 5. instrumental prowess of the Chuck Berry/Fats Domino kind but not of
> the Eric Clapton kind
> 6. rhythms with or without percussion
> 7. background vocals, which would come higher if we were limiting
> ourselves to group vocals, but are simply absent from much of the music
> I like best and thus have to come last

I'm surprised, Mark, that you would play this Bruce game. While we all can
point to elements of a recording that we like, the idea that these elements
have a fixed ranking strikes me as ludicrous. Context is everything.
Background vocals are the key ingredient of many Ray Charles songs
(What I Say, You Are My Sunshine) but are nearly irrelevant to many others
(Johnny Mathis, Elvis). Clever language elevates Chuck Berry and Dylan
recordings but would do nothing to improve many Little Richard or Jerry
Lee songs. My examples may have flaws, but my point is that I could not
rank whatever list of attributes in a way that help anyone predict how
much I would like a particular song.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 10:11:40 AM UTC-4, Marc Dashevsky wrote:

> Background vocals are the key ingredient of many Ray Charles songs (What I Say, You Are My Sunshine) but are nearly irrelevant to many others (Johnny Mathis, Elvis).

It's actually the opposite with Ray and Elvis. The Jordanaires are a key part of many Elvis records while the girls that Ray used almost always detract from his records. Part 1 of "What'd I Say" has no background vocals at all and it's WAY better than part 2, which was not even played on the radio when the record was current.

[Frank]

That's your problem ,not mine. BTW am I to assume that you've never sung along with a favorite song?

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 12:25:15 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> BTW am I to assume that you've never sung along with a favorite song?

Of course I have, but what does that have to do with liking the meaning of the lyrics?

If I sing along with "Nel Blu Di Pinto Di Blu" where I don't even understand the language does that mean that I like the meaning of the lyrics?

The lyrics are imporetant to me phonetically but as far as what they mean I have next to no interest in that.

[Frank]

Amazing! You keep mentioning NBDPDB because it's a foreign language, so no one who sings along knows the meanings of the words. People DO know the lyrics to "Stardust", "Roll Over Beethoven" or "Those Were the Days"for example and they add to one's appreciation of a song....but not to you. I think BR said it best.

If you've never had an emotional attachment to the lyrics of any song, it's your loss.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:37:34 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> You keep mentioning NBDPDB because it's a foreign language, so no one who sings along knows the meanings of the words. People DO know the lyrics to "Stardust", "Roll Over Beethoven" or "Those Were the Days" for example and they add to one's appreciation of a song....but not to you.

I know the lyrics to "Stardust" and to "Roll Over Beethoven" and to "Those Were the days" too, but the "meaning" of those lyrics is not of interest to me. I have them all memorized phonetically. I like the way the words sound in the context of the recordings, but I just don't care about what they mean. Why is it so hard for you to accept that?

> I think BR said it best. If you've never had an emotional attachment to the lyrics of any song, it's your loss.

I have an emotional attachment to the lyrics of the songs on Allan Sherman's first album.

If you noticed in this thread, Roger also ranked "meaning of lyrics" as the least important category to him.

[Frank]

Yes I noticed, but even Roger thinks the lyrics of at least a few songs are meaningful. No one says every song,or even most songs have memorable lyrics. Most don't, but some do.

Glad you're so attached to Sherman's lyrics at least. In a recent contest he had 9 or 10 songs you nominated and the votes were typically 12-3 or 13-1 against but you think they're hysterical. His idea for the lyrics was a good one, but they got tiresome after about 2 listens. Sherman did as bad or worse than any 10 Pat Boone songs that have been in contests.

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <MPG.2e2da113b...@news.supernews.com>, Marc

I started with a disclaimer agreeing with those who thought the game
was misguided. I then challenged Bruce's challenges. I don't think
thought I was "playing his game."

> While we all can
> point to elements of a recording that we like, the idea that these elements
> have a fixed ranking strikes me as ludicrous.

Agree.

> Context is everything.
> Background vocals are the key ingredient of many Ray Charles songs

Many of my favorite Ray Charles songs are pre-Raelettes.

> (What I Say, You Are My Sunshine) but are nearly irrelevant to many others
> (Johnny Mathis, Elvis). Clever language elevates Chuck Berry and Dylan
> recordings but would do nothing to improve many Little Richard or Jerry
> Lee songs.

Mostly agree, though Jerry Lee's improvised additions are often a hoot.

> My examples may have flaws, but my point is that I could not
> rank whatever list of attributes in a way that help anyone predict how
> much I would like a particular song.

Mostly agree, though I ranked singer's voice at the top because nearly
all my top favorites have a distinctive and unique singing style.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 6:31:53 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> Many of my favorite Ray Charles songs are pre-Raelettes.

I think all in all his records would be better if he had never used female background singers. It's even worse with some of the mixed choruses like on "Georgia On My Mind." That record would be much better with no background singers at all IMO.

His slow bluesy numbers before the girls were being used, like "Come Back" and "A Fool For You" are great. For me the girls detract from the records in most cases, although there are certain records where they help like "My Baby" and "Hit The Road Jack."

Some of the many Elvis items where the background singers (Jordanaires) are really a big plus include "Love Me" and "I Was The One" and "Too Much" and "Don't" and "When My Blue Moon Turns To Gold" amd "A Fool Such As I" and "Paralyzed" and "Don't Be Cruel" and "I Got Stung" for starters.

[Frank]

Are there any songs by a male that you think female background singers enhance?

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <82d4e520-0a75-4c9c...@googlegroups.com>, The

Machine!!!!! <sav...@verizon.net> wrote:

> Some of the many Elvis items where the background singers (Jordanaires) are
> really a big plus include "Love Me" and "I Was The One" and "Too Much" and
> "Don't" and "When My Blue Moon Turns To Gold" amd "A Fool Such As I" and
> "Paralyzed" and "Don't Be Cruel" and "I Got Stung" for starters.

I agree the Jordanaires help on these, especially "Don't Be Cruel," but
I like most the early Sun sides without background singers.

[BobbyM]

Brian Hyland - Itsy Bitsy Teenie Weenie Yellow Polka Dot Bikini :>)

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 8:14:12 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> I agree the Jordanaires help on these, especially "Don't Be Cruel," but I like most the early Sun sides without background singers.

Yes, the Sun stuff is his best stuff, but Marc's claim that background singers added no value to Elvis' records is insane. The Jordanaires are far better than the Raelettes.

Ray's songs like "Ain't That Love" and "Swanee River Rock" and "Unchain My Heart" and many others would be better without the girls, while I can't think of any Elvis records with the Jordanaires that would be better without them.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 8:04:46 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> Are there any songs by a male that you think female background singers enhance?

It Hurts To Be In Love - Gene Pitney
I'm Gonna Make You Mine - Lou Christie
Hoonie Boonie - Nappy Brown

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 8:31:16 PM UTC-4, The Machine!!!!! wrote:

> On Monday, July 14, 2014 8:04:46 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote: > Are there any songs by a male that you think female background singers enhance?

> I'm Gonna Make You Mine - Lou Christie

Not sure if Lou really qualifies as a male.

[Frank]

Not in our time frame, but the background female vocals of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" is not only great, but they are really singing upfront for the last 30-40 seconds of the record

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 9:35:15 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> Not in our time frame, but the background female vocals of "You Can't Always Get What You Want" is not only great, but they are really singing upfront for the last 30-40 seconds of the record

That's Madeline Bell, Nanette Workman and Doris Troy

[Frank]

thanks for the IDs. Do you like what they contribute to the record?

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 9:58:44 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

> Do you like what they contribute to the record?

Not especially. I think the record goes on about 90 seconds too long.

[Frank]

That's because you were too young to get stoned and listen to it through head sets

[Mark Dintenfass]

In article <ce9b4e2c-bf8f-46cc...@googlegroups.com>, The

So you don't like gospel style? Your whiteness is showing through.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Monday, July 14, 2014 11:04:37 PM UTC-4, Mark Dintenfass wrote:

> So you don't like gospel style? Your whiteness is showing through.

Of course I like gospel style. I'm a big fan of black male gospel quartets and quintets. Not so much for the female groups.

It's my anti-female backup singers-ness that's showing through. I don't think that female backup singers work well with a male lead singer.

Come to think of it, I can't think of any Ray Charles record with a male vocal group.

[Roger Ford]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank <espo...@comcast.net>

wrote:

>On Monday, July 14, 2014 1:04:38 PM UTC-4, The Machine!!!!! wrote:
>> On Monday, July 14, 2014 12:25:15 PM UTC-4, Frank wrote:

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20

>> > BTW am I to assume that you've never sung along with a favorite song?

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> Of course I have, but what does that have to do with liking the meaning o=
>f the lyrics?
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> If I sing along with "Nel Blu Di Pinto Di Blu" where I don't even underst=

>and the language does that mean that I like the meaning of the lyrics?

>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> The lyrics are imporetant to me phonetically but as far as what they mean=

> I have next to no interest in that.
>
>

>Amazing! You keep mentioning NBDPDB because it's a foreign language, so no =
>one who sings along knows the meanings of the words. People DO know the lyr=
>ics to "Stardust", "Roll Over Beethoven" or "Those Were the Days"for exampl=
>e and they add to one's appreciation of a song....but not to you. I think B=
>R said it best.
>
> If you've never had an emotional attachment to the lyrics of any song, it'=
>s your loss.=20
>
That last line smacks a little of some sort of elitism .

First off I don't believe that ANYONE on here (or in most other places
come to that) appreciates 50's rock 'n' roll and R&B music more than
Bruce does and certainly when it comes to knowledge of the subject he
runs rings around practically everyone.

So where exactly is this "loss" you're talking about?


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!

[Bill B]

"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:53c523a0...@news.virginmedia.com...

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT), Frank <espo...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> If you've never had an emotional attachment to the lyrics of any song,
>> it'=
>>s your loss.=20

>>

> First off I don't believe that ANYONE on here (or in most other places
> come to that) appreciates 50's rock 'n' roll and R&B music more than
> Bruce does and certainly when it comes to knowledge of the subject he
> runs rings around practically everyone.
>
> So where exactly is this "loss" you're talking about?
>
>

There's a difference between knowing and appreciating.

[Bill B]

"Bill B" <wlastnam...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:HD9xv.229$4k2...@fx23.iad...

It's like putting on sunglasses to view a work of art like a painting. You
still see it, but you can't truly appreciate it. And that's a loss.

[Roger Ford]

The piece above recognizes that in using both words differently and in
accordance with their correct meanings .

[Roger Ford]

Many modern paintings I've been unfortunate enough to see are
positively improved by viewing through darkened glass

[Bill B]

"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:53c5487...@news.virginmedia.com...

> On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 09:08:55 -0400, "Bill B"
> <wlastnam...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> There's a difference between knowing and appreciating.
>>
>>It's like putting on sunglasses to view a work of art like a painting. You
>>still see it, but you can't truly appreciate it. And that's a loss.
>>

> Many modern paintings I've been unfortunate enough to see are
> positively improved by viewing through darkened glass

Similar to sticking your fingers in your ears when listening to a record you
don't like. But you remove those fingers for one you do like or you won't
fully appreciate it.

[Frank]

> If I didn't know you better Roger, I'd type an LOL for saying I sound like an elitist.
> The loss is that some songs are lyric driven and if you don't care at all about lyrics, it's your loss IMO.


Of course Bruce is steeped with knowledge. I defer to him and everybody else who is a regular poster here. The only two people I can say with certainty I know more about R&B and R&R are Mike and Dave.

Is there even one song where the lyrics are meaningful for you, Roger?

Bill stated it well and concisely in his recent posts.

[Roger Ford]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2014 15:17:09 -0700 (PDT), Frank <espo...@comcast.net>

That's not all I said. I also added that there's nobody here who
APPRECIATES that music more. If he were suffering any great "loss" as
you mention that would imply that others are getting MORE satisfaction
from the music. I've been around this music long enough,,immersed in
it,studied all aspects of it and met enough fans (including some from
on here) and other people involved in it to be certain that this is
not so

>I defer to him and everybody else who is a regular poster here. The only two people I can say with certainty I know more about R&B and R&R are Mike and Dave.
>

My cat knows more about 50's r&r and r&b than Mike or Dave

>Is there even one song where the lyrics are meaningful for you, Roger?
>

Sigh! I've said this so MANY times here......

Okay one more time.....I find the lyrics of most 50's r&r and r&b
songs banal,often in the extreme.Of course there are exceptions where
some lyrics are sharp and clever (Chuck Berry,Leiber & Stoller etc).
Likewise in pop the majority of lyrics are total crap with most
exceptions coming from the old masters (Cole Porter,Gershwin etc)

But of course none of this matters a jot where the PERFORMANCE and the
SOUND of the finished record is everything as Little Richard,for
example illustrates perfectly in making the lyrically dopey
"Tutti-Frutti"into one of the very GREATEST of all r&r classics.

Who cares about lyrics on records like that?

> Bill stated it well and concisely in his recent posts.
>

He did? I must have blinked and missed that :)

[Sharxster]

"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:53c604f9...@news.virginmedia.com...

> My cat knows more about 50's r&r and r&b than Mike or Dave\

Pride cometh before a fall, eh?

[Bill B]

"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:53c604f9...@news.virginmedia.com...
>

> That's not all I said. I also added that there's nobody here who

> APPRECIATES that music more (than Bruce). If he were suffering any great

> "loss" as
> you mention that would imply that others are getting MORE satisfaction
> from the music.

Faulty logic. Bruce could derive greater satisfaction than anyone else, but
still not appreciate the music to its fullest. And no one said "great loss."

[Roger Ford]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:20:22 -0400, "Bill B"
<wlastnam...@optonline.net> wrote:

>
>
>"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:53c604f9...@news.virginmedia.com...
>>
>> That's not all I said. I also added that there's nobody here who
>> APPRECIATES that music more (than Bruce). If he were suffering any great
>> "loss" as
>> you mention that would imply that others are getting MORE satisfaction
>> from the music.
>
>
>Faulty logic.

Not in the least

>Bruce could derive greater satisfaction than anyone else, but
>still not appreciate the music to its fullest.

I'll let Messrs Merriam and Webster reply for me who define the
meaning of "appreciate" (verb) as

a : to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of
b : to value or admire highly
c : to judge with heightened perception or understanding

All of which accords with what I said and my statement above stands

>And no one said "great loss."

Including me

What I actually said was

>If he were suffering any great "loss"

Not quite the same

[Bill B]

"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:53c66b80...@news.virginmedia.com...

> On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 07:20:22 -0400, "Bill B"
> <wlastnam...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:53c604f9...@news.virginmedia.com...
>>>
>>> That's not all I said. I also added that there's nobody here who
>>> APPRECIATES that music more (than Bruce). If he were suffering any great
>>> "loss" as
>>> you mention that would imply that others are getting MORE satisfaction
>>> from the music.
>>
>>
>>Faulty logic.
>
> Not in the least
>
>>Bruce could derive greater satisfaction than anyone else, but
>>still not appreciate the music to its fullest.
>
> I'll let Messrs Merriam and Webster reply for me who define the
> meaning of "appreciate" (verb) as
>
> a : to grasp the nature, worth, quality, or significance of
> b : to value or admire highly
> c : to judge with heightened perception or understanding
>
> All of which accords with what I said and my statement above stands
>
>>And no one said "great loss."
>
> Including me
>
> What I actually said was
>
>>If he were suffering any great "loss"
>
> Not quite the same

Please explain the difference between great "loss" and "great loss" in that
sentence.

The definitions in a) and c) above are not met to the fullest extent by the
Ray Ban Man.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 7:20:22 AM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:

> Bruce could derive greater satisfaction than anyone else, but still not appreciate the music to its fullest. And no one said "great loss."

By caring way too much about the meaning of the lyrics you and others are missing much of what made 50s R&B and rock and roll great. It would be like reading a great book and obsessing over the font of the print. Like eating a great meal but worrying about where each item was placed on the plate.

Rock and roll did not grab millions of teenagers in the early 50s because of lyrics. Look at old clips of the kids then describing what they like about the music. Nobody ever mentions lyrics. You lyric lovers are looking at 50s music through latter day standards. Revisionist analysis. You should all move to the Dylan Group and discuss lyrics with those clods.

[Roger Ford]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:52:52 -0400, "Bill B"

I quoted the word "loss" (as used by the original poster)

>The definitions in a) and c) above are not met to the fullest extent by the
>Ray Ban Man.

In that case please provide an officially sourced fuller definition
(not your own) which renders what I said completely innaccurate

[Bill B]

"Roger Ford" <mari...@bblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message

news:53c6bd56...@news.virginmedia.com...

But there is no difference in meaning, so you did say it.

>>The definitions in a) and c) above are not met to the fullest extent by
>>the
>>Ray Ban Man.
>
> In that case please provide an officially sourced fuller definition
> (not your own) which renders what I said completely innaccurate

Not "completely inaccurate," faulty logic. For argument's sake, I'll accept
that the Ray Ban Man appreciates the music more than anyone else. That still
does not justify the leap to the statement that considering his lack of
interest in lyrics a "loss" implies that others are getting more
satisfaction than him from the music. It just means he is not fully
appreciating what he is hearing. The logic of your statement has nothing to
do with the meaning of "appreciation." That seems to be patterned after the
Ray Ban Man's tactic of throwing out red herrings rather than considering
the real point.

[Roger Ford]

On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 14:28:21 -0400, "Bill B"

I never used the word myself. Each time I said it in these exchanges I
am quoting the original poster who used the word

>>>The definitions in a) and c) above are not met to the fullest extent by
>>>the
>>>Ray Ban Man.
>>
>> In that case please provide an officially sourced fuller definition
>> (not your own) which renders what I said completely innaccurate
>
>Not "completely inaccurate," faulty logic. For argument's sake, I'll accept
>that the Ray Ban Man appreciates the music more than anyone else. That still
>does not justify the leap to the statement that considering his lack of
>interest in lyrics a "loss" implies that others are getting more
>satisfaction than him from the music.

I don't see the leap. Using the word "loss" in the context it appeared
definitely means to me that Bruce (or anyone else not interested in
lyrics) is considered by the original poster to be at some kind of
disadvantage with his appraisal of the music whereas that same
original poster who sets much more store by the lyrics is likewise
presumably advantaged in comparison.

If he isn't then there is no loss at all,right?

>It just means he is not fully
>appreciating what he is hearing. The logic of your statement has nothing to
>do with the meaning of "appreciation." That seems to be patterned after the
>Ray Ban Man's tactic of throwing out red herrings rather than considering
>the real point.

What's the "Ray Ban Man" thing about?

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:54:06 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:

> What's the "Ray Ban Man" thing about?

I think it has to do with what he said about looking at a painting with sunglasses on.

[Bill B]

Roger Ford asked in a message that showed on my phone but has not yet
appeared on my PC, and which I don't want to reply to on my phone:

What's with the Ray Ban Man thing?

That refers to Bruce's listening to music in a similar manner to putting on
sunglasses to view art. I couldn't think of a catchy name to fit putting his
fingers in his ears.

[Sharxster]

"The Machine!!!!!" <sav...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:34b2fa5e-0855-4a63...@googlegroups.com...

Fine, but none of us are callow, immature youth. Yes, they had
THEIR reasons for liking whatever music at the time. However, that
was THEN, this is now. Surely ADULTS have more mature criteria for
deciding what their favourite music is. As an ADULT, I do NOT like
screeching, off-key, discordant, cranked-up dreck.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:58:35 AM UTC-4, Sharxster wrote:

> However, that was THEN, this is now.

Yes, and NOW nobody likes 50s pop anymore.

> As an ADULT, I do NOT like screeching, off-key, discordant, cranked-up dreck.

You didn't like that good stuff even when you were a teenager. You were always a nerd.

[OleManRiver]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 10:22:07 AM UTC-4, The Machine!!!!! wrote:
> On Thursday, July 17, 2014 4:58:35 AM UTC-4, Sharxster wrote:
> > However, that was THEN, this is now.

> Yes, and NOW nobody likes 50s pop anymore.
>

True story. Last month, my 82 year old neighbor requested some music from the fifties for a friend who is dying. I burned six CD's containing pop music for him from my iTunes library. He was thrilled. I've been playing the corresponding playlists during my daily naps.

Frank Fay

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 11:32:56 AM UTC-4, OleManRiver wrote:

> I've been playing the corresponding playlists during my daily naps. Frank Fay

They make a great sedative.

[Bill B]

"OleManRiver" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c27daa75-61b2-47e9...@googlegroups.com...

>>
> True story. Last month, my 82 year old neighbor requested some music from
> the fifties for a friend who is dying. I burned six CD's containing pop
> music for him from my iTunes library. He was thrilled. I've been playing
> the corresponding playlists during my daily naps.
>
> Frank Fay

Did he ask for Pop? If not, why only Pop and no Rock & Roll. Or is Pop all
inclusive in this instance? He would probably have loved some Doo-Wop, Chuck
Berry etc.

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:57:12 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:

> Did he ask for Pop? If not, why only Pop and no Rock & Roll. Or is Pop all inclusive in this instance? He would probably have loved some Doo-Wop, Chuck Berry etc.

The one who is dying may be in his later 80s, in which case he likely only wants pop. Most people born before the later 30s did not like rock and roll.

[OleManRiver]

On Thursday, July 17, 2014 2:57:12 PM UTC-4, Bill B wrote:

> "OleManRiver" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:c27daa75-61b2-47e9...@googlegroups.com...

> > True story. Last month, my 82 year old neighbor requested some music from
> > the fifties for a friend who is dying. I burned six CD's containing pop
> > music for him from my iTunes library. He was thrilled. I've been playing
> > the corresponding playlists during my daily naps.

> Did he ask for Pop? If not, why only Pop and no Rock & Roll. Or is Pop all
> inclusive in this instance? He would probably have loved some Doo-Wop, Chuck
> Berry etc.

His request was for music from the fifties with artists like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. So I selected music by the following artists:
Al Hibbler, Ames Brothers, Andy Williams, Art & Dotty Todd, Art Mooney Orchestra & Chorus, Billy Grammer, Billy Williams, Bobby Darin, Bobby Helms, Bonnie Guitar, Bonnie Lou, Boyd Bennett, Brook Benton, Browns, Cathy Carr, Charlie Gracie, Chordettes, Connie Francis, Conway Twitty, Crew-Cuts, Dean Martin, Debbie Reynolds, DeCastro Sisters, DeJohn Sisters, Della Reese, Domenico Modugno, Don Cherry, Don Gibson, Don Robertson, Don Rondo, Doris Day, Drifters, Earl Grant, Eartha Kitt, Ed Townsend, Eddie Fisher, Ersel Hickey, Fontane Sisters, Four Aces, Four Lads, Four Knights, Four Preps, Frank Sinatra, Frankie Avalon, Frankie Laine, Gale Storm, Gaylords, George Hamilton IV, Georgia Gibbs, Gloria Mann, Gogi Grant, Harry Belafonte, Ivo Robic and the Song-Masters, Jane Morgan, Jay & The Americans, Jaye P Morgan, Jim Lowe, Jimmy Clanton, Jimmy Dorsey, Jimmie Rodgers, Jo Stafford, Joan Weber, Johnny Desmond, Johnny Maddox, Johnny Mathis, Johnnie Ray, Joseph A. Ferko String Band, Julie London, Julius LaRosa, Kay Starr, Kitty Kallen, Mario Lanza, Mindy Carson, Les Paul & Mary Ford, Martin Denny, Marty Robbins, McGuire Sisters, Mitchell Torok, Mills Brothers, Mitch Miller, Patience and Prudence, Pat Boone, Patti Page, Paul Anka, Peggy Lee, Perez Prado, Perry Como, Platters, Reg Owen and his Orchestra, Robert Mitchum, Rosemary Clooney, Sam Cooke, Sarah Vaughan, Stargazers, Somethin' Smith & the Redheads, Tab Hunter, Tarriers, Teresa Brewer, Terry Gilkyson, Three Sons, Toni Fisher, Tony Bennett, Vaughn Monroe.

[Bill B]

"OleManRiver" <fran...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:621e691b-76a8-4605...@googlegroups.com...

Not a total snoozefest. :-)

[Frank]

Was his last name Pendragon or Scarlotti? Sounds like a WHLL playlist

[OleManRiver]

I just checked with my neighbor and he said his friend is my age (76) and he does not care for rock and roll music. He really enjoys the CD's I made for him.

[Jim Colegrove]

On Thu, 17 Jul 2014 17:12:57 -0700 (PDT), Frank <espo...@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Was his last name Pendragon or Scarlotti? Sounds like a WHLL playlist

And, apparently, lying about his age all this time.


Jim Colegrove
http://www.thecoolgroove.com

[xpen...@gmail.com]

>
>His request was for music from the fifties with artists like Frank Sinatra and Tony Bennett. So I selected music by the following artists:
>Al Hibbler, Ames Brothers, Andy Williams, Art & Dotty Todd, Art Mooney Orchestra & Chorus, Billy Grammer, Billy Williams, Bobby Darin, Bobby Helms, Bonnie Guitar, Bonnie Lou, Boyd Bennett, Brook Benton, Browns, Cathy Carr, Charlie Gracie, Chordettes, Connie Francis, Conway Twitty, Crew-Cuts, Dean Martin, Debbie Reynolds, DeCastro Sisters, DeJohn Sisters, Della Reese, Domenico Modugno, Don Cherry, Don Gibson, Don Robertson, Don Rondo, Doris Day, Drifters, Earl Grant, Eartha Kitt, Ed Townsend, Eddie Fisher, Ersel Hickey, Fontane Sisters, Four Aces, Four Lads, Four Knights, Four Preps, Frank Sinatra, Frankie Avalon, Frankie Laine, Gale Storm, Gaylords, George Hamilton IV, Georgia Gibbs, Gloria Mann, Gogi Grant, Harry Belafonte, Ivo Robic and the Song-Masters, Jane Morgan, Jay & The Americans, Jaye P Morgan, Jim Lowe, Jimmy Clanton, Jimmy Dorsey, Jimmie Rodgers, Jo Stafford, Joan Weber, Johnny Desmond, Johnny Maddox, Johnny Mathis, Johnnie Ray, Joseph A. Ferko String Band, Julie
London,
>Julius LaRosa, Kay Starr, Kitty Kallen, Mario Lanza, Mindy Carson, Les Paul & Mary Ford, Martin Denny, Marty Robbins, McGuire Sisters, Mitchell Torok, Mills Brothers, Mitch Miller, Patience and Prudence, Pat Boone, Patti Page, Paul Anka, Peggy Lee, Perez Prado, Perry Como, Platters, Reg Owen and his Orchestra, Robert Mitchum, Rosemary Clooney, Sam Cooke, Sarah Vaughan, Stargazers, Somethin' Smith & the Redheads, Tab Hunter, Tarriers, Teresa Brewer, Terry Gilkyson, Three Sons, Toni Fisher, Tony Bennett, Vaughn Monroe.

How did Ersel Hickey sneak in there?

[OleManRiver]

A bluebird flew over a mountain and delivered his name to a seagull who then delivered an mp3 to my iTunes library.

[tr...@iwvisp.com]

Neither of those analogies are anywhere close to being comparable to Rock & Roll lyrics and music. While I agree with the greater importance of the music. When we hear all that great music now we don't just hum the melodies in our heads, we sing along with the lyrics. Okay, except for Bruce.

Ray Arthur

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Friday, July 18, 2014 8:32:07 PM UTC-4, tr...@iwvisp.com wrote:

> we sing along with the lyrics. Okay, except for Bruce. Ray Arthur

Bruce sings along with the lyrics as much as anybody. He has them momrized phonetically but does not care what they mean.

[Dennis C]

momrized phonetically

Oedipus wrecks, baby!!!!

[Bob Roman]

On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 2:54:06 PM UTC-4, Roger Ford wrote:

> I don't see the leap. Using the word "loss" in the context it appeared
> definitely means to me that Bruce (or anyone else not interested in
> lyrics) is considered by the original poster to be at some kind of
> disadvantage with his appraisal of the music whereas that same
> original poster who sets much more store by the lyrics is likewise
> presumably advantaged in comparison.

No one can jump into the mind of someone else to compare how much they each enjoy a recording.

But I can give my personal experience. There have been times when I have enjoyed a record without giving any thought to the words, but when I finally did get around to attending to the words something about them grabbed me. In that case, given that everything else about the record stayed the same, and given that another element to appreciate was added, my total enjoyment of the record increased.

It isn't necessarily a matter simply of attending to words. It's any individual element. Sometimes we might listen to a recording and begin attending to a single musician. I might ignore everything else to listen to, for example, what the bassist is doing. From then on, my experience of appreciating the bassist will color my appreciation of the entire record.

If someone says that he doesn't listen to lyrics as a matter of principle, it's as silly as if he were to say he doesn't focus on individual musicians as a matter of principle.

--
BR

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:05:47 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:

> If someone says that he doesn't listen to lyrics as a matter of principle, it's as silly as if he were to say he doesn't focus on individual musicians as a matter of principle. -- BR

Who's this someone who doesn't listen to words as a matter of principle?

I listen to words, I just have no interest in processing their meaning. And not because of any matter of principle.

> I might ignore everything else to listen to, for example, what the bassist is doing. From then on, my experience of appreciating the bassist will color my appreciation of the entire record.

This is far less prevelant than the cases where somebody listens first to the words for the meaning, and "that" colors their experience of appreciating the record from then on. There are many people, (Diane included) who instantly hate a record based solely on the lyrics.

Anybody who lets the meaning of the lyrics overly influence their appreciation of a record (good or bad) is severely hampering their ability to appreciate all of the other facets of the record.

[Bob Roman]

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:57:06 PM UTC-4, The Machine!!!!! wrote:

> Anybody who lets the meaning of the lyrics overly influence their
> appreciation of a record (good or bad) is severely hampering their
> ability to appreciate all of the other facets of the record.

It's good to hear that your absolutist belief in the dangerous power of words is not a matter of principle.

--
BR

[The Machine!!!!!]

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 6:45:48 PM UTC-4, Bob Roman wrote:

> It's good to hear that your absolutist belief in the dangerous power of words is not a matter of principle. -- BR

On the contrary. When it comes to song lyrics I don't have a belief in the dangerous power of words. The problem is that many people can't separate entertainment and sonics FROM serious words.

WHY would ANYONE care what some musician thinks about any serious subject aside from music?

I may as well ask my plumber. Or a hairdresser. Chuck Berry is supposed to be the best lyricist in 50s music and he was a hairdresser. Why would he have any more insight into anything aside from music than any other hairdre3sser?

[Bob Roman]

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 7:02:33 PM UTC-4, The Machine!!!!! wrote:

> WHY would ANYONE care what some musician thinks about any serious subject
> aside from music?

Jerry Leiber was a great lyricist. No one went to him for insights.

Some people consider Ira Gershwin the gold standard of lyricists. No one went to him to explore serious subjects.

A great lyricist uses words cleverly the same way a great composer uses notes cleverly. No one over the age of 17 hopes to find a guru on the pop charts.

Johnny Cash looked for songs to sing the same way Steven Spielberg looks for movie scripts. They both considered themselves storytellers and were looking for good stories to tell.

--
BR

[BobbyM]

Would you agree that not every hairdresser has the same experiences? Do
you think that all umpires have the same experiences? Maybe, just
maybe, Berry could express himself in song in a different way than other
hairdressers. Maybe you have a list of other hairdressing
singer/songwriters? Care to rank them?

If you want to listen to all music as neanderthals did, there's nothing
wrong with that. But some of us choose to exercise other parts of the
brain during the listening experience. But that doesn't mean I'm going
to go out today & "beat on the brat with a baseball bat".

[Dennis C]

But I can give my personal experience. There have been times when I have enjoyed a record without giving any thought to the words, but when I finally did get around to attending to the words something about them grabbed me. In that case, given that everything else about the record stayed the same, and given that another element to appreciate was added, my total enjoyment of the record increased.

It isn't necessarily a matter simply of attending to words. It's any individual element. Sometimes we might listen to a recording and begin attending to a single musician. I might ignore everything else to listen to, for example, what the bassist is doing. From then on, my experience of appreciating the bassist will color my appreciation of the entire record.

If someone says that he doesn't listen to lyrics as a matter of principle, it's as silly as if he were to say he doesn't focus on individual musicians as a matter of principle.

--
BR

Bobby Blumenthal, baby!!!!