HISTORY OF ROCK & ROLL ON PBS
fre...@indy.net
The series begins on Sunday, September 24. Check your local tv schedule
for the exact time and station. The series will trace the origins of Rock
and include material on Chuck Berry, Little Richard, Elvis, Buddy Holly,
The BEATLES, Bob Dylan, Motown, The Who, Hendrix, Alice Cooper, Woodstock
and much more. This is a must for all those who want to know the History of
the cultural phenomenon that has crossed national boundries and touched
multi-generations.
Jon
"Hey, hey, my, my, ROCK and ROLL can never die." Niel Young
John Cotterman
The tuesday night show had the boys tripping out in an Arnold Lang video
reminicent of A Hard Day's Night. . . Y'know running around silly with
masks on their faces, etc.
The Syd piece was a classic. Catatonic Syd before the microphone, nobody
home.
The best part was the contemporary interview with Roger! What a great
looking dude? Calm, engaging and confident, this guy's smile is warm and
welcoming. My recent images of Roger are dour, overly serious and
contentious. His long dog face has rounded out in his 50s -- a real
attractive guy. And -- get this -- as he was speaking (entirely about the
Syd days, nothing current) the caption on the screen read:
Roger Waters
Pink Floyd
Hadn't seen those two phrases together in quite a while. Reunion Tour '96
anyone ? ? !
ALLMUCK95
Rowe) wrote:
> But If I recall watching this same show, Floyd isnt even mentioned.
> What a BIG disappointment it was too...How can a R&R show Not even
> mention Floyd....Arrrgh....
>
Floyd was on last night's installment about the psychedelic scene.
THOMAS EWRY
NIGHT. I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS VERY POORLY SET UP.
THEY SET UP AN ITINERARY THAT WENT FROM DOORS>IGGY POP>ALICE
COOPER>DAVID BOWIE>KISS. CAN YOU THINK OF ANYWAY THAT THE MUSIC OF THESE
PEOPLE/BANDS HAVE IN COMMON? THE PROGRAM STATED THAT THESE BAND HAD A
FLAIR TO BRING THE CROWD INTO A FRENZIE. BASICALLY THE SHOW DIDN'T TALK
ABOUT THE MUSIC OF ROCK AND ROLL BUT MOSTLY ABOUT THE SHOW. HEY, I
THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT MUSIC.
I DID LIKE THE SHOW AND I HOPE TO WATCH IT AGAIN
THOMMY
S00...@DESIRE.WRIGHT.EDU
S00...@PALADIN.WRIGHT.EDU
I AM THE EYE OF FATIMA ON THE WALLS OF THE MOTEL ROOMS
AND COWBOYS ON ACID ARE LIKE EGYPTION CARTOONS
CAMPER VAN BETHOVEN
Nate Russell
: But If I recall watching this same show, Floyd isnt even mentioned.
: What a BIG disappointment it was too...How can a R&R show Not even
: mention Floyd....Arrrgh....
Actually they're mentioned. But it only covered their early years.
Maybe two minutes worth. :(
: --
: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
: Any opinions expressed by myself are of my own and not of
: THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY....And now a word from my sponsor...
: +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nate.
FirstFOOLToFinish
>But If I recall watching this same show, Floyd isnt even mentioned.
>What a BIG disappointment it was too...How can a R&R show Not even
>mention Floyd....Arrrgh....
I missed the beginning of this thread because my newsreader seems
to be dropping most of the posts to alt.music.pink-floyd, so if this
has already been stated, please forgive me.
I've been watching that pathetic attempt at a "History of Rock and
Roll" thing on PBS, and I did see at least a couple minutes worth of
coverage of Pink Floyd. Unfortunately, they were made out to be an
English rip-off attempt at copying the Greatful Dead and Jefferson
Airplane. Of course, what do you expect from a "documentary" that
trys to make it seem like Little Richard, Iggy Pop, James Brown and
various Punk groups were the best things that ever happened to music?
At least the Floyd material they showed was interesting - clips of
Syd-era promo videos and TV appearances (including the one where Roger
had to lip-sync because Syd wouldn't sing), and a short interview with
Roger.
I can't believe that PBS would show a supposed "History" of R&R that
doesn't even mention Dark Side, The Wall, etc. A show that actively
made fun of ELP and Yes. A show that barely mentioned the Beatles and
Elvis. A show that didn't even mention the Who, Genesis, Kansas, Boston,
King Crimson, or a bunch of other great classic/progressive rock bands,
and yet found an entire hour to devote to Rap music.
How often does the crap that they made such a big deal about get
listened to nowdays? Compare that to how many people still listen to
Pink Floyd and the other above-mentioned bands. It seemed to me as if
the makers of that "documentary" just took anyone they could get an
interview out of and held them up as the greatest shining examples of
Rock and Roll. What a laugh.
Sorry to rant on and on like that, but that thing just made me sick.
I hope it dies a quick and painful death so that someone can make a
*real* documentary on the history of Rock and Roll. Anyone know of an
e-mail address for PBS so that I can yell at them for a while?
-- Bob Eichler
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this reply/post seems outdated, it's because my newsreader is always
a few days behind. "That's not a bug... It's a feature!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
david shiang
use of their material (live footage, etc.), which may help explain which
bands were omitted.
Gregg Wager
what is all this crying going on about a PBS program on the History of
Rock that left out Pink Floyd after Syd Barrett. Syd Barrett was an
interesting, extremely influencial force on rock. He was the one that
inspired the Beatles to come up with the Sgt. Pepper's concept or the
Stones' Her Satanic Majesty's Request. That such a PBS program would have
the insight to devote such time to him is refreshing.
Pink Floyd after Barrett was a hyped-up, studio project with banal attempts
to copy Barrett's initial creepiness and inspired scariness. You spoiled
little 1970s brats whose daddies bought them a great big 2,000 dollar stereo
system to blast that crap on might miss your sessions of smoking pot,
turning the lights in your bedroom down real low and listening to Roger
Waters sing about lunatics in the grass or how life has just been one big
bummer for him inside his Wall, ever since he sold all those records and
became a millionaire.
The punk movement in the 1970s was what was really happening and what was
really influential. Even before the Sex Pistols around 1975-76 were the
Ramones in 1972. I did not see the PBS show, but from the way you guys
complain about it, it really sounded good. We had the Doors movie, when is
the Syd Barrett movie going to come out and tell the story of Roger
Waters' coup d'etat?
just my opinion
gw
michael dallin
Gregg Wager <wa...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
>Syd Barrett was an
>interesting, extremely influencial force on rock. He was the one that
>inspired the Beatles to come up with the Sgt. Pepper's concept or the
>Stones' Her Satanic Majesty's Request. That such a PBS program would have
A common conception, but I doubt it's true. Go to a music store this very
minute, and buy an album called "Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys. Paul
McCartney has stated time and time again that this album (which no fan of
60's music should be without) was a major inspiration for Sgt Pepper (and
you'll agree, if you hear it). The Beach Boys and the Beatles had a bit
of a competition going in the 60's, and they were continually trying to
outdo each other (in particular, notice that Paul's bass playing around this
time strongly resembles the style that Brian Wilson was using around that
time).
If anything the Beatles did was truly inspired by Syd, I would say it is a
song or two off of Magical Mystery Tour or maybe the Yellow Submarine
soundtrack, but nothing really off of Sgt. Pepper.
As for the Stones album, I couldn't tell you... maybe it was Syd who
inspired it (beats me, I'm not too much of a Stones fan... though admittedly,
Their Satanic Maj Req is a classic album).
Now, about the PBS show... Yes, many bands were omitted or barely talked
about. So what if PF wasn't mentioned beyond the days of Syd? You try to
cram 4 decades of rock music into a 10 hour documentary (or however long
it is) and not miss everyone who has had a hit album or a hit single. If you
are so hard up to read about how PF influenced the universe, then read one
of the many fine PF WWW pages... they have tons of articles and interviews
to keep you busy for ages on end.
(Yes, I actually *liked* the show)
Mike
--
Michael Dallin - dal...@cs.colostate.edu - http://www.cs.colostate.edu/~dallin
Moderator of Rec.Music.Info and Rocky Mountain National Park Home Page
"And in the very least you can stand up naked and grin..." - XTC
fre...@indy.net
own stereo and have seen Pink Floyd 7 X. Pink Floyd will always be more
popular than the long gone sex(LESS) Pistols. Syd Barrett ain't going to
ever give any interview because he is now a fat, baldheaded old man who
is not competent to speak. He was good for his time but it has long past.
Pink Floyd did their tribute to Syd by making the classic, "WISH YOU WERE
HERE." As far as your making fun of the later Floyd, DARK SIDE OF THE MOON
will still be selling in the 21st century long after you wanker Sex(LESS)
Pistols fans have passed on. The BEATLES music will also outlive all
those talentless garage bands who never learned to play a ROCK and ROLL.
"THE TIME IS GONE THE SONG IS OVER, Jonathan
THOUGHT I'D SOMETHING MORE TO SAY" P.F.
Steve Fletcher
|> Well, as a boomer who grew up on rock, I was disappointed that PINK FLOYD
|> was barely mentioned, except for the early years. My God did the writers
|> of the show ever here of, THE DARK SIDE OF THE MOON ? And what happened to
|> THE MOODY BLUES ? They were barely mentioned, except for a comment or two on
|> their early years. Nothing about THE M.B. major original albums from the
|> late 60's through the mid-70's. Certainly THE MOODY BLUES and PINK FLOYD
|> deserved as much or more air time as Iggy Pop. I may have missed something
|> in the show but you would have thought that there was no Neil Young or THE
|> WHO, by the way they were ignored. What happened to the KINKS and
|> STEPPENWOLF ? You would think by these omissions that the producers
|> were asleep through parts of the 60's and 70's. Even the BEATLES got
|> shorted with almost no mention of there later excellent albums. At least
|> we still have the music to create are own History of Rock.
|>
|> Jonathan
I agree with your assessment. The documentary is *very* incomplete.
However, in all fairness, there is a great deal of material to cover.
Still they failed to stress the substatial contributions you site.
... steve
David J. Coyle
about the shows and how the performers presented their music, not the
music itself. Not too much was new in the music when you considered the
decadence of the concerts themselves.
|| DAVID J. COYLE / E-Mail: dc33...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu ||
|| Diversified Communications / "Sunset doesn't last all evening..." ||
|| Ohio University / --George Harrison, 1970 ||
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Skip james
newsgroup) seems quite strange. Someone suggests the irrelevance of
Little Richard to the history of rock and roll? In favor of Pink Floyd?
This is the raving of obsessed fans. There were some problems of balance
with the series, and some odd omissions (they could have worked the Kinks
and the Who into the Brittish invasion segment, but maybe it was licensing
problems). And there are ways with *everyone* (I suppose Pink Floyd,
also, I dunno) they covered the inception of careers better than the more
mature work. The early Beatles work was well-covered, but the release of
Srgt. Pepper they seemed to just run past. Maybe the story has been told
too much? And the Rolling Stones truly great studio work of the late 60s
(and their live work other than the disaster at Altamont) was essentially
omitted. Personally, I would have left Sonny Bono out altogether to find
a way to work in, say, the Everly Brothers, something substantive about
Buddy Holly, the influence of country music (which was glossed over quite
superficially) or one of the other omissions I've already mentioned, BUT
even so, I think this documentary an excellent one within the constraints
of time limitations and format.
Tom Freeland
DDB NY1
out and produced. I is dufficult to condense 50 years of history into a
few hours and not leave things out.
I think the fact is (and please don't flame me, I am a huge Pink Floyd
fan) that Pink Floyd's music did not have an important effect on the
general Rock scene, as much as it was the conglomeration of some of it's
best elements.
The Floyd did not invent art rock, or the use of sound effects, or synths,
or concept albums or psychadelic music or intelligent lyrics. So in these
areas, the documentary producers were right in not over-playing Pink
Floyds contributions. However, the lack of mention of Dark Side of the
Moon as being a highly regarded and perhaps best produced album of it's
kind is suprising (not to mention best selling).
I think if anything, Pink Floyds only original contribution to the world
of Rock and Roll was the advent of the multi-media live show. I don't
think any other band was doing light shows/ films prior to Pink Floyd.
Corrections/ opinions welcome.
Mike DeZelar
>Now, about the PBS show... Yes, many bands were omitted or barely talked
>about. So what if PF wasn't mentioned beyond the days of Syd? You try to
>cram 4 decades of rock music into a 10 hour documentary (or however long
>it is) and not miss everyone who has had a hit album or a hit single. If you
>are so hard up to read about how PF influenced the universe, then read one
>of the many fine PF WWW pages... they have tons of articles and interviews
>to keep you busy for ages on end.
I don't think the gripe is so much about certain omissions (although
everyone has their favorite band that they want to be recognized).
Its more about what they chose to spend so much time covering. I
mean, I like Bowie, but I don't think he was such a significant
influence on rock history as to get a 1/2 hour of the "documentary."
The same with Iggy Pop.
---
Michael DeZelar E-Mail: mi...@winternet.com
Elk River, Minnesota, USA (alternate) mde...@uhc.com
Marc
: I don't think the gripe is so much about certain omissions (although
: everyone has their favorite band that they want to be recognized).
: Its more about what they chose to spend so much time covering. I
: mean, I like Bowie, but I don't think he was such a significant
: influence on rock history as to get a 1/2 hour of the "documentary."
: The same with Iggy Pop.
i dunno. i love david bowie's work from the 70s [and a few of his 80s
songs] and from what i have read on him, not only was he a great
musician, he was also a great showman, stage performer, inovator, and
producer. maybe he was more influential than you think?
Neil Cavanagh
your comments to WGBH, Boston public TV. (Feed...@wgbh.org)
I jumped at the chance to decry the exclusion and dismissal of the
progressive rock era 1969-1974. What made me most angry is that
on the commercials for the series they flashed a lot of words like
psychedelic, rap, blues, etc. and progressive was one of them. This
led to unfulfilled expectations.
While i think the R&B and funk footage was great, the series should have
been at least five episodes longer and shouldn't have kissed the ass of
punkers and rappers like every critic has done since 1977. If they meant
it to be a lasting document they should have shown the so-called
"pretensions" of prog rockers, warts and all...
I wrote to WGBH and tried to convey my feelings, but all I got back
was a message saying that they couldn't pass any comments on to the
people who actually put the series together.. but that my comments
would go on file for some future something or other.
Scott Hollifield
: I've been watching that pathetic attempt at a "History of Rock and
: Roll" thing on PBS, and I did see at least a couple minutes worth of
: coverage of Pink Floyd. Unfortunately, they were made out to be an
: English rip-off attempt at copying the Greatful Dead and Jefferson
: Airplane. Of course, what do you expect from a "documentary" that
: trys to make it seem like Little Richard, Iggy Pop, James Brown and
: various Punk groups were the best things that ever happened to music?
Well, weren't they? :-)
Okay, this is my official "why the PBS show *should* have excluded Pink
Floyd and progressive rock" post.
: I can't believe that PBS would show a supposed "History" of R&R that
: doesn't even mention Dark Side, The Wall, etc. A show that actively
: made fun of ELP and Yes. A show that barely mentioned the Beatles and
: Elvis. A show that didn't even mention the Who, Genesis, Kansas, Boston,
: King Crimson, or a bunch of other great classic/progressive rock bands,
: and yet found an entire hour to devote to Rap music.
I can answer that argument in five words: Who Is More Influential Today?
When I first realized that the Rock and Roll documentary was going to be
mostly exlcluding discourse on English progressive rock, I too was a bit
put off. After all, this was a whole genre we're talking about here,
with layers and branches, running the gamut from Rush to Floyd to Moody
Blues.
But then I thought it through. In terms of history of rock, progressive
is largely a dead end. The few strands of influence that wound their way
down to, say, Rush, tended to STAY there. Emerson Lake and Palmer aren't
about pushing boundaries, they're about remaining comfortable in their
own little structure, running 'round and 'round this labyrinth of
stylings that was built in the '70s and hasn't been renovated since.
Now, this has produced some engaging material, and I'm not saying it's
bad or invalid or anything. But it hasn't led anywhere. It's spiraled
into its own middle.
: How often does the crap that they made such a big deal about get
: listened to nowdays? Compare that to how many people still listen to
: Pink Floyd and the other above-mentioned bands.
I hope you're not seriously suggesting that "number of listeners" should
be the determining factor for such a thing. Otherwise, where was Michael
Bolton?
You misunderstood what the PBS documentary was trying to say. It's not
that so many people listen to Iggy Pop rather than Pink Floyd in 1995 --
obviously, the success of the "classic rock" radio format says
otherwise.
However, it's undisputable that Iggy Pop has influenced far more people
to begin making their own music than did Floyd -- and this has led to
more diversity in rock as a result. Iggy Pop was one of the handful of
parents that spun off the punk movement, and we all know where that led
to (turn on MTV lately?).
And as for rap, which I can't believe people are *still* denying is "real
music", it's been around long enough, produced enough cultural waves and
spun off enough sub-genres that I think we can now stop claiming that
it's just a breakdancing fad, as so many were quick to do in 1985. The
fact that you were annoyed by PBS's attention to rap shows that you saw
the episode devoted to it, but the fact that you still don't understand
its sigfnificance in relation to rock and roll shows that you didn't pay
much attention.
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
: If this reply/post seems outdated, it's because my newsreader is always
: a few days behind. "That's not a bug... It's a feature!"
: -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Usually I don't repond to .sigs, but... your reply/post seems outdated
all right but it's not because of your nresreader. :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hollifield * sco...@cris.com * http://www.cris.com/~scotth/
redden william shawn
> However, it's undisputable that Iggy Pop has influenced far more people
> to begin making their own music than did Floyd -- and this has led to
> more diversity in rock as a result. Iggy Pop was one of the handful of
> parents that spun off the punk movement, and we all know where that led
> to (turn on MTV lately?).
I believe that the creators of this documentary needed to include the
early '70's rog bigwigs such as Pink Floyd and the Moody Blues and Jethro
Tull to express, at least in the slightest degree, what the "punk" rock
movement was lashing out AGAINST. Punk itself doesn't say as much about
it's own influence on R and R until it is stated what it was fighting.
Shawn
Lizard
>
>But If I recall watching this same show, Floyd isnt even mentioned.
>What a BIG disappointment it was too...How can a R&R show Not even
>mention Floyd....Arrrgh....
>
Roger Waters, but ONLY in the psychedelic "Blues in Technicolour"
segment, and only with regard to the Syd Barrett incarnation of the band.
There was no mention of them in the segments covering the early to mid
70's, when they were far more popular than in '67. But then, they really
skipped all the bands lumped into the 70's "prog - rock" ghetto.
It's the death sentence for not covering the who, though, I'm
afraid. No excuses, no remorse.
"there once was a note..."
Colin Halyk
Daniel Bakken
what I saw, but was very dissapointed by what I DIDN'T see. Many many very big
and influential bands were not mentioned or barely seen. Whole hours to Punk,
Rap and David Bowie. That may be fine, but out of 10 hours?? Maybe out of 30.
It seemed the producers had a preconcieved notion of what they liked or thought
was important, and concentrated on that too much. Even the influences where
done the same way. Not to take anything away from the ones they did mention,
but too little consideration was given to early country, folk, and other
preexisting influences. Even classical music had its influences on rock. R&R
took from almost everything, and gained from it all. It is too bad, this show
had more potential.
I did however really enjoy the use of archival footage, with very little
overdubbing of studio versions.
Peace
Dan
Scott Hollifield
(I've crossposted this to alt.music.alternative and rec.music.rem due to
the nature of my post.)
So far it seems that everyone is complaining about how the PBS documentary
shortchanged some artists, particularly the British progressive rockers of
the late '60s and '70s. I described exactly why I thought these were
legitimate exclusions in a previous post (although there really is little
excuse for not mentioning The Who).
But I noticed a more glaring omission: R.E.M. and the flourish of
"alternative"/"modern"/"college" rock of the '80s.
The PBS documentary follows the important path of influence from R&B to
funk to rap to dance, thus ending up summing much of the music of that
decade. But I feel this was only one branch of a twin-trunked tree.
There was more than one backlash to disco and the excesses of the '70s.
While Grandmaster Flash was creating a new form of music in New York, and
the CBGB punk/new wave scene was peaking, some boys from Athens, Georgia
picked up some cheap musical instruments and decided to play music like the
Byrds. But instead of straightforward "message" songs, Michael Stipe
cloaked his lyrics in ambiguity and unintelligibility. It was the old
"back to basics" story, kids taking guitars and making simple music again,
but the example of R.E.M. and bands like them virtually spawned the
"college rock" genre of the '80s, which I think has proven itself a valid
musical movement given how it's evolved in the past decade and a half.
The main restriction to "college rock", and quite possibly why it was
excluded from the documentary, was that its appeal was basically to
middle-class white kids, and it probably didn't seem as viable an "ending"
to the saga of rock and roll as did the truly multicultural electronic
revoltution of rap and dance.
But without the success of R.E.M. and the bands that followed in their
footsteps, the teenagers of today wouldn't be listening to Pearl Jam and
Green Day. The leap from punk to Seatlle wasn't as quite as one-stepped as
the documentary made it appear. Nirvana owes as much to the alternative
'80s as they do to the punk '70s.
I also have two, more minor complaints about the documentary:
1. I feel like the introduction to electronic studio-produced dance music
with New Order, who was justifiably recognized, should have backed up a few
years and taken a couple of minutes to acknowledge and discuss the early
'80s British goth bands like Bauhaus, Joy Division and The Cure. These and
a number of other seminal bands from that time have been extremely
influential on the British music of today, or so it seems to this American,
even if the stuff rarely crosses over to the U.S. anymore.
2. I also feel like U2 should have been mentioned, if only in passing, for
providing the spark which would ignite the newly political edge of
mainstream '80s rock and roll.
Mostly, though, I think the PBS documentary was excellent and
well-produced. It could have concentrated on a paparazzi stream of
personalities, but instead, the producers seemed intent on digging into the
meat of rock and roll, the true paths of musical influence, and so along
with Dylan, the Beatles and the Pistols, we also got Velvet Underground,
Jonathan Richman, and De La Soul. Generally terrific.
--
ric...@muohio.edu
>I think if anything, Pink Floyds only original contribution to the world
>of Rock and Roll was the advent of the multi-media live show. I don't
>think any other band was doing light shows/ films prior to Pink Floyd.
>
>Corrections/ opinions welcome.
....Uhhhh, ever hear of Ken Kesey and the Acid tests?
Sara aka Perrrfect
Or the Joshua Light Show?
Sara
--
Free Leonard Peltier! Check out http://www.lpsg-co.org for more information.
GrimbleGru
Yes, Pink Floyd's 70's heyday is a glaring omission in the PBS/BBC R&R
documentary. I think that _The Dark Side Of The Moon_ is certainly worthy
of some mention (even if only for a brief moment), as is _The Wall_ for an
over-the-top stage show. It has already been said, however, that they had
a TON of material to cover in 10 hours, so some omissions are necessary.
If you watch both the Time-Life and PBS/BBC documentaries, I think that a
more complete picture is painted.
The most glaring omission, however, was Frank Zappa. He truly innovated
where other were afraid to tread. _We're Only In It For The Money_ is,
perhaps, the most scathing attack on the "summer of love" idealism, and it
arrived *during* that particular summer. Zappa also reinvented his sound
many times throughout his career. He was seen as an influence on many
rock and roll artists, yet he enjoyed his relative obscurity, as he was
able to truly do whatever he pleased.
That omission, alone, angered me more than any shorthanding of Pink Floyd,
The Who, R.E.M., or any other deserving group. The producers tried and
damn near succeeded in producing a complete documentary on the history of
rock. If they had been able to use another 4 to 6 hours of video, I think
they could've gotten it right.
All of this, of course, is one man's opinion....
rudi
-------------------------------------------------------
] R.D. Riet "Yippee! You can't see me [
] grimb...@aol.com but I can you." - Syd Barrett [
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Leaman
were also there. You may notice the tribute to this on the end of Armenia
("Freak out, freak out")
Cheers ML
geoff
In article <44onm2$1m...@rose.muohio.edu>, ric...@muohio.edu wrote:
>I think if anything, Pink Floyds only original contribution to the world
>of Rock and Roll was the advent of the multi-media live show. I don't
> >think any other band was doing light shows/ films prior to Pink Floyd.
> >
> >Corrections/ opinions welcome.
>
>
>
first techno song ever made. Also,Syd Barret was considered one of
the first people to experiment with guitar feedback and distortion,
even jimi hendrix in 1966 saw syd playing at the ufo club,and was
very impressed at syds abilty to blend distortion and feedback with
guitar,later making this type of playing his standard for just about
all his songs. jimi was actually influenced alot by syd.so,next
time get your facts straight before making harsh judgements
like that!!
Chris Sheldahl
Hollifield) wrote:
> 1. I feel like the introduction to electronic studio-produced dance music
> with New Order, who was justifiably recognized, should have backed up a few
> years and taken a couple of minutes to acknowledge and discuss the early
> '80s British goth bands like Bauhaus, Joy Division and The Cure. These and
> a number of other seminal bands from that time have been extremely
> influential on the British music of today, or so it seems to this American,
> even if the stuff rarely crosses over to the U.S. anymore.
>
Yeah, I think that Bauhaus,JD, Cure etc. were shortchanged too. Really,
though only JD could have been introduced in the context of dance music
(and then only through the New Order connection.)
act...@pine.liii.com
: On Fri, 29 Sep 1995, FirstFOOLToFinish wrote:
: what is all this crying going on about a PBS program on the History of
: Rock that left out Pink Floyd after Syd Barrett. Syd Barrett was an
: interesting, extremely influencial force on rock. He was the one that
: inspired the Beatles to come up with the Sgt. Pepper's concept or the
: Stones' Her Satanic Majesty's Request. That such a PBS program would have
: the insight to devote such time to him is refreshing.
: Pink Floyd after Barrett was a hyped-up, studio project with banal attempts
: to copy Barrett's initial creepiness and inspired scariness. You spoiled
: little 1970s brats whose daddies bought them a great big 2,000 dollar stereo
: system to blast that crap on might miss your sessions of smoking pot,
: turning the lights in your bedroom down real low and listening to Roger
: Waters sing about lunatics in the grass or how life has just been one big
: bummer for him inside his Wall, ever since he sold all those records and
: became a millionaire.
: The punk movement in the 1970s was what was really happening and what was
: really influential. Even before the Sex Pistols around 1975-76 were the
: Ramones in 1972. I did not see the PBS show, but from the way you guys
: complain about it, it really sounded good. We had the Doors movie, when is
: the Syd Barrett movie going to come out and tell the story of Roger
: Waters' coup d'etat?
: just my opinion
: gw
I guess they'd have to call it "Shine On, You Crazy Diamond"
Charles W Saeger
geoff <north...@mcimail.com> wrote:
>schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
> In article <44onm2$1m...@rose.muohio.edu>, ric...@muohio.edu wrote:
> >I think if anything, Pink Floyds only original contribution to the world
> >of Rock and Roll was the advent of the multi-media live show. I don't
> > >think any other band was doing light shows/ films prior to Pink Floyd.
> > Wrong!! On DSOTM.the song On The Run can be described as the
>first techno song ever made. Also,Syd Barret was considered one of
Uh, how about the title track to Obscured by Clouds?
>the first people to experiment with guitar feedback and distortion,
>even jimi hendrix in 1966 saw syd playing at the ufo club,and was
That's speculation. However, I do know the first instance of feedback on
a rock record, which is "I Feel Fine" by the Beatles.
>very impressed at syds abilty to blend distortion and feedback with
>guitar,later making this type of playing his standard for just about
>all his songs. jimi was actually influenced alot by syd.so,next
>time get your facts straight before making harsh judgements
>like that!!
Again, Hendrix being influenced by Barrett is speculation.
However, might I add the following to the list of Floyd innovations:
Quadrophonic sound (the originators of this)
Improved sound effects (above and beyond the Beatles)
Longer concerts (they pushed concerts over 2 hours in 1969-70)
Concept records (Sgt. Pepper's is a loose concept album, and Tommy is a
rock opera, but probably no band pushed concept albums to the heights
that the Floyd did)
Slide guitar (from Syd Barrett)
--
Charlie Saeger
saeg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
"Envy is the bond between the hopeful and the damned." -- Roger Waters
John Henry
("You Really Got Me" was played through one good amp plugged into another
large slashed speaker. I believe this was the first recorded creative noise.)
Ross
>>However, might I add the following to the list of Floyd innovations:
>
>>Quadrophonic sound (the originators of this)
>>Improved sound effects (above and beyond the Beatles)
>>Longer concerts (they pushed concerts over 2 hours in 1969-70)
>>Concept records (Sgt. Pepper's is a loose concept album, and Tommy is a
>>rock opera, but probably no band pushed concept albums to the heights
>>that the Floyd did)
>>Slide guitar (from Syd Barrett)
Slide Guitar !???! you really think Floyd were the first to use slide
guitar, get a grip for god sake.
Ross
Gregg Wager
> However, might I add the following to the list of Floyd innovations:
>
> Quadrophonic sound (the originators of this)
big deal! Quadrophonic sound was a concept that died before it was even
born. And did PF really originate this? On what album?
> Improved sound effects (above and beyond the Beatles)
How can you attribute this to PF? Their producer Alan Parsons was the one
who made a name for himself by using improved sound. Do you really think
Roger Waters was keeping up on all the technical sound journals in the
mid-seventies?
> Longer concerts (they pushed concerts over 2 hours in 1969-70)
Again, is this really a PF innovation?
> Concept records (Sgt. Pepper's is a loose concept album, and Tommy is a
> rock opera, but probably no band pushed concept albums to the heights
> that the Floyd did)
That is your opinion. I don't think there is much more of a "concept" to
"Dark Side of the Moon" than to "Sgt. Pepper."
> Slide guitar (from Syd Barrett)
Bottle neck guitar has been around since the first Blues singers. Barrett
used to listen to the Blues all the time. You can't attribute that to him.
> --
> Charlie Saeger
> saeg...@maroon.tc.umn.edu
> "Envy is the bond between the hopeful and the damned." -- Roger Waters
>
>
gw
Mark Leaman
>>>Slide guitar (from Syd Barrett)
>
>guitar, get a grip for god sake.
>
>Ross
Really! I wonder if he's ever heard any blues. I would also like to note
controlled feedback on The Detours' Marquee Club 1963 show...so much for
who began that...
Cheers ML
David I. Laudicina
>>>Quadrophonic sound (the originators of this)
>>>rock opera, but probably no band pushed concept albums to the heights
>>>that the Floyd did)
>Slide Guitar !???! you really think Floyd were the first to use slide
>guitar, get a grip for god sake.
>Ross
Look back to some of those early Little Feat (Lowell George) records for some
awesome slide. These guys be;ong in the Hall.
Thx Dave l
Phil Miller
: WRONG, I am no 70's spoiled brat, I am a boomer who has always bought my
: popular than the long gone sex(LESS) Pistols. Syd Barrett ain't going to
: ever give any interview because he is now a fat, baldheaded old man who
: is not competent to speak. He was good for his time but it has long past.
While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
music of the Sex Pistols forgotten, remember that the punk rock
movement influenced culture while progressive rock did not.
That's why in these documentaries groups like the Pistols get
more coverage.
Punk rock was just something to listen to inbetween talking about
how shitty everything was, while prog-rock is an individual experience
that doesn't touch the external world.
philll
Phil Miller
: In article <44onm2$1m...@rose.muohio.edu>, ric...@muohio.edu wrote:
: > >I think if anything, Pink Floyds only original contribution to the world
: > >of Rock and Roll was the advent of the multi-media live show. I don't
: > >think any other band was doing light shows/ films prior to Pink Floyd.
: > ....Uhhhh, ever hear of Ken Kesey and the Acid tests?
:
: Or the Joshua Light Show?
Or the Velvet Underground and the Exploding Plastic Inevitable.
philll
James Gardner
>While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
>music of the Sex Pistols forgotten, remember that the punk rock
>movement influenced culture while progressive rock did not.
>That's why in these documentaries groups like the Pistols get
>more coverage.
so sure about the timelessness of PF. Certainly, there will
be copies of Dark Side of the Moon Around long after humankind
has yielded the planet to cockroaches and earthworms.
Whether their music will be played 30 years from now...
I wonder. They seem too bound to the time that spawned them.
And I don't think the Pistols will be forgotten in that span
of time, although I'm not sure their music will be listened to.
It's because of their cultural influence that the Pistols will
always be a rock and roll touchstone, like garage bands of the
sixties. IMO, anyway.
The real significance of the Sex Pistols to someone who is
removed, politically and economically, from their environment
is in their impact on the DIY movement. Without punk, where no
one could tell you you weren't good enough to make music, there
probably wouldn't be alt.music.four-track newsgroups and tapes
like "Let It RMB." For better or worse. :)
James A. "Body-Slammer" Gardner
wot...@mace.cc.purdue.edu
Mitch Gart
(stuff deleted)
: However, might I add the following to the list of Floyd innovations:
: Slide guitar (from Syd Barrett)
Ever heard Robert Johnson? Lonnie Johnson? Muddy Waters?
-- ---------------------------------------------
-- Mitch
-- "People don't live or die, people just float"
-- ---------------------------------------------
Sara aka Perrrfect
(David I. Laudicina) wrote:
> >>>Slide guitar (from Syd Barrett)
>
> >Slide Guitar !???! you really think Floyd were the first to use slide
> >guitar, get a grip for god sake.
>
> >Ross
>
> Look back to some of those early Little Feat (Lowell George) records for some
> awesome slide. These guys be;ong in the Hall.
> Thx Dave l
It's amazing how short some people's memories are.
Lowell George was, IMHO, one of the two greatest R&R slide guitarists of
all time. The other was Duane Allman.
How ANYONE could think Pink Floyd could ever hold a candle to them is beyond me.
Of course, your mileage may vary. But let's get a sense of history, albeit
a short history, before we start deciding who was "first" or "best."
Sara aka Perrrfect
ROWELL) wrote:
> Theodora (theo...@eworld.com) wrote:
> : Some of these people are too young to know what you're referring to...
>
> : Aaaaaah --pulsating paisley on a bedsheet...
>
> Why do I suspect that the only pulsating that occurs in your bed
> occurs when the Energizer Bunny drops off a 2-pack of AAs?
Cute flame, but missed the point entirely.
The Joshua Light Show, in 1967 and 1968, did what was, at the time,
high-tech, psychedelic lighting for rock concerts. A Lot of it involved
overhead projectors and bedsheets. Even at Woodstock, fellas.
You've validated Theodora completely. You have no idea what the two of us
were talking about, so you come up with a 2-cent insult.
Very, very clever. Now go back to class.
Sara
Gregg Wager
> fre...@indy.net wrote:
> : WRONG, I am no 70's spoiled brat, I am a boomer who has always bought my
> : own stereo and have seen Pink Floyd 7 X. Pink Floyd will always be more
> : popular than the long gone sex(LESS) Pistols. Syd Barrett ain't going to
> : ever give any interview because he is now a fat, baldheaded old man who
> : is not competent to speak. He was good for his time but it has long past.
>
> While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
> music of the Sex Pistols forgotten, remember that the punk rock
> movement influenced culture while progressive rock did not.
> That's why in these documentaries groups like the Pistols get
> more coverage.
>
> Punk rock was just something to listen to inbetween talking about
> how shitty everything was, while prog-rock is an individual experience
> that doesn't touch the external world.
>
>
> philll
>
>
Ooooooooor ...... the Sex Pistols were a reaction to those who wanted to
turn Rock into something artsy fartsy without any real basis for knowing
what the hell they were talking about. The Dada movement did something
similar at the beginning of this century. Those trying to hold on to their
old icons after being spit on by Johnny Lydon and Sid Viscious - like the
progressive Rock people tend to do - or after being spit on by Kurt
Schwitters, Tristan Tzara, Rene Char, Luigi Rusollo, Man Ray or Andre
Breton - like a lot of the people today who listen to "classical" music -
haven't really taken the bull by the horns yet.
Here is one big E-mail spit from me onto all of you out there who can't
listen to anything but progressive rock from the 1970s:
paaatoooi
gw
James Gardner
>wot...@mace.cc.purdue.edu (James Gardner) wrote:
> >While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
<SNIP>
I want to point out that I *did not* write the above.
Please be careful when you follow up on posts to attribute
correctly. J. Gardner wot...@mace.cc.purdue.edui
RV WRL
50 messages and (at the risk of being flamed) I must say that a lot of
you have completely lost sight of what this is all about.
The documentary itself was merely a producer and a director's point
of view within the constraints of what they could put together for
entertainment
without violating any copyright laws and from their point if view.
What you seem to be missing is that this thing called Rock and Roll
brought us together. There is no first or best. It taught us to open our
mind and our hearts to what touched us emotionally, intellectually, and
phsyically. This is not about right or wrong, it's about connecting to
each
other beyond the boundry of conventional wisdom.
If you've lost sight of that, then the message conveyed in the music
has been lost to you and I'm sorry for your loss.
Bill
geoff
ROWELL) wrote:
> Theodora (theo...@eworld.com) wrote:
> : Some of these people are too young to know what you're referring to...
>
> : Aaaaaah --pulsating paisley on a bedsheet...
>
> Why do I suspect that the only pulsating that occurs in your bed
> occurs when the Energizer Bunny drops off a 2-pack of AAs?
Cute flame, but missed the point entirely.
The Joshua Light Show, in 1967 and 1968, did what was, at the time,
high-tech, psychedelic lighting for rock concerts. A Lot of it involved
overhead projectors and bedsheets. Even at Woodstock, fellas.
of multimedia,and psychadelic light shows. Read some books for
a change.Please!!
-geoff
geoff
mil...@sc.hp.com (Phil Miller) writes:
>While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
>movement influenced culture while progressive rock did not.
>That's why in these documentaries groups like the Pistols get
>more coverage.
underground,1965-1967, one of the first musical sensations to
effect culture in london. As far as punk effecting culture,
read some books by your friend johhny rotten. He slams the punk
scene for lack of individuality and calls it a complete joke.
He points out the overwelming fact that everyone dressed the same,
wore the sam leather jackets,died their hair,and ultimately,they
became victims of what they claimed to hate. Interesting,and
true. -geoff
Soren Johnson
<Pine.BSD.3.91.951006...@fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Gregg
Wager <wa...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On 5 Oct 1995, Phil Miller wrote:
>
> > fre...@indy.net wrote:
> > : WRONG, I am no 70's spoiled brat, I am a boomer who has always bought my
> > : own stereo and have seen Pink Floyd 7 X. Pink Floyd will always be more
> > : popular than the long gone sex(LESS) Pistols. Syd Barrett ain't going to
> > : ever give any interview because he is now a fat, baldheaded old man who
> > : is not competent to speak. He was good for his time but it has long past.
> >
> > While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
> > music of the Sex Pistols forgotten, remember that the punk rock
> > movement influenced culture while progressive rock did not.
> > That's why in these documentaries groups like the Pistols get
> > more coverage.
> >
> > Punk rock was just something to listen to inbetween talking about
> > how shitty everything was, while prog-rock is an individual experience
> > that doesn't touch the external world.
> >
> >
> > philll
> >
> >
> Ooooooooor ...... the Sex Pistols were a reaction to those who wanted to
> turn Rock into something artsy fartsy without any real basis for knowing
> what the hell they were talking about. The Dada movement did something
> similar at the beginning of this century. Those trying to hold on to their
> old icons after being spit on by Johnny Lydon and Sid Viscious - like the
> progressive Rock people tend to do - or after being spit on by Kurt
> Schwitters, Tristan Tzara, Rene Char, Luigi Rusollo, Man Ray or Andre
> Breton - like a lot of the people today who listen to "classical" music -
> haven't really taken the bull by the horns yet.
>
> Here is one big E-mail spit from me onto all of you out there who can't
> listen to anything but progressive rock from the 1970s:
>
> paaatoooi
>
> gw
Whoa, hold on there buddy! I agree with you completely on the importance
and the necessity of punk rock to save rock-n-roll from the intellectual
masturbation know as "progressive" rock, but your comments concerning
"'classical'" music betray a misunderstanding of the true problem with
prog rock.
Classical music (this statement is inclusive of all periods from the
Baroque to the Modern) is one of the greatest artistic achievements of
Western Civilization. What you think about is ultimately insignificant to
that fact. Arguing otherwise is uterly useless considering the depth,
complexity, and longetivity of the music. (I've noticed some posts from
this thread arguing whether the Pistols or Pink Floyd will be listened to
in another 30 years. Most likely, both will, but does anyone really think
they will be in about 300 years? Well, Bach started writing his first
music almost 300 years ago, and in all likelyhood, it will still be
listened to in another 300. To think that your pet band will be listened
to that long from now shows nothing but dumb arrogance.) To call classical
music a dead art is only too true of a statement. The art was a product of
a certain period and a certain culture which could never be emulated. We
merely get to enjoy the music. The truth is Bach, Beethoven, Dvorak,
Brahms, and Stravinsky matter. Listen to anything they created and then
tell me this is music which should discarded.
Classical music matters. The problem is that progressive rock doesn't.
(Prog rock fans: please don't assume that this is as sweeping a statement
of condemnation as it seems. Much prog rock is impressive in its
complexity and ambition, but if you're look for intellectual beauty
conveyed musically by an utter genius, buy some Bach for crying out loud!)
Where did prog rock come from? Well, it was of the eventual by-products of
the rock-n-roll revolution. A number of events insured its creation:
-Dylan plugging in at Newport
-The Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's" album
-The Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby"
-the San Fransisco psychedelic revolution
Once Dylan plugged in, rock-n-roll instantly became art, catapulting it
value immensly, but also dangerously opening the door to pretentiousness.
The Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's" album furthered the "album as work of art"
concept which prog rockers hold so dear to their hearts. "Eleanor Rigby"
suggested that rock and classical music could be combined, leading to
progs like ELO and The Moody Blues. The psychedelic revolution opened the
door to sonic experimentalism within rock, leading to...well...Pink Floyd.
Thus, prog rock was a child of a number of significant changes within
rock. However, in general, the movement is a road going nowhere.
Rock-n-roll was a by-product of a number of extremely unstructured musical
genres from some extremely unstructured cultures. Jazz, blues, country,
and gospel intermixed so that Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and
Buddy Holly could create rock-n-roll. The music was wild and spontaneous.
It immediately became synonomous with mindless physical release as well as
its major theme, sex. A number of artists deeply influenced by these
original greats (the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, the Who) helped turn rock
into something else, art. Their music, however, never lost its original
edge. The problem came about when a number of artists who eventually
became known as prog rockers took the change of roc-n-roll into an art as
a sign that rock-n-roll could aspire to the artistic heights reached by
classical music through its structure and complexity. Their mistake lied
in the fact that classical music reached its zenith through structure and
complexity, and rock-n-roll reached its artistic zenith through
spontaneity and a strong groove. The two were not intended to mix, and
their bastard child was the progressive rock movement. Prog rock
compromises the strengths of both rock and classical to create a much less
pleasing mush. It's as if someone put Beethoven and the Beatles in a
blender and hit "puree". An interesting concept, but who would really want
to drink it.
Thus, go ahead and bad-mouth prog rock. Pink Floyd and King Crimson and
Procol Harum do make good music. Heck, even Yes released a good album
("Fragile"). But prog rock is quite insignificant to music in this century
and ultimately unsatisfying artistically. So bad-mouth prog rock, but
please, gain some perspective and don't start slamming "'classical'"
music. It's the real deal. Prog rock is a cheap copy. Accept no
substitutes!
Soren Johnson
GEORGE A. WECKEL
little while and Ken Brown (Civil War, Baseball etc) will do a series
on rock and roll - you will probably have more info that you wanted !
>
Gregg Wager
whew!!!!!!!! Some people don't like being spit on, do they? Soren, ole
buddy, lighten up!!!!
>
> Whoa, hold on there buddy! I agree with you completely on the importance
> and the necessity of punk rock to save rock-n-roll from the intellectual
> masturbation know as "progressive" rock, but your comments concerning
> "'classical'" music betray a misunderstanding of the true problem with
> prog rock.
"The true problem with prog rock"?????? Talk about intellectual
masturbation. Do all the Stanford intellectuals sit around talking about
"the true problem with prog rock"???
>
> Classical music (this statement is inclusive of all periods from the
> Baroque to the Modern) is one of the greatest artistic achievements of
> Western Civilization.
This line of progress in Western Civilization also includes music of the
Middle Ages and the Renaissance. As far as "Modern" goes, I really doubt
that you have steeped yourself into the so-called "classical" music of
this century. Later in your message you talk about Stravinsky. Sorry to
break the news to you, but Stravinsky died in the year 1971. And what do
you really know about his works other than "Firebird", "Petroushka" and
"the Rite of Spring" (all written before the first World War). Which was
my original point! If you can't go to a "classical" concert and hear at
least one work by a living composer, what's the point?
> What you think about is ultimately insignificant to
> that fact.
Pardon, mon frere. I forgot that anyone from Stanford University
always knows more than I do.
> Arguing otherwise is uterly useless considering the depth,
> complexity, and longetivity of the music.
Gee whiz, thanks for cluing me in.
> (I've noticed some posts from
> this thread arguing whether the Pistols or Pink Floyd will be listened to
> in another 30 years. Most likely, both will, but does anyone really think
> they will be in about 300 years?
Do you really know the answer to this question? You can't assume anything
about what history will do.
> Well, Bach started writing his first
> music almost 300 years ago, and in all likelyhood, it will still be
> listened to in another 300. To think that your pet band will be listened
> to that long from now shows nothing but dumb arrogance.)
No, making your own version of what history will be like in 300 years and
then trying to jam it down our throats is dumb arrogance. It is the
common argument among the "classical" music crowd that Rock won't last.
As I understand it, when Rock first came out in the 1950s, the musical
"experts" claimed it was a trend that wouldn't last more than a few
years. You are exactly the person I wanted to spit on in my last post.
What little you know about "classical" music does not make you superior
to the uneducated masses who listen to mere "popular" music which
includes progressive rock. This is PURE snobbery, the same snobbery that
progressive rockers like to use on the punkers, and which the punkers
were criticizing.
> To call classical
> music a dead art is only too true of a statement. The art was a product of
> a certain period and a certain culture which could never be emulated. We
> merely get to enjoy the music. The truth is Bach, Beethoven, Dvorak,
> Brahms, and Stravinsky matter. Listen to anything they created and then
> tell me this is music which should discarded.
Nobody ever said anything about discarding music. You have just admitted
that their art was a product of a certain period. That doesn't mean we
should discard all old music.
And while you are bandying the names of the great composers around, just
what do you know about them? Do you really know enough about the works of
Beethoven to be able to talk intelligently about them? What can you tell
me - if anything - about his piano sonata Opus 111? or the String Quartet
Opus 135? Have you ever analyzed a Bach Fugue? Do you know any other
works of Dvorak besides the 9th Symphony? And as for Stravinsky, as
mentioned earlier, there is much to know about this guy and something
just tells me you haven't scratched the surface enough to be able to
evaluate his work, let alone saying that "anything they created" is good.
Stravinsky also wrote some clinkers, like all of the other composer you
mentioned. These are human beings, not gods.
>
> Classical music matters. The problem is that progressive rock doesn't.
> (Prog rock fans: please don't assume that this is as sweeping a statement
> of condemnation as it seems. Much prog rock is impressive in its
> complexity and ambition, but if you're look for intellectual beauty
> conveyed musically by an utter genius, buy some Bach for crying out loud!)
Yes, buy Bach, but who is discarding music now!?? Progressive rockers
should break out of their rut and listen to other things (including
Bach), but that doesn't mean they should leave their old albums behind...
> Where did prog rock come from? Well, it was of the eventual by-products of
> the rock-n-roll revolution. A number of events insured its creation:
> -Dylan plugging in at Newport
> -The Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's" album
> -The Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby"
> -the San Fransisco psychedelic revolution
> Once Dylan plugged in, rock-n-roll instantly became art, catapulting it
> value immensly, but also dangerously opening the door to pretentiousness.
> The Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's" album furthered the "album as work of art"
> concept which prog rockers hold so dear to their hearts. "Eleanor Rigby"
> suggested that rock and classical music could be combined, leading to
> progs like ELO and The Moody Blues. The psychedelic revolution opened the
> door to sonic experimentalism within rock, leading to...well...Pink Floyd.
> Thus, prog rock was a child of a number of significant changes within
> rock. However, in general, the movement is a road going nowhere.
Pal, I know this is E-mail where freedom of speech runs wild. There were
other events besides the ones you give that led to prog rock. Everyone
has an opinion.
>
> Rock-n-roll was a by-product of a number of extremely unstructured musical
> genres from some extremely unstructured cultures. Jazz, blues, country,
> and gospel intermixed so that Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and
> Buddy Holly could create rock-n-roll. The music was wild and spontaneous.
> It immediately became synonomous with mindless physical release as well as
> its major theme, sex. A number of artists deeply influenced by these
> original greats (the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, the Who) helped turn rock
> into something else, art. Their music, however, never lost its original
> edge. The problem came about when a number of artists who eventually
> became known as prog rockers took the change of roc-n-roll into an art as
> a sign that rock-n-roll could aspire to the artistic heights reached by
> classical music through its structure and complexity. Their mistake lied
> in the fact that classical music reached its zenith through structure and
> complexity, and rock-n-roll reached its artistic zenith through
> spontaneity and a strong groove. The two were not intended to mix, and
> their bastard child was the progressive rock movement. Prog rock
> compromises the strengths of both rock and classical to create a much less
> pleasing mush. It's as if someone put Beethoven and the Beatles in a
> blender and hit "puree". An interesting concept, but who would really want
> to drink it.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
> Thus, go ahead and bad-mouth prog rock. Pink Floyd and King Crimson and
> Procol Harum do make good music. Heck, even Yes released a good album
> ("Fragile").
"even Yes"??? Where I come from, Yes is considered the best prog rock
group of them all. They made more than just "Fragile". Ever hear of
"Going for the One", "Relayer", "Close to the Edge"???
> But prog rock is quite insignificant to music in this century
> and ultimately unsatisfying artistically. So bad-mouth prog rock, but
> please, gain some perspective and don't start slamming "'classical'"
> music. It's the real deal. Prog rock is a cheap copy. Accept no
> substitutes!
>
> Soren Johnson
>
>
sorry I'm so cynical, but I still don't think you know what the hell
you're talking about, even though you pretend to (which is PRECISELY the
problem with both "classical" music snobs - like yourself - and
progressive rock snobs) And if spitting in your eye has made you think
twice about your beloved "classical" music or progressive rock (at least
enough to write this incredibly boring account of the history of rock,
not to mention the numb-skull's guide to enjoying the great "classics")
then allow me to spit in your eye again, you young, budding Stanford snob
you:
patooooooii
And don't even think about answering this unless you are prepared to talk
about some living "classical" composers, like Pierre Boulez, Karlheinz
Stockhausen, Gyorgy Ligeti, Krszytopf Penderecki (who by now are all old
geezers) or some newer guys like Gilbert Amy, York Hoeller, Gerard
Grisey, Bryan Ferneyough, etc.
(or some of Stravinsky's late works: "Threni", "In Memorium Dylan
Thomas", "Requium Canticles", etc.)
gw
Soren Johnson
<Pine.BSD.3.91.951009...@fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Gregg
Wager <wa...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Oct 1995, Soren Johnson wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <Pine.BSD.3.91.951006...@fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de>, Gregg
> > Wager <wa...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> >
> > > On 5 Oct 1995, Phil Miller wrote:
[stuff deleted]
> > > >
> > > > While I agree that the music of Pink Floyd will be timeless and the
> > > > music of the Sex Pistols forgotten, remember that the punk rock
> > > > movement influenced culture while progressive rock did not.
> > > > That's why in these documentaries groups like the Pistols get
> > > > more coverage.
> > > >
> > > > Punk rock was just something to listen to inbetween talking about
> > > > how shitty everything was, while prog-rock is an individual experience
> > > > that doesn't touch the external world.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > philll
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Ooooooooor ...... the Sex Pistols were a reaction to those who wanted to
> > > turn Rock into something artsy fartsy without any real basis for knowing
> > > what the hell they were talking about. The Dada movement did something
> > > similar at the beginning of this century. Those trying to hold on to
their
> > > old icons after being spit on by Johnny Lydon and Sid Viscious - like the
> > > progressive Rock people tend to do - or after being spit on by Kurt
> > > Schwitters, Tristan Tzara, Rene Char, Luigi Rusollo, Man Ray or Andre
> > > Breton - like a lot of the people today who listen to "classical" music -
> > > haven't really taken the bull by the horns yet.
> > >
> > > Here is one big E-mail spit from me onto all of you out there who can't
> > > listen to anything but progressive rock from the 1970s:
> > >
> > > paaatoooi
> > >
> > > gw
[stuff deleted]
> > Whoa, hold on there buddy! I agree with you completely on the importance
> > and the necessity of punk rock to save rock-n-roll from the intellectual
> > masturbation know as "progressive" rock, but your comments concerning
> > "'classical'" music betray a misunderstanding of the true problem with
> > prog rock.
>
> "The true problem with prog rock"?????? Talk about intellectual
> masturbation. Do all the Stanford intellectuals sit around talking about
> "the true problem with prog rock"???
No, but it is one thing which could be discussed. Should I interpret this
as an anti-intellectual streak within you, or just a need to spice up your
reply?
> > Classical music (this statement is inclusive of all periods from the
> > Baroque to the Modern) is one of the greatest artistic achievements of
> > Western Civilization.
>
> This line of progress in Western Civilization also includes music of the
> Middle Ages and the Renaissance.
Does it really? Wow, I had always thought that it was that the baroque
period was created in a vacuum! Thanks for cluing me in...
> As far as "Modern" goes, I really doubt
> that you have steeped yourself into the so-called "classical" music of
> this century.
hmmmmmm, do you mean like Shostakovich, Prokofiev, Adams, Copland,
Hindemith, Hovhaness, Gershwin, Bernstein, Kirchner, Ives, or Tower (and I
am NOT just name dropping. These are most of my own favorites from this
century. I have played quite a few of their works (I am a cellist.))?
Well, sorry to disappoint you. (unless, of course, you consider my list to
be too populist. And who would be the musical snob then?)
> Later in your message you talk about Stravinsky. Sorry to
> break the news to you, but Stravinsky died in the year 1971. And what do
> you really know about his works other than "Firebird", "Petroushka" and
> "the Rite of Spring" (all written before the first World War).
I profess to be no expert on Stravinsky (and I would like to note that in
my original post I stated no such thing although you seem to assume that I
did. (Indeed, YOU are the one who implies the expertise)), but I do know
his basic artistic progress: from his early, nationalistic days while he
was still strongly under the influence of Rimsky-Korsakov to his
"Firebird" period to his neo-classical period to his exploration of
twelve-tone serial music late in his career. Indeed, the piece I probably
know the best is his ballet "Orpheus" from 1947. Why? Because I've
performed it before.
> Which was
> my original point! If you can't go to a "classical" concert and hear at
> least one work by a living composer, what's the point?
What's the point? Palestrina, Vivaldi, Bach, Handel, Hadyn, Mozart,
Beethoven, Schubert, Rossini, Berlioz, Mendelssohn, Chopin, Schumann,
Lisxt, Wagner, Verdi, Bruckner, Strauss, Brahms, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky,
Dvorak, Grieg, Rimsky-Korsakov, Mahler, Debussy, Sibelius, Ravel, Bartok,
Stravinsky, Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Hindemith...
These composer are all quite dead, but if I were to follow your logic,
there would be no point in going to a concert composed of simply their
music. I understand quite well the importance of diversity of time periods
within concerts, but at times that is either impossible or silly. (YOU
tell me how to work Wagner into such a performance. :) )
> > What you think about is ultimately insignificant to
> > that fact.
>
> Pardon, mon frere. I forgot that anyone from Stanford University
> always knows more than I do.
I hope you didn't misinterpret my original statement here because it
contains a typo. There should be an "it" between "about" and "is," and the
"it" refers to the importance of classical music. Even taken that way,
what I said was probably still a bit arrogant of me. From your original
post, I assumed that you were of the type who blankly condemned classical
music as antiquated and useless. (although your reply has now only put me
in significant doubt as to where you stand) At any rate, I apologize for
the statement.
> > Arguing otherwise is uterly useless considering the depth,
> > complexity, and longetivity of the music.
>
> Gee whiz, thanks for cluing me in.
Once again, I thought you were completely condemning classical music.
(Look back at your original post, and you can see how I made that
assumption.)
> > (I've noticed some posts from
> > this thread arguing whether the Pistols or Pink Floyd will be listened to
> > in another 30 years. Most likely, both will, but does anyone really think
> > they will be in about 300 years?
>
> Do you really know the answer to this question? You can't assume anything
> about what history will do.
>
You're absolutely correct! What does anyone know about what will be
listened to in 300 years. What I was attacking was anyone who felt they
could proclain that any artist from the last 30 or 40 years would be
listened to in 300 years. The reason why I felt capable of making the
statement below that "in all likelyhood" Bach would still be listened to
in 300 years is beacuse he has already lasted 300. Thus, I had an actual
logic argument for my statement. Saying someone will continued to be
listened to because of 300 years of evidence seems to me to be a fair
statement.
> > Well, Bach started writing his first
> > music almost 300 years ago, and in all likelyhood, it will still be
> > listened to in another 300. To think that your pet band will be listened
> > to that long from now shows nothing but dumb arrogance.)
>
> No, making your own version of what history will be like in 300 years and
> then trying to jam it down our throats is dumb arrogance. It is the
> common argument among the "classical" music crowd that Rock won't last.
An argument I did not (nor never will) make. (although I recognize that
you did not directly say I made such an argument)
> As I understand it, when Rock first came out in the 1950s, the musical
> "experts" claimed it was a trend that wouldn't last more than a few
> years. You are exactly the person I wanted to spit on in my last post.
hmmmm... I seem to be supporting not judging music until significant time
has passed to see if it will last. (as in centuries) The "experts" who
discounted rock were merely either frightened conservatives or racists.
You state that I am the person you would like to spit upon, so I assume
you believe I don't believe that rock will last. Well, I hope it does, but
right now is far too soon to judge.
> What little you know about "classical" music does not make you superior
> to the uneducated masses who listen to mere "popular" music which
> includes progressive rock. This is PURE snobbery, the same snobbery that
> progressive rockers like to use on the punkers, and which the punkers
> were criticizing.
"PURE snobbery?" Do you think that I just happened upon this thread while
swithing between alt.music.bach and rec.music.classical? I LOVE
ROCK'N'ROLL! I always have and always will. Some of the most unnoticed
snobs ARE punks. (and let me first say that I am a serious fan of the
Clash, the Ramones, the Sex Pistols, the Velvet Underground, Iggy Pop,
etc.) Anti-intellectualism is just as snobbish as what you have accused me
of being. Snobs are merely those who assume that they are right. Whatever
I have said, I have tried my best to support. (And I approach all
newsgroups with the attitude that I could be wrong.)
> > To call classical
> > music a dead art is only too true of a statement. The art was a product of
> > a certain period and a certain culture which could never be emulated. We
> > merely get to enjoy the music. The truth is Bach, Beethoven, Dvorak,
> > Brahms, and Stravinsky matter. Listen to anything they created and then
> > tell me this is music which should discarded.
>
> Nobody ever said anything about discarding music. You have just admitted
> that their art was a product of a certain period. That doesn't mean we
> should discard all old music.
Well, actually you implied discarding music earlier in your reply. I
quote: "If you can't go to a "classical" concert and hear at least one
work by a living composer, what's the point?" According to this statement,
a festival dedicated to Baroque chamber music would be useless. What is
your definition of discarding music?
> And while you are bandying the names of the great composers around, just
> what do you know about them? Do you really know enough about the works of
> Beethoven to be able to talk intelligently about them? What can you tell
> me - if anything - about his piano sonata Opus 111?
Beethoven's last sonata as well as his last work in the dramatic key of C
minor. Two movement, the first with an intense slow introduction, from
which the Allegro explodes. A set of variations from an "Arietta" compose
the finale.
> or the String Quartet Opus 135?
Beethoven's last work, his sixteeneth quartet, composed in the key of F. I
am not familiar with it.
> Have you ever analyzed a Bach Fugue?
Not formally. I am, of course, familiar with quite a few, but that means
very little.
> Do you know any other works of Dvorak besides the 9th Symphony?
Well, let me scan my own music collection. 7th, 8th, 9th symphony. Cello
and Violin Concerto. Carnival overture. Both Slavonic Dances. "American"
String Quartet. "American" Suite. Stabat Mater. You could, of course,
point out that this is a rather populist collection, but, once again, who
would be the snob? Besides, I realize this is only the base of a solid
collection. Gime me a break, I'm only 19.
> And as for Stravinsky, as
> mentioned earlier, there is much to know about this guy and something
> just tells me you haven't scratched the surface enough to be able to
> evaluate his work, let alone saying that "anything they created" is good.
> Stravinsky also wrote some clinkers, like all of the other composer you
> mentioned. These are human beings, not gods.
I dealt with Stravinsky already, and I realize their mortality. To call
them normal, however, would not do them justice. (You did not say
otherwise. I merely wanted to emphasize that point.)
> >
> > Classical music matters. The problem is that progressive rock doesn't.
> > (Prog rock fans: please don't assume that this is as sweeping a statement
> > of condemnation as it seems. Much prog rock is impressive in its
> > complexity and ambition, but if you're look for intellectual beauty
> > conveyed musically by an utter genius, buy some Bach for crying out loud!)
>
> Yes, buy Bach, but who is discarding music now!?? Progressive rockers
> should break out of their rut and listen to other things (including
> Bach), but that doesn't mean they should leave their old albums behind...
I did not suggest discarding prog rock. I merely stated that it did not
matter. I do not see much current musical activity spawned by the prog
rock movement. The same can definetly not be said for classical music.
> > Where did prog rock come from? Well, it was of the eventual by-products of
> > the rock-n-roll revolution. A number of events insured its creation:
> > -Dylan plugging in at Newport
> > -The Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's" album
> > -The Beatle's "Eleanor Rigby"
> > -the San Fransisco psychedelic revolution
> > Once Dylan plugged in, rock-n-roll instantly became art, catapulting it
> > value immensly, but also dangerously opening the door to pretentiousness.
> > The Beatle's "Sgt. Pepper's" album furthered the "album as work of art"
> > concept which prog rockers hold so dear to their hearts. "Eleanor Rigby"
> > suggested that rock and classical music could be combined, leading to
> > progs like ELO and The Moody Blues. The psychedelic revolution opened the
> > door to sonic experimentalism within rock, leading to...well...Pink Floyd.
> > Thus, prog rock was a child of a number of significant changes within
> > rock. However, in general, the movement is a road going nowhere.
>
> Pal, I know this is E-mail where freedom of speech runs wild. There were
> other events besides the ones you give that led to prog rock. Everyone
> has an opinion.
Your only problem with my last, quite lengthy statement was that there
were "other events" which led to prog rock. OK. How am I abusing my
freedom of speech.
> >
> > Rock-n-roll was a by-product of a number of extremely unstructured musical
> > genres from some extremely unstructured cultures. Jazz, blues, country,
> > and gospel intermixed so that Elvis, Little Richard, Chuck Berry, and
> > Buddy Holly could create rock-n-roll. The music was wild and spontaneous.
> > It immediately became synonomous with mindless physical release as well as
> > its major theme, sex. A number of artists deeply influenced by these
> > original greats (the Beatles, the Stones, Dylan, the Who) helped turn rock
> > into something else, art. Their music, however, never lost its original
> > edge. The problem came about when a number of artists who eventually
> > became known as prog rockers took the change of roc-n-roll into an art as
> > a sign that rock-n-roll could aspire to the artistic heights reached by
> > classical music through its structure and complexity. Their mistake lied
> > in the fact that classical music reached its zenith through structure and
> > complexity, and rock-n-roll reached its artistic zenith through
> > spontaneity and a strong groove. The two were not intended to mix, and
> > their bastard child was the progressive rock movement. Prog rock
> > compromises the strengths of both rock and classical to create a much less
> > pleasing mush. It's as if someone put Beethoven and the Beatles in a
> > blender and hit "puree". An interesting concept, but who would really want
> > to drink it.
>
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
>
Apparently you slept through the most important part of my message. What I
am basing my argument on is that music is a product of a specific culture.
The best music reflect aspects of their culture. Prog rock takes notes
from classical music and instruments from rock-n-roll, but this
combination keeps very little of the original culture which spawned both
movement, which, in my book, is a problem.
>
> >
> > Thus, go ahead and bad-mouth prog rock. Pink Floyd and King Crimson and
> > Procol Harum do make good music. Heck, even Yes released a good album
> > ("Fragile").
>
> "even Yes"??? Where I come from, Yes is considered the best prog rock
> group of them all. They made more than just "Fragile". Ever hear of
> "Going for the One", "Relayer", "Close to the Edge"???
>
Yes, and as you said, everyone has an opinion...
>
> > But prog rock is quite insignificant to music in this century
> > and ultimately unsatisfying artistically. So bad-mouth prog rock, but
> > please, gain some perspective and don't start slamming "'classical'"
> > music. It's the real deal. Prog rock is a cheap copy. Accept no
> > substitutes!
> >
> > Soren Johnson
> >
> >
>
>
> sorry I'm so cynical, but I still don't think you know what the hell
> you're talking about, even though you pretend to (which is PRECISELY the
> problem with both "classical" music snobs - like yourself - and
> progressive rock snobs) And if spitting in your eye has made you think
> twice about your beloved "classical" music or progressive rock (at least
> enough to write this incredibly boring account of the history of rock,
> not to mention the numb-skull's guide to enjoying the great "classics")
> then allow me to spit in your eye again, you young, budding Stanford snob
> you:
You bring up Stanford again. Did I once mention that I was at Stanford or
even a college student in my original post? I don't quite see why you
bring this up so much. Do you feel that you been fed cultural infromation
by societal institutes like Stanford for too long? Well, I am no
institution. I am just a guy named Soren who likes many, many types of
music and was concerned when he saw someone imply that classical music was
as much of a dead end as prog rock.
> patooooooii
>
>
> And don't even think about answering this unless you are prepared to talk
> about some living "classical" composers, like Pierre Boulez, Karlheinz
> Stockhausen, Gyorgy Ligeti, Krszytopf Penderecki (who by now are all old
> geezers) or some newer guys like Gilbert Amy, York Hoeller, Gerard
> Grisey, Bryan Ferneyough, etc.
>
> (or some of Stravinsky's late works: "Threni", "In Memorium Dylan
> Thomas", "Requium Canticles", etc.)
And you accused me of name-dropping...
> gw
In a way, I think you have been prejudiced against me as I was against you
when I originally posted. It's a pity because you do seem to know music. I
hope if I ever meet you in real life I don't connect your name back to
this argument because I have a feeling that we would get along.
Ironically,
Soren Johnson
Elizabeth Hancock
Kevy Rae
All I can add to that is...
Will I be listening to and loving the Moodies music 'til the day I die??
YES!
How about Floyd and the Pistols? Nope...Already quit listening to
them...I mwan "The Wall" was big when I was a kid, but that was then....
Pistols? Interesting and amusing when I was a kid...Who cares now...
Nothing outlasts the Moodies with me, myself.....
Kevy Rae
Dallas, TX
FirstFOOLToFinish
>
>Okay, this is my official "why the PBS show *should* have excluded Pink
>Floyd and progressive rock" post.
>
>
>I can answer that argument in five words: Who Is More Influential Today?
And what does that have to do with a documentary on the *history* of
Rock and Roll? Just because, in your opinion, progressive rock didn't
influence anyone, that still doesn't mean that it should be ignored in
the past.
>
>And as for rap, which I can't believe people are *still* denying is "real
>music", it's been around long enough, produced enough cultural waves and
>spun off enough sub-genres that I think we can now stop claiming that
>it's just a breakdancing fad, as so many were quick to do in 1985.
I didn't say it was just a breakdancing fad, and I'm not even denying
that it's "real music". I just don't think it's "real good music".
-- Bob Eichler
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
If this reply/post seems outdated, it's because my newsreader is always
a few days behind. "That's not a bug... It's a feature!"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Medge
says...
It is about PF, but also lists the other bands doing the same sort of
stuff. It was like the TISM song about marbles. Something happened in the
sixties that those in touch saw as a "Do a Light Show" command. It was,
as is the case with a lot of things, spontaneously thought of by hundreds
of people. I have a friend who has a theory about this, but he can only
explain it when severely stoned.
Gregg Wager
> 809B-...@fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <neros-07109...@norway.stanford.edu> <Pine.BSD.3.91.951009...@fub46.zedat.fu-berlin.de> <neros-09109...@norway.stanford.edu> <Pine.BSD.3.91.951011...@fub46.zedat.fu-be
>
> rlin.de>:
> Organization: Peabody Institute, Baltimore MD
> Distribution:
>
> Gregg Wager (wa...@zedat.fu-berlin.de) wrote:
>
>
> : Plus you are a cellist, which is better
> : than being a violinist, I suppose, but still, string players and I don't
> : get along, ever since I wrote two very lengthy string quartets
> : (half-an-hour each) myself and can't get any reliable string players to
> : even look at them without paying them up the wazoo, and even then they are
> : the most snotty, spoiled brats in the biz.
>
> Alright, I promised myself that I wouldn't get into the middle of this,
> but here I go:
>
> First of all, I would like to know what is so bad about being a
> violinist?
You said you are 18 years old and a violinist. Perhaps you have not yet
developed the traits of the older violinists. But I assure you, you
should steep yourself in composers like Schoenberg, Webern, Messiaen,
Stockhausen, Boulez, even John Cage and Steve Reich, before you can begin
to talk about your open-mindedness towards music, etc. Most violinists I
have known in my life as a composer (I'm 37) have not done this. In
fact, they attack what they don't understand, and evade a poor guy who
just wants to hear what his string quartet sounds like only because what
he writes is outside the norms of what they are used to. More on this
later.
> Certainly, there are those of *us* that have more than their
> fair share of vanity, but that is true of every feild. I would like to
> think of myself as being open minded; I listen to CCR, Bon Jovi, John
> Denver, Beatles (naturally), Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, THe Who, Yes, Elton
> John, etc. (the list is too long to type). I think that that generally
> answers the question of open - mindedness. (I know - you were talking
> about snobbery - I'm coming To that :))
Everyone's list is too long to type. And I don't really see a lot of
diversity in this list of yours. Most of these groups came out of the
1960s. What do you listen to that has been created in the 1990s? (just
curious).
> I can understand from what you have described that you have had some
> very unpleasant experiences with classical musicians. I would like to
> make an offer. If you would care to have some musicians look at your
> work(s), I am willing to tell you that we will do it for free (Peabody
> Institute of Music, Johns Hopkins University). If your music warrants, we
> could probably even perform it for the public, and might even have a
> chance to record it (not formally of course, but it is the best I can
> offer). We are student musicians, but we are the same caliber as the
> musicians at Julliard, Eastman, Oberlin, etc. We are always looking for
> an opportunity to perform music by modern composers, and would be
> delighted to hear from you. Now, on to other subjects.
And you better believe that I'm going to take you up on this offer too. I
will contact you privately later. I also have no doubt that the Peabody
Institute at Johns Hopkins is fine music school. As for whether or not my
"music warrants" please be careful here about making a judgement. If you
don't like it, that is much different that whether or not it "warrants"
being played.
> To the question of rock and roll music lasting, those of you who know,
> classical music was the popular music of its time (the rock, if you
> will). At that time, no one believed it would last, in fact, most said
> that it wouldn't. It has. And why? Because people like it. We don't know
> if rock and alternative and progressive will last. However, we know that
> people like it.
There are lots of people in this world and they like lots of different
types of music. My father likes the music of Roy Rogers. Is he on your list?
> 50's, 60's, 70's, and even 80's, are still gaining new
> fans today. Let's take the Beatles (the group I am the most familiar with
> :)). I am 18. Thirty years ago, the Beatles hit the world. I am a
> relatively new "member of their fan club". If they can still gain fans
> today, why couldn't they many years from now?
Who says they wouldn't?
> Now to the question of dead composers.. I must confess that when I
> read this I got a little steamed. Now look, lets take a couple of prime
> examples :
> John Lennon
> Jerry Garcia
> Jimi Hendrix
> Elvis
> Big Bopper
> Buddy Holly
> etc. (I'm sure I don't need to go on..)
If your point is that rock musicians are also mortal and die, then of
course you have made it superbly. My point is that the "classical" world
has become mostly a showcase for dead composers. There are also living
composers who feel that they would like to follow that tradition and
even write some more String Quartets in a vainglorious effort to keep
that dusty genre alive (like I have). I never made the point that once a
composer dies, his music instantly becomes bad.
> If classical music is not interesting because we have dead people, than....
> And Now to that question..
> Generally speaking, even in the "classical realm" we refer to
> Barouqe, Classical, Impressionistic, Modern, etc. under the wide name of
> CLASSICAL MUSIC.
Which you will learn in your freshman music history class. By the way,
the era between "classical" and "20th-Century" is called "Romantic".
(The words "Imprssionism" and even "Modern" are subsets within these
eras - not that I'm being a boring snob or anything, but you might want
to pass your next music history exam . . .)
> If you are refering to it in that sense (which I assume
> you are, considering the fact that you mentioned going to a "classical"
> concert and hearing only dead composers), I would like to refresh your
> memory. I recently performed a piece with my orchestra by Thea Musgrave
> (a *living* composer). It is a viola concerto and it was only at the last
> second that she wasn't able to attend our concert.
Thea Musgrave is a fine composer. Sorry I missed your concert, but I was
in Germany. I know, poor excuse.
> Also, Carl Roskott
> wrote several pieces for trumpet and several for percussion. His trumpet
> concerto is classical in style, AND ,let me assure you, he is alive..I
> have had the honor of serving under his baton.
I am sorry I have never heard of Maestro Roskott, but that is perhaps my
problem. But beware of describing his style as "classical". If the
concerto was in the style of Mozart or Haydn, you have described it
correctly, and, if that is truly the case, I would not be much interested
in it. Tell me more about Mr. Roskott and his concerto, though.
> I would also like to make
> a small note for all of my friends here at the college, and other
> composers everywhere, that YOU ARE ALIVE! I think that just about covers
> the issues of dead composers and musicians.
Oh yes Ma'am, we are alive alright. But if we write any music for the
violin, we probably won't ever hear it performed, which was my original
point. Kate, I would just love it if you proved me to be wrong.
> I would like to continue on to the issue of pieces of music, but I
> will return later (after listening to my Beatles Complete BBC recordings
> and practicing Bach's sonata #1 , not to mention works by Rode, Kreutzer,
> Dont, Flesch,......)
> Kate
>
Practice hard. It takes lots of skill to play those goose egg parts they
give you in Hollywood for 50 dollars an hour. (I hope I'm just kidding).
gw
P.S. What ever happened to Soren at Stanford University????? Jump back in
here whenever you feel like it. We miss you!!!!
Katherine Gail
rlin.de>:
Organization: Peabody Institute, Baltimore MD
Distribution:
Gregg Wager (wa...@zedat.fu-berlin.de) wrote:
: Plus you are a cellist, which is better
: than being a violinist, I suppose, but still, string players and I don't
: get along, ever since I wrote two very lengthy string quartets
: (half-an-hour each) myself and can't get any reliable string players to
: even look at them without paying them up the wazoo, and even then they are
: the most snotty, spoiled brats in the biz.
Alright, I promised myself that I wouldn't get into the middle of this,
but here I go:
First of all, I would like to know what is so bad about being a
violinist? Certainly, there are those of *us* that have more than their
fair share of vanity, but that is true of every feild. I would like to
think of myself as being open minded; I listen to CCR, Bon Jovi, John
Denver, Beatles (naturally), Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, THe Who, Yes, Elton
John, etc. (the list is too long to type). I think that that generally
answers the question of open - mindedness. (I know - you were talking
about snobbery - I'm coming To that :))
I can understand from what you have described that you have had some
very unpleasant experiences with classical musicians. I would like to
make an offer. If you would care to have some musicians look at your
work(s), I am willing to tell you that we will do it for free (Peabody
Institute of Music, Johns Hopkins University). If your music warrants, we
could probably even perform it for the public, and might even have a
chance to record it (not formally of course, but it is the best I can
offer). We are student musicians, but we are the same caliber as the
musicians at Julliard, Eastman, Oberlin, etc. We are always looking for
an opportunity to perform music by modern composers, and would be
delighted to hear from you. Now, on to other subjects.
To the question of rock and roll music lasting, those of you who know,
classical music was the popular music of its time (the rock, if you
will). At that time, no one believed it would last, in fact, most said
that it wouldn't. It has. And why? Because people like it. We don't know
if rock and alternative and progressive will last. However, we know that
people like it. 50's, 60's, 70's, and even 80's, are still gaining new
fans today. Let's take the Beatles (the group I am the most familiar with
:)). I am 18. Thirty years ago, the Beatles hit the world. I am a
relatively new "member of their fan club". If they can still gain fans
today, why couldn't they many years from now?
Now to the question of dead composers.. I must confess that when I
read this I got a little steamed. Now look, lets take a couple of prime
examples :
John Lennon
Jerry Garcia
Jimi Hendrix
Elvis
Big Bopper
Buddy Holly
etc. (I'm sure I don't need to go on..)
If classical music is not interesting because we have dead people, than....
And Now to that question..
Generally speaking, even in the "classical realm" we refer to
Barouqe, Classical, Impressionistic, Modern, etc. under the wide name of
CLASSICAL MUSIC. If you are refering to it in that sense (which I assume
you are, considering the fact that you mentioned going to a "classical"
concert and hearing only dead composers), I would like to refresh your
memory. I recently performed a piece with my orchestra by Thea Musgrave
(a *living* composer). It is a viola concerto and it was only at the last
second that she wasn't able to attend our concert. Also, Carl Roskott
wrote several pieces for trumpet and several for percussion. His trumpet
concerto is classical in style, AND ,let me assure you, he is alive..I
have had the honor of serving under his baton. I would also like to make
a small note for all of my friends here at the college, and other
composers everywhere, that YOU ARE ALIVE! I think that just about covers
the issues of dead composers and musicians.
THE PLACE
[deleted stuff]
>As far as liking bands goes...Well, none of them are any good! (In my
>opinion..) Name me one band around today that you really think will
>still be around in five years! Name me one that started five years sgo
>that is still big today!! Music today is crummy and does not have the
>staying power of older music. Plenty of 60's and early 70's still gets
>airplay...How about the 80's? Nope...
My personal predictions on who's going to be around in five years (of all
the bands around today)
Nine Inch Nails. Why? Trent Reznor likes to make music.
Pearl Jam. I'm not too fond of their stuff, but latest album has hope.
Also, they enjoy making music.
Metallica....if they can get this new album out (it was finished over a
year ago...)
As far as bands from the 80's that are around...Sonic Youth, Meat Puppets...
and S.Y. is only getting better. Don't forget REM. And Primus. Oh yeah,
can't forget Soundgarden (who I also predict will be around for a while)
But NIN will definitely be around the longest.
-eriC vitneR
wa...@eden.rutgers.edu
Katherine Gail
apparently I have not attained) when he wrote:
: You said you are 18 years old and a violinist. Perhaps you have not yet
: developed the traits of the older violinists.
Most of us did not start to play to
earn money or to gain fame. We started to play because of our love of music
and the instrument we had chosen. I do not play to give other people
enjoyment, which might be construed as being a snob. The enjoyment I find
from playing is intensely personal and private. To be able to bring the
emotions out is something that is indescribable. Perhaps, people will be
considered snobbish, because one must have an outer shell. We bare our
souls to the world every day, show our most private feelings and
emotions, and because we are reserved verbally, we are taken as snobs. For
most of us, being aloof is the only way to react when people judge our playing.
For not only are they judging our skill, they are judging our soul. I
think what truly counts is that we, *all* musicians, are some of the most
open people there are. Judge us by what the soul says, not the mouth.
Listen to the music and you will be able to decide if we are true snobs.
: should steep yourself in composers like Schoenberg, Webern, Messiaen,
: Stockhausen, Boulez, even John Cage and Steve Reich, before you can begin
: to talk about your open-mindedness towards music, etc. Most violinists I
: have known in my life as a composer (I'm 37) have not done this. In
: fact, they attack what they don't understand, and evade a poor guy who
: just wants to hear what his string quartet sounds like only because what
: he writes is outside the norms of what they are used to.
As I have already said, I have played modern (20th century) pieces. I
listen to a variety of modern composers as well. I enjoy Glass, Crunb,
Webern, and Schoenberg. I do not think it would be helpful to this group
to post all the modern pieces I have played, so if you think I am a liar
or am just wasting time, please e-mail me and I would gratefully list a
few things. I also mentioned that I would be *interested* to look at your
compositions, because we are always looking for up and coming artists and
we are always interested in introducing the public to new pieces, so as
to spark enthusiasm. If you doubt that, I can give you some e-mail
addresses of some of the faculty, conductors, orchestra members, etc.
that I know. I am not quite sure what you are saying when you are talking
about "outside the norm". Modern pieces are among the normal rep that I
am required to learn, as most music schools believe in preparing students
for the *20th century* music world (this includes things from gregorian
chant to compositions from 1995).
: > think of myself as being open minded; I listen to CCR, Bon Jovi, John
: > Denver, Beatles (naturally), Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, THe Who, Yes, Elton
: > John, etc. (the list is too long to type). I think that that generally
: And I don't really see a lot of
: diversity in this list of yours. Most of these groups came out of the
: 1960s. What do you listen to that has been created in the 1990s? (just
: curious).
Why should I have to like groups outside of the
sixties? However, if you insist:
Selena
Clint Black
Boyz II Men
Anthrax
Pantera
Rush
Dave Mathews
Dionne Ferris
etc.
(sigh... this is getting dull.. do I have to explain my life?..)
: > Institute of Music, Johns Hopkins University). If your music warrants, we
: > could probably even perform it for the public, and might even have a
: > chance to record it (not formally of course, but it is the best I can
: > offer). We are student musicians, but we are the same caliber as the
: > musicians at Julliard, Eastman, Oberlin, etc. We are always looking for
: > an opportunity to perform music by modern composers, and would be
: > delighted to hear from you. Now, on to other subjects.
: And you better believe that I'm going to take you up on this offer too. I
: will contact you privately later. I also have no doubt that the Peabody
: Institute at Johns Hopkins is fine music school. As for whether or not my
: "music warrants" please be careful here about making a judgement. If you
: don't like it, that is much different that whether or not it "warrants"
: being played.
Excuse me. I did phrase this poorly. I think perhaps it was easy to
misconstrue. Let me explain:
What I meant was that many times modern pieces are difficult for
musicians to play, due to part writing and technical details. You must
remember that that is one of the main difficuties facing musicians.
I do not know you and I do not know how well your piece is notated,
if it fits the instrument capabilities, etc. I would have been wrong to
gaurantee a performance of something my collegues and I cannot physically play.
It has nothing to do with how I like it, as I have played many things I do
not like and still learned from the experience. Would you have said,
"Sure! I'll play your piece!," before you had even seen, or heard it?
Once again, I am sorry that you misconstrued my statement.
: > 50's, 60's, 70's, and even 80's, are still gaining new
: > fans today. Let's take the Beatles (the group I am the most familiar with
: > :)). I am 18. Thirty years ago, the Beatles hit the world. I am a
: > relatively new "member of their fan club". If they can still gain fans
: > today, why couldn't they many years from now?
: Who says they wouldn't?
That is my point! :) If people suggest that something won't last, then
they must prove that they could not keep gaining fans. (this goes for any
music)
: My point is that the "classical" world
: has become mostly a showcase for dead composers.
Maybe their pieces are still played because they are great. There is no
purpose in throwing away something useful and entertaining just because
it is old. Many people have never heard the compositions by these "dead
composers". I will admit that most of what we play is from "dead
composers", but we have hundreds of years worth of thier music. Modern
music is a very small portion of history. Please don't get me wrong, I am
sorry that there is not more modern pieces played. I can understand where
you are coming from. I am a fan of modern music as well.
: > Generally speaking, even in the "classical realm" we refer to
: > Barouqe, Classical, Impressionistic, Modern, etc. under the wide name of
: > CLASSICAL MUSIC.
: Which you will learn in your freshman music history class. By the way,
: the era between "classical" and "20th-Century" is called "Romantic".
: (The words "Imprssionism" and even "Modern" are subsets within these
: eras - not that I'm being a boring snob or anything, but you might want
: to pass your next music history exam . . .)
I really think this was uncalled for and does not pertain to our
discussion. (For the record, I was not trying to list them in historical
order and I was speaking generally - french impressionistic music,
modern, etc. I referred to these in the generic sense that they are used
by the public. I don't need help in history, I know what I am talking
about, thank you very much).
: Tell me more about Mr. Roskott and his concerto, though.
I will. I could even write to him and have him send you some information
on his works, etc.
: Oh yes Ma'am, we are alive alright. But if we write any music for the
: violin, we probably won't ever hear it performed, which was my original
: point. Kate, I would just love it if you proved me to be wrong.
I will have to check this out, but I know there are pieces that have been
recently written that *are* for solo violin and have been recently
recorded and performed. I'll have to e-mail you some of them.
: > I would like to continue on to the issue of pieces of music, but I
: > will return later (after listening to my Beatles Complete BBC recordings
: > and practicing Bach's sonata #1 , not to mention works by Rode, Kreutzer,
: > Dont, Flesch,......)
: > Kate
: >
: Practice hard. It takes lots of skill to play those goose egg parts they
: give you in Hollywood for 50 dollars an hour. (I hope I'm just kidding).
Excuse me! This was totally uncalled for. You complained that I was
taking a slam at your music, well, excuse me, but isn't that what you just
did? If you would like to be addressed with respect, learn to be polite.
May I remind you that to be able to play any sort of music, whether it
be modern or not, we must learn how to play first. In years of violin
playing, we have narrowed things down to what will educate us the best.
I seriously doubt that you are an expert on violin technique, and
therefore have no basis to imply that it takes no talent. Why do you
think we work for *years* before we even try to get into college? And
from there, how about the fierce competition for orchestra jobs? If you
think it is easy, take up an instrument and we will see how far you get!
Don't knock something you don't understand, bub!
Kate
(If we decide to continue with this argument and not have it relate to
the groups, we had better continue it versa e-mail.)
Meister Eckhart
>As far as liking bands goes...Well, none of them are any good! (In my
>opinion..) Name me one band around today that you really think will
>still be around in five years! Name me one that started five years sgo
>that is still big today!! Music today is crummy and does not have the
>staying power of older music. Plenty of 60's and early 70's still gets
>airplay...How about the 80's? Nope...
Finally, I've 'heard' it from another person. I've been in
contact off and on with people who are 'active' in the Dallas music scene
for the last couple of years and when they rave about Tripping Daisy or
The Toadies or any of the numerous other bands that make teenagers mosh,
I always ask them the same questions you just posted: will they be around
in ten years? Will their pre-fab drivel even mean anything in five years?
Suffice it to say that I agree with you exactly on that note.
There are, to be sure, a few new artists that are making good music, but
nothing to compare with what bands like Floyd and the Moodies have done.
The last act to come out of Dallas that was worth listening to was Edie
Brickell & The New Bohemians, in my opinion...
ME
Hugh Jones
>> music. Plenty of 60's and early 70's still gets airplay...How about
>> the 80's? Nope...
No offence mate but how old are you? <rhetorical q>
because a lot of 60s/70s generation are a bit out of touch with the way
music works these days. You still tend to refer to it as pop music and
say that pop music is no good these days. The latter is correct.
However, most good music is not 'pop'. Music has diversified a lot since
those days. Today most music in the charts is highly commercial, most
not done by bands at all but by 'pop singers' with DJs. There is also a
lot of dance music. If you watch top of the pops or look at the charts
or whatever, you wont see good music like you did in the '65-'75 period.
There are good bands around though if you go to HMV or even look at the
album charts (below the top 20 usually).
But yeah we do seem to have come to a brief age where a lot of bands are
gorwing old
___________________________________________________________________________
-Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Nick Jones, 1995
-License to distribute this post is available for 1000UKP. Posting
without permission constitutes an agreement to these terms.
-Please send notices of violation to postm...@microsoft.com
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO COPY THIS SIGNATURE AND HELP BRING ABOUT THE
DEMISE OF MICROSOFT
Gregg Wager
> Gregg Wager was speaking of the snobbishness of violinists (which
> apparently I have not attained) when he wrote:
>
> : You said you are 18 years old and a violinist. Perhaps you have not yet
> : developed the traits of the older violinists.
>
>
> Most of us did not start to play to
> earn money or to gain fame. We started to play because of our love of music
> and the instrument we had chosen. I do not play to give other people
> enjoyment, which might be construed as being a snob. The enjoyment I find
> from playing is intensely personal and private. To be able to bring the
> emotions out is something that is indescribable. Perhaps, people will be
> considered snobbish, because one must have an outer shell. We bare our
> souls to the world every day, show our most private feelings and
> emotions, and because we are reserved verbally, we are taken as snobs. For
> most of us, being aloof is the only way to react when people judge our playing.
> For not only are they judging our skill, they are judging our soul. I
> think what truly counts is that we, *all* musicians, are some of the most
> open people there are. Judge us by what the soul says, not the mouth.
> Listen to the music and you will be able to decide if we are true snobs.
I'm a musician too, ma'am, and a damn good one. I bear my soul as much as
you do to the cold-hearted, cruel world. What I'm talking about is
composers vs. violinists. There is more animosity here than you think.
Punctuating this animosity is the fact that composers starve, violinists
play in orchestras (with more job-openings than you can shake a stick at).
>
>
>
>
> As I have already said, I have played modern (20th century) pieces. I
> listen to a variety of modern composers as well. I enjoy Glass, Crunb,
> Webern, and Schoenberg. I do not think it would be helpful to this group
> to post all the modern pieces I have played, so if you think I am a liar
> or am just wasting time, please e-mail me and I would gratefully list a
> few things.
But did you ever meet Glass or Crumb? I also hope that whenever you
performed their works, you let ASCAP and BMI know about it so these two
guys can earn a living (not that Glass needs the money these days, but
Crumb could use a little nest egg to retire with).
>
> : > think of myself as being open minded; I listen to CCR, Bon Jovi, John
> : > Denver, Beatles (naturally), Bob Dylan, Beach Boys, THe Who, Yes, Elton
> : > John, etc. (the list is too long to type). I think that that generally
>
>
> : And I don't really see a lot of
> : diversity in this list of yours. Most of these groups came out of the
> : 1960s. What do you listen to that has been created in the 1990s? (just
> : curious).
>
> Why should I have to like groups outside of the
> sixties? However, if you insist:
> Selena
> Clint Black
> Boyz II Men
> Anthrax
> Pantera
> Rush
> Dave Mathews
> Dionne Ferris
> etc.
> (sigh... this is getting dull.. do I have to explain my life?..)
>
At least some more. I asked for groups that came out in the 1990s.
>
> : My point is that the "classical" world
> : has become mostly a showcase for dead composers.
>
> Maybe their pieces are still played because they are great. There is no
> purpose in throwing away something useful and entertaining just because
> it is old.
Nobody said anything about throwing away the old.
> Many people have never heard the compositions by these "dead
> composers". I will admit that most of what we play is from "dead
> composers", but we have hundreds of years worth of thier music. Modern
> music is a very small portion of history. Please don't get me wrong, I am
> sorry that there is not more modern pieces played. I can understand where
> you are coming from. I am a fan of modern music as well.
I disagree. There are more composers living today than at any time in
history. There are too many living composers, too much to chose from.
The reason orchestras don't play living composers is because the
audiences don't like New Music.
>
>
> : > Generally speaking, even in the "classical realm" we refer to
> : > Barouqe, Classical, Impressionistic, Modern, etc. under the wide name of
> : > CLASSICAL MUSIC.
>
> : Oh yes Ma'am, we are alive alright. But if we write any music for the
> : violin, we probably won't ever hear it performed, which was my original
> : point. Kate, I would just love it if you proved me to be wrong.
>
> I will have to check this out, but I know there are pieces that have been
> recently written that *are* for solo violin and have been recently
> recorded and performed. I'll have to e-mail you some of them.
Oh yes, there a too many of them. Only a few make it to the recording
studio or concert hall though. The only one I can think of at the moment
that is worth anything is Steve Reich's "violin phase".
>
> : > I would like to continue on to the issue of pieces of music, but I
> : > will return later (after listening to my Beatles Complete BBC recordings
> : > and practicing Bach's sonata #1 , not to mention works by Rode, Kreutzer,
> : > Dont, Flesch,......)
> : > Kate
> : >
>
> : Practice hard. It takes lots of skill to play those goose egg parts they
> : give you in Hollywood for 50 dollars an hour. (I hope I'm just kidding).
>
> Excuse me! This was totally uncalled for. You complained that I was
> taking a slam at your music, well, excuse me, but isn't that what you just
> did? If you would like to be addressed with respect, learn to be polite.
>
> May I remind you that to be able to play any sort of music, whether it
> be modern or not, we must learn how to play first. In years of violin
> playing, we have narrowed things down to what will educate us the best.
> I seriously doubt that you are an expert on violin technique, and
> therefore have no basis to imply that it takes no talent. Why do you
> think we work for *years* before we even try to get into college? And
> from there, how about the fierce competition for orchestra jobs? If you
> think it is easy, take up an instrument and we will see how far you get!
> Don't knock something you don't understand, bub!
> Kate
>
> (If we decide to continue with this argument and not have it relate to
> the groups, we had better continue it versa e-mail.)
>
>
I have taken up an instrument ma'am. And I don't think you should talk
about the "fierce" competition for orchestra jobs. There is only fierce
competition if you play an instrument other than strings: an orchestra
only needs two flute-players, but up to 50 violinists.
There are thousands of orchestras all over America. Some of them might
not be that great, but they pay for string players. Anyone who graduates
from a good university with a degree in violin or cello will get work.
When you talk about "fierce" competition, think about the jobs available
for violinists, and then think about the jobs for composers. Hell, think
about the jobs available for tuba-players. Are you implying that you
work harder than that poor tuba-player who brings his mouth piece into
the toilet with him so he won't miss a minute of practice? Talk about
being polite!!!! Here is the crux of the composer/violinist animosity.
You've just gotten mad at me because I don't understand what it is to
dedicate myself to an instrument or music or whatever and haven't thought
about the "fierce" competition (even though this is all false). You have no
monopoly on the music world. You are just like the rest of us when it
comes to dedication to one's craft. Unlike the rest of us, you will get
the jobs, we won't.
You're right, we'll stick to E-mail in the future. But this stuff has got
to be defended.
gw
David Johnson
someone argue on and on about topics neither one wants to concede I would
tune in CNN or something. This is not the place to have personal
arguments that take up all my time reading. Please in future e-mail each
other and leave the rest of us out of it.
Peace,
David J.
Gregg Wager
Nobody's forcing you to read it.
gw
SkyVoice
argument that no one seems willing to concede, think just a
moment about what you are doing. First, you cross post the
argument, or debate, among several newsgroups. Secondly, you
are posting to this newsgroup without mention of the group
implied. Third, the title implies History of Rock and Roll, which,
for some, interest is held. For this forum...a debate...wouldn't
e-mail make much greater sense? No one questions your ability
to post here...nor questions your right to do so...but for you
and your counterpart to show just a small degree of restraint
would be welcomed by all. At least consider the idea of going
private? Many thanks in advance! :-)
Let Merlin cast his spell...:-)
Michel Pitermann
> > JESUS Q. Christ ! are we begining to sound a bit like " You
> kids just listen to noise ! now when *I* was young......."
I don't think the "present music is poorer than older music" statement is only
due to nostalgia. I have the feeling that the golden age of rock was during
the late 60 and early 70 because it was a musical-research time. Today, it
seems to me that only money leads the musical market, leaving no room for
experimental music. I am tempted to call present music "fast-food music".
Best regards,
pit
--
Michel Pitermann, Free University of Brussels, CP 110,
50 Av. F.D. Roosevelt, 1050 Brussels, Belgium
tel: 32 - 2 - 650 20 18
Fax: 32 - 2 - 650 20 07
email: mpi...@ulb.ac.be
Hugh Jones
The reason that we think that the 60s and 70s were
a golden age, even though they even then had lots of crap too,
was that the crap in the top 40 gets forgotten.
Thats exactly it. We forgot the crap.
It was there though!
geo
: I have been reading and absorbing the thread of this subject for almost
This all sound great, but the only thing that has/is obviously missing
is the Black Man from Rock & Roll. A very obvious ommission at that!
Michele
section The Doors were on, and right after it, there
was quite a bit with "black" people.( I'm quoting that
because I don't want to upset anyone and have them
rip on me...). Some of the best music around IMO is
played by them. EX. The Blues.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Denny
>>This all sound great, but the only thing that has/is obviously missing
>>is the Black Man from Rock & Roll. A very obvious ommission at that!
>
concentrated very heavily on James Brown, Sly Stone, and George Clinton.
geo
: >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And how many eons ago was that? It's not like they are clearly rock & roll
like Hootie & the Blowfish!
Viss 1
I hope this is a joke
Sky Voice
>
> Ken Denny (kde...@mail.concentric.net) wrote:
> :
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
> : >>This all sound great, but the only thing that has/is obviously missing
> : >>is the Black Man from Rock & Roll. A very obvious ommission at that!
> : >
> : I beg to differ there was an entire hour segment dedicated funk, which
> : concentrated very heavily on James Brown, Sly Stone, and George Clinton.
> :
>
Sky Voice
>
> >It's not like they are clearly rock & roll like Hootie & the Blowfish!
>
Me too! :-)
Kevy Rae
>> >It's not like they are clearly rock & roll like Hootie & the Blowfish!
>> I hope this is a joke
Yup, I heard one of their songs on the top-40 station the kids torment me
with...
I wonder what made that guy get the idea his dull, droning voice was
acceptable for radio play...
Kevy Rae
Dallas, Tx
Gandalf 89
>I hope this is a joke.
Me too...
Psychedelically,
Gandalf 8...@aol.com
Lyle E. Dodge
>
>Ken Denny (kde...@mail.concentric.net) wrote:
>: >>-----------------------------------------------------------------------
>: >>This all sound great, but the only thing that has/is obviously missing
>: >>is the Black Man from Rock & Roll. A very obvious ommission at that!
>: >
>: I beg to differ there was an entire hour segment dedicated funk, which
>: concentrated very heavily on James Brown, Sly Stone, and George Clinton.
>:
>
Were the Doors ever mentioned in that? I watched a few of the segments but got
busy.
+------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Lyle Dodge dod...@wwc.edu http://www.wwc.edu/student/dodgly/ |
| "If you take home anything, let it be your will to think..." |
+------------------------------------------------------------------+