When Things Go Wrong
David Malbuff
>
>Maybe we ought to have a little Christmas spirit. For one thing, Jeremy,
>I don't recall much real criticism of M-person, Sinead, etc. I know that
>what *I* was doing was dissing. It's kind of unfair IMHO to be jumping
>down Len's throat just 'cause he's Len.
But half the list seems to enjoy doing it, so it'll probably continue.
If someone can find a post where Leonard said no one makes interesting music
these days, please re-post it. I won't wait for it, because no one will find
it, because he never said such a thing.
Does anyone else keep archive? If so, you can go back and see that it all
started when Mike Masuda sent a rather plaintive post saying that he's
disillusioned with modern rock because of its bland sameness and lack of
pioneering spirit.
Tim responded that this was because the major labels and distributors are
constipating the market, and only releasing what they think will appeal to
the lowest common denominator of the buying public. I agree that the business
does indeed do that.
THEN our friend Leonard got involved. He said that the artists who make the
bland, formula product are really to blame, because it is they who have
knuckled under to the industry's odious demands. I agree with that, too,
and I think that that is the greater truth.
Tim then postulated a dialogue between himself and "Lenny, the creationist,
(who) says that people just aren't writing good music any more."
There's where we went off the track, gang. Y'all may object- and with good
reason- to many of Leonard's posts, especially the non-musical crap, but
don't put words in his mouth. Tim's post even helped make Leonard's point
by singling out Steve Winwood as a chief target of his ire. "Mister Sell-out,"
I think the phrase was. Precisely. LW didn't say no one made good music; he
said it's a cop-out to blame the record companies. And he's right! The
record companies are NOT artists. All they care about it SALES. Ultimately,
it is THE ARTIST that is responsible for what goes out under his/her name.
If nobody wanted to make disposable, mindless music, it wouldn't get made.
You may argue that the artists who sell out and the businessmen that encourage
them to do so are part and parcel of the same problem. Fine, I won't dispute
it. But nobody- NOBODY- is "forced" or "victimized" into "selling out". They
do it because money and fame are- or become- more important to then than
music.
Marco then directed an eloquent post, aimed at Leonard, about how he and others
have spent their lives struggling to maintain their integrity in the face of
the music business which could care less about them. Bullseye, Marco! But you
were aiming at the wrong target.
When I said Leonard was the new Ruxpin, I was just expressing the reality of
the situation, not applauding it.
David
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Beer
>Does anyone else keep archive? If so, you can go back and see that it all
>started when Mike Masuda sent a rather plaintive post saying that he's
>disillusioned with modern rock because of its bland sameness and lack of
>pioneering spirit.
I know what Mike said, and I agree with it. I always hear pieces from
unknown 60s rock groups, and you can see them get some kind of energy or
chemistry, they might have been naive musically or not the best players,
but they still got something together on an artistic level.
While today, players are more professional, but the music is bland.
There might be a lot of reasons for that. I think part of it has to do
with the times. In the 60s you had the Vietnam war which caused a lot of
strong feelings and made people take a stand. LSD also gave people
experiences they never dreamed of. There was a lot of urgency for
people to go another way. The time was ripe. I am not saying
that this is a prerequisite for an artistic revolution, but in this
case, I feel it was a great contributor.
As for rock having a pioneering spirit, I don't think there is any way
for it to happen if it stays in the pop or mass culture domain.
When you grow up, you leave the kids behind. I don't think it going
to come up with a pop form that will be pioneering.
>THEN our friend Leonard got involved. He said that the artists who make the
>bland, formula product are really to blame, because it is they who have
>knuckled under to the industry's odious demands. I agree with that, too,
>and I think that that is the greater truth.
I agree with that too. You can rant and wave about the record
companies, and they suck, but an artist can ultimately choose what he or
she wants to do. You might have to make some sacrifices, the groupies
won't be as blonde, or the limousines as strecthed.
With many rock musicians being millionaires, I don't know what the
problem is. If Sun Ra can do it on no money, there is no excuse.
For instance, Peter Gabrial started his own record company, and records
many traditional and pop world music stuff. Bill Laswell does similar
things. That is the type of stuff that they should do.
Jeff
Mike
>>started when Mike Masuda sent a rather plaintive post saying that he's
>>disillusioned with modern rock because of its bland sameness and lack of
>>pioneering spirit.
>I know what Mike said, and I agree with it. I always hear pieces from
>unknown 60s rock groups, and you can see them get some kind of energy or
>chemistry, they might have been naive musically or not the best players,
>but they still got something together on an artistic level.
>While today, players are more professional, but the music is bland.
>There might be a lot of reasons for that. I think part of it has to do
>with the times. In the 60s you had the Vietnam war which caused a lot of
>strong feelings and made people take a stand. LSD also gave people
>experiences they never dreamed of. There was a lot of urgency for
>people to go another way. The time was ripe. I am not saying
>that this is a prerequisite for an artistic revolution, but in this
>case, I feel it was a great contributor.
There's nothing really spiritually moving happening right now.
There is no war to protest strongly against. There is no
new drug to trip on (that leaves no side effects),
All that there is now is petty problems, like materialism,
commercialism, and boredom. We've fallen back into the late
50s for some reason. We've got beatniks and coffeehouses,
but no horse or snort to rag on. We've got crank and crack
problems--not drugs for bohemians, but for the lower classes.
We've got pushers instead of providers.
Where is the rage? Where is the pioneering spirit?
It's not in rock--it's in rap, the noise of the street.
Accessible to the masses. Tells all and hammers it into
yo head. The problem is, it's overpublicized now.
I saw Carol Burnett doing rap. That's a sick thought.
So rap is now a commercialized thing. Where's the
new rage and pioneering thing going to take place and when is it
going to happen? Will it be for my generation or for my
grandchildren? Pulse! said mood music is coming of age.
But I can't personally see that being an ominous medium, unless
it is done using subliminal messages.
Something drastic has to happen in this world for people to
complain about. Something earth shattering.
>I agree with that too. You can rant and wave about the record
>companies, and they suck, but an artist can ultimately choose what he or
>she wants to do. You might have to make some sacrifices, the groupies
>won't be as blonde, or the limousines as strecthed.
I think it also has to do with the exposure that the
musicians have to media and to technology.
Anyone can be a musician now. The technology is accessible
to anyone who can afford a guitar and an amp.
Musicians can put out more stuff now than ever, which is why
there is so much bland music out there.
There is some real kickin' music as well, but the ratio
of trash to treasures has changed very little compared to
the vast increase in volume and accessiblity.
We as consumers just have to sift through more crap.
If only the musicians were more selective on the quality
of music that they put out, it would make the burden of the sift
a little easier on us.
But alas, you can't judge your own music--esp. if you are a young lad
and are happy to grind out a three chord tune that has a killer beat
and oh so excellent words to describe your first sexual experience.
Media controls the lad's imagination and creative limitations.
Most young lads don't have time to read or discuss Dickens or
Poe or Nietsche, they barely have enough time to put in their work
hours to get their next paycheck. Those that do take the time
to read have better things to do than to jam in a band.
Just my POV.
>With many rock musicians being millionaires, I don't know what the
>problem is. If Sun Ra can do it on no money, there is no excuse.
>For instance, Peter Gabrial started his own record company, and records
>many traditional and pop world music stuff. Bill Laswell does similar
>things. That is the type of stuff that they should do.
>Jeff
When you're rich, you have problems that no one else can relate to anymore.
So you can't write tunes that will grab your heart. That's
a basic law. Peter Gabriel is an exception. So is Sting. But even
they are finding topics to sing about a little tougher, now that
they have overcome so much. It's hard to be an original these days.
I mean an original from square one. And to make it big? Well,
that's the ticket. Fame is for weenies. I'd rather be remembered
for inventing a weird guitar effect or a recording technique than
becoming famous by a song, unless the song is genuinely from my kokoro.
Notice how many old farts are coming out with compilation CDs?
Is it a sign that pop music is a dying art?
Is it a sign that pop music has nowhere else to go but out?
Makes you wonder...
Mike Masuda
awaiting moksha (Marco understands....)
the orgasm of the musical trends
ÿÿ Re: When Things Go Wrong
Jeff Beer
>Something drastic has to happen in this world for people to
>complain about. Something earth shattering.
But it really doesn't have to be that. I think in the 60s it helped,
for the reasons I mentioned. There was a lot of strong feeligs.
Actually, in terms of having a pioneering decade, the 1910s might be the
strongest decade in this century. Especially the part that doesn't
include World War I.
>Anyone can be a musician now. The technology is accessible
>to anyone who can afford a guitar and an amp.
I think it was Rahsaan Roland Kirk who said there was enough guitars in
the world to hang everyone.
>When you're rich, you have problems that no one else can relate to anymore.
>So you can't write tunes that will grab your heart. That's
>a basic law. Peter Gabriel is an exception. So is Sting. But even
>they are finding topics to sing about a little tougher, now that
>they have overcome so much. It's hard to be an original these days.
Sometimes I think that is a problem that people can't overcome.
It seems it is the post-modern and either a late-baby-boomer or
post-baby-boomer condition that you must have it all, do it all, be
everywhere, do everthing. When you try to do it musically, there seems
to be the danger of losing yourself.
I think that is true with David Byrne. He spreads himself out awfully
thin in trying to do all these projects. I remember hearing his Brass
ensemble project. Like an excercise from Composition 101. Branford
Marsailis too. He once said something to the effect that he felt like
quiting after hearing John Coltrane, because he would never be able to
top that. ( I wish I could remember what he said exactly, I don't want
to misrepresent him.) But he was rightfully chastised by Keith Jarrett
for having such a material attitude. Instead of worrying about trying
to equal or better Coltrane, he should have just been inspired by him.
But the pressure of today is to be superman, and the results are a
superficial superman. Hell, superman died recently.
Jeff