funtime nominations... the worst guitar/music product of the past 500 years.
andy...@mailinator.com
worse than :
The David L Burge Perfect Pitch Training course........
Elektrik Hendrik
Oh yeah? What's so bad about it? You're the first one I heard being
negative about it.
andy...@mailinator.com
I managed to get it for free a while back and it is 70minutes of
someone saying: I call this color hearing, but its got nothing to do
with colors, such as red , blue , green , magenta. However each pitch
has in a way its own color like a blue for g-sharp but in no way do
you associate the color blue with g-sharp. Each tone has a unique
sound , imagine the chromatic scale, chroma is latin for color,
however when listening do not associate any colors with these tones.
This is padded out over about 5 CDs , I never got past the first.
tomb...@jhu.edu
wrote:
I never heard anyone say anything positive about it. Do you know
anyone who actually learned perfect pitch from it?
cl...@claymoore.com
Hi Tom,
One of the silliest things about that course IMO was it was originally
offered on cassette. Nothing like the vagaries of tape and players to
have pitch be all over the place. But yeah, I've never heard of anyone
developing PP using that course, and it's been out for like 30 years.
Is the testing period over yet?
Clay
cl...@claymoore.com
Hi Andy,
But, you can do a color analysis to find out if you are a winter,
spring, summer, or fall, and then use this info to figure out which
notes go with your natural skin tone, hair, and eye color. Jazz as
fashion.
All seriousness aside, the "Perfect Pitch" is that people believed it
and bought the product.
Clay
my...@mylesgorhammusic.com
myles
tom walls
Pretty bad. How about "pitch correction software"? I think it's
lessened the quality of modern life(such as it is).
Pat Smith
Dan Adler
Well, the redeeming quality for Burge is that his relative pitch
course is the best ever created. I learned a lot from that.
Mike C.
news:f1c26619-1346-4452...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
The main negative thing about it is that Perfect Pitch cannot be learned,
therefore can't be taught. They might as well sell a course to learn how to
flap your arms and fly to the moon.
--
Mike C.
http://mikecrutcher.com
"A great percentage of people don't want a challenge. They want
something done to them, they don't want to participate. But there'll
always be maybe 15% that desire something more, and they'll search it
out. And maybe that's where art is."
- Bill Evans
Rick Stone
and managed to negotiate an educator's discount on both courses.
David Burge is a very smart marketer. He seems to be one of the lucky who
was born with perfect pitch, and he initially tries to sell you on the idea
that you can also develop it. The jury's still out on that.
That said, I think David uses his perfect pitch method to then sell you on
his much more extensive (and expensive) Relative Pitch course. Relative
Pitch is a lot harder to sell than Perfect Pitch. Everyone knows what it
is, and knows that it's a LOT of hard work. Not nearly as romantic as the
idea of having perfect pitch, but way more practical in the real world.
After all, I know tons of GREAT musicians, yet only a few with perfect
pitch, but I've NEVER known a single great musician who didn't have
fantastic RELATIVE pitch.
David Burge's Relative Pitch Course is the one that's actually worth the
money. It's really setup so that somebody at ANY level could learn pretty
much all the basics of music theory from it, but more important, learn to
SPELL and HEAR everything correctly.
I'd suggest that anyone considering his courses, do the end-run and just go
straight to the Relative Pitch course.
~ Rick Stone
www.rickstone.com
"Dan Adler" <d...@danadler.com> wrote in message
news:71d884fc-e350-45e0...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
Joe Finn
> The main negative thing about it is that Perfect Pitch cannot be learned,
> therefore can't be taught. They might as well sell a course to learn how
> to flap your arms and fly to the moon.
Good point. You cannot learn perfect pitch. You cannot teach what you cannot
learn. The magazine ads should have been the tip off.
..............joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
dennis....@gmail.com
Why do I think that? Before recordings, everybody and their cousins
made music all the time, at a variety of levels of competence. Some
made good music, some made not-so-good music. But music was made by
lots of people.
These days and for quite some time, the relative skill levels
demonstrated by recordings are so hard to reach for most people that
they don't even try anymore. The easy availability of recordings
discourages many or most amateurs from even making the attempt.
Yes, I realize that we get to hear some great music on recordings that
we otherwise wouldn't get to hear. But does that compensate for the
lack of music performance among the non-professionals? I think on
balance it was a bad deal.
patmp...@gmail.com
Hmm, how about...Communism?
But if you hate the course that much, you should get your money back.
Threaten to report him for mail fraud and I bet he'll cough up. You
can't legally sell POS ripoff through the mail.
andy...@mailinator.com
back..
Jonathan
> "Elektrik Hendrik" <elektrikhend...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f1c26619-1346-4452...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 17 mei, 13:15, andy-...@mailinator.com wrote:
> >> I have already won , I would be surprised if you can find a product
> >> worse than :
>
> >> The David L Burge Perfect Pitch Training course........
>
> > Oh yeah? What's so bad about it? You're the first one I heard being
> > negative about it.
>
> The main negative thing about it is that Perfect Pitch cannot be learned,
> therefore can't be taught. They might as well sell a course to learn how to
> flap your arms and fly to the moon.
>
> --
> "A great percentage of people don't want a challenge. They want
> something done to them, they don't want to participate. But there'll
> always be maybe 15% that desire something more, and they'll search it
> out. And maybe that's where art is."
> - Bill Evans
FWIW, this article cites a research paper that claims it's possible to
teach absolute pitch to kids between 2 and 4 years of age.
Maybe you just need to start really early :)
cl...@claymoore.com
> The worst music product of the past 500 years is ... the recording.
>
> Why do I think that? Before recordings, everybody and their cousins
> made music all the time, at a variety of levels of competence. Some
> made good music, some made not-so-good music. But music was made by
> lots of people.
It's still made by lots of people - school bands and orchestras,
garage bands, jam sessions, picking around the campfire at folk
festivals, bar bands, community orchestras, music school recitals,
home recording buffs, and let's not forget the dreaded karaoke, which
has displaced professionally-played live music with spirited but
usually lame singing in bars all around the world.
A few weeks ago down here in South Texas I took my three year old
daughter to a local chain taco restaurant in the middle of the
afternoon, and there was a mariachi band that had showed up and was
playing requests for hire. I understand these guys can make several
hundred dollars apiece on a good weekend night going from place to
place. Yes, they are "professionals," but some of them are so gawd
awful you'd think they'd never played before.
> These days and for quite some time, the relative skill levels
> demonstrated by recordings are so hard to reach for most people
Yes, it's hard to top the skill level of a Britney Spears or the
latest rap "artist."
> that
> they don't even try anymore. The easy availability of recordings
> discourages many or most amateurs from even making the attempt.
Well, I think a lot of that has to do with our culture and our
incredible penchant for laziness more than anything. Most people don't
do much of anything anymore except going to whatever job or school
they have to attend; the rest of the time it's fast food and TV, text
messaging, and shopping.
>
> Yes, I realize that we get to hear some great music on recordings that
> we otherwise wouldn't get to hear. But does that compensate for the
> lack of music performance among the non-professionals? I think on
> balance it was a bad deal.
Yes, I'd much rather hear my uncle Jethro sing "Clementine" for the
umpteenth time than my Joe Henderson albums.
Clay Moore
tom walls
> Hey I paid nothing for it in the first place and i still want my money
> back..
You're a man after my own heart.
tom walls
As happy as you are spending time alone with your Joe Henderson
records, Clay, I still think Dennis makes a good point.
Gerry
> On May 19, 9:47 am, dennis.c.one...@gmail.com wrote:
>> The worst music product of the past 500 years is ... the recording.
>>
>> Why do I think that? Before recordings, everybody and their cousins
>> made music all the time, at a variety of levels of competence. Some
>> made good music, some made not-so-good music. But music was made by
>> lots of people.
>
> It's still made by lots of people - school bands and orchestras,
> garage bands, jam sessions, picking around the campfire at folk
> festivals, bar bands, community orchestras, music school recitals,
> home recording buffs, and let's not forget the dreaded karaoke, which
> has displaced professionally-played live music with spirited but
> usually lame singing in bars all around the world.
"Usual" depends on which place you're "usually" talking about. Some of
them are "usually" excellent.
> A few weeks ago down here in South Texas I took my three year old
> daughter to a local chain taco restaurant in the middle of the
> afternoon, and there was a mariachi band that had showed up and was
> playing requests for hire. I understand these guys can make several
> hundred dollars apiece on a good weekend night going from place to
> place. Yes, they are "professionals," but some of them are so gawd
> awful you'd think they'd never played before.
Everywhere you go in Guadalajara they are amazing. Whenever I bump into
mariachi's in Santa Ana they are fabulous.
>> These days and for quite some time, the relative skill levels
>> demonstrated by recordings are so hard to reach for most people
>
> Yes, it's hard to top the skill level of a Britney Spears or the
> latest rap "artist."
Put Kenny G in there and I guess we've got most of popular music that
people use as iconic for ALL of pop music.
>> that
>> they don't even try anymore. The easy availability of recordings
>> discourages many or most amateurs from even making the attempt.
>
> Well, I think a lot of that has to do with our culture and our
> incredible penchant for laziness more than anything. Most people don't
> do much of anything anymore except going to whatever job or school
> they have to attend; the rest of the time it's fast food and TV, text
> messaging, and shopping.
You have simply GOT to meet more people. Or judge them less idly.
>> Yes, I realize that we get to hear some great music on recordings that
>> we otherwise wouldn't get to hear. But does that compensate for the
>> lack of music performance among the non-professionals? I think on
>> balance it was a bad deal.
>
> Yes, I'd much rather hear my uncle Jethro sing "Clementine" for the
> umpteenth time than my Joe Henderson albums.
>
> Clay Moore
I'd rather SHARE music, certainly music of lesser "professional"
quality, than have everybody be in their little rooms listening to
their ipods and having their own personal moment.
--
Dogmatism kills jazz. Iconoclasm kills rock. Rock dulls scissors.
Mark Cleary
ebony tailpieces like violins have, guitar don't produce sound the way a
violin does. They are cheaper so maybe that is the angle.
Mark Cleary plays Hollenbeck Jazz Guitars
Handmade http://hollenbeckguitar.com/
cl...@claymoore.com
> I'd rather SHARE music, certainly music of lesser "professional"
> quality, than have everybody be in their little rooms listening to
> their ipods and having their own personal moment.
So Gerry, do you SHARE music? I do. I SHARE music every week, usually
at least several times per week, between gigs with my quartet, duo, as
a sideman, coaching a guitar ensemble, teaching an improv class,
private students, attending concerts, recitals, bar band gigs, and so
on. And boy, howdy do I ever meet people this way! I meet a LOT of
people - mayors, judges, college professors, drug dealers. I SHARED
music one night with Denzel Washington! I SHARED music with George
Bush! I SHARED music at a gig the other night in Matamoros, Mex and
got to meet real live members of the Mexican Army at 4:00 a.m., who
ordered me out of my car with M-16s so they could search it. That's a
SHARING experience I won't soon forget!
Yeah, SHARING music is way cool, but a lot of people won't have a
chance to SHARE music. They can't go out to concerts or hear a local
band, or start their own band or record their own music. Why? Because
of professional musicians who record music, that's why! That's right.
Instead of using those recordings as inspiration or instruction they
get discouraged and give up hope of having the same kind of fun I have
every week SHARING music. They have just too many obstacles!
Oh, crap! I just thought of something. I recorded three CDs of my own!
So I guess I'm part of the problem, then. Shoot!
Clay
patmp...@gmail.com
>
>
> Yeah, SHARING music is way cool, but a lot of people won't have a
> chance to SHARE music. They can't go out to concerts or hear a local
> band, or start their own band or record their own music. Why? Because
> of professional musicians who record music, that's why! That's right.
> Instead of using those recordings as inspiration or instruction they
> get discouraged and give up hope of having the same kind of fun I have
> every week SHARING music. They have just too many obstacles!
>
It seems to me that just as much music is being made as ever, maybe
more. There sure are a heck of a lot of guitars and other musical
stuff being sold. It is true that a lot of it seems to be the sit-
alone-in-the-bedroom-doing-overdubs though, which is kind of sad. And
it is true that the local band/small club scene is almost dead, and
folk music is pretty weak too. So yeah, there seems to be less
sharing.
But that is changing. Now there is youtube and you can see a video of
60 guitarists world wide playing Pachabel's Canon. So sharing is on
the upswing. One can send music files over the Internet so it would
be possible to overdub and have a band with everybody never leaving
their bedroom. It would be really nice to be able to plug into a
computer and jam live with others over the Internet but that will be a
while.
rpjazz...@gmail.com
Brass replacement bridges for increased sustain.
Didn't I read somewhere that, when tested carefully, they didn't
work?
The Gibson L6S deserves a mention. Not that it was such a bad guitar,
but I remember those ads with Santana calling it a rainbow. Some time
later he stopped using it, complaining about the quality.
Overall, I found it hard to think of guitar related products that were
really bad. By and large, the stuff I've bought has worked as
advertised.
Rick
tomb...@jhu.edu
> Another nomination:
>
> Brass replacement bridges for increased sustain.
>
> Didn't I read somewhere that, when tested carefully, they didn't
> work?
You mean the brass nuts of the mid-70s? They sounded great, when you
were playing an open string. But fret any note, and the nut makes no
difference at all.
> Overall, I found it hard to think of guitar related products that were
> really bad.
One word: Ovation.
andy...@mailinator.com
Is no-one nominating that guitar hand strengthener thing that makes
you play fast without practising?
Gerry
> On May 21, 5:23 pm, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
>> I'd rather SHARE music, certainly music of lesser "professional"
>> quality, than have everybody be in their little rooms listening to
>> their ipods and having their own personal moment.
>
> So Gerry, do you SHARE music? I do. I SHARE music every week, usually
> at least several times per week, between gigs with my quartet, duo, as
> a sideman, coaching a guitar ensemble, teaching an improv class,
> private students, attending concerts, recitals, bar band gigs, and so
> on.
You sell it, right. It's "share" for fee, then, I assume. Though it may
cause some angst, the performance or appreciation of music it doesn't
belong to commerce. Music belongs to people. Despite the last 30 years
of "cool-uber-alles", the reality is that some people still skulk off
into their homes, perhaps even your Uncle Jethro, and play music for
their own pleasure. Music to them is a verb not a noun, and they
participate in it.
Certainly if a professional musician hears them, he is free to make
snarky remarks. And that often seems the case for musicians when it
comes to karaoke. But people enjoying and SHARING the process, even
without a union card, is still legal and I endorse it. Does it really
matter whether they are good or not? Clearly it does to some. The big
ol' stamp that says it's usually bad is simply wrong, just like
professional players are usually good. It's like the "Disco Sucks"
strategy, which has more to do with ideology than assessing styles of
music.
I'm not sure what your point was with the SHARE hammer, humor I
suppose. There are lots of great mariachi's playing all kinds of music
out there and they aren't usually awful or usually brilliant; they just
are. Nor do Britney Spears and rap constitue the whole of pop, or the
best of it.
I just weary of the big brush that paints so broad, and said so.
> And boy, howdy do I ever meet people this way! I meet a LOT of
> people - mayors, judges, college professors, drug dealers. I SHARED
> music one night with Denzel Washington! I SHARED music with George
> Bush! I SHARED music at a gig the other night in Matamoros, Mex and
> got to meet real live members of the Mexican Army at 4:00 a.m., who
> ordered me out of my car with M-16s so they could search it. That's a
> SHARING experience I won't soon forget!
>
> Yeah, SHARING music is way cool, but a lot of people won't have a
> chance to SHARE music. They can't go out to concerts or hear a local
> band, or start their own band or record their own music. Why? Because
> of professional musicians who record music, that's why! That's right.
> Instead of using those recordings as inspiration or instruction they
> get discouraged and give up hope of having the same kind of fun I have
> every week SHARING music. They have just too many obstacles!
One of the main obstacles is the concept of "cool". It has been for
many years generally unhip to open your mouth and sing except from a
stage. Who knows how it got that way? I have some ideas but they are
only guesses. I take a guitar to a party from about 1980 to 2000 and
could hardly get a person to open their mouth and "look like a fool" by
singing. I use to take the guitar to Christmas parties with a big
seasonal fake book and a few lyric sheets. They wouldn't touch them.
In the 90's, on a few rare occasions I actually got folks singing
carols, perhaps because I started so late in the evening. Eight people
sang and six sat there and looked nervous and uncomfortable. They were
afraid even in this setting, of looking like an idiot and not singing
"good enough". The next day at work the people who sang came to my
office and raved about how much fun it was after so many years without.
And some who didn't actually came over and appologized and said they
wished they could sing along too, but felt too nervous.
I think karaoke and American Idol are two reasons why some people have
taken back a modicum of control on this. It isn't quite as unhip or
uncool to sing somewhere other than from a stage. I think that's good.
There's nothing I like to hear more than a child singing at play or a
woman singing in the kitchen or in the garden. It's one of the greatest
sounds in the universe. And I never once ponder whether they are a good
singer or whether they are awful.
> Oh, crap! I just thought of something. I recorded three CDs of my own!
> So I guess I'm part of the problem, then. Shoot!
>
> Clay
I don't really follow your point on any of this and think you took the
wrong tack on what I was trying to say.
cl...@claymoore.com
> I don't really follow your point on any of this and think you took the
> wrong tack on what I was trying to say.
Gerry, you'd argue with a rock. Here are my points:
1. Recordings, by themselves, have not necessarily stopped amateurs
from making music. What has happened is, as a culture, we - meaning
folks in the USA - have become largely passive. I could go on at
length as to why this is so, but the short answer is this has been
done by design. We're bombarded constantly by media, and most of it is
designed to get us to passively "take in" things, not do things. As a
very simple illustration of this point, when was the last time you
read or heard a news article that referred to us as "citizens?" No,
instead they call us "consumers." What does a consumer do? He or she
consumes. The "doing" that is encouraged mostly revolves around
procuring expensive machinery like Jet Skis or taking vacations, not
art or mastery.
2. Yes, I get paid for playing music, but I do a LOT of music work
that is gratis or so low paying that it may as well be gratis. I also
get out and support other people playing live music, quite a bit. I
take the hard knocks of gigging for low money, the frequent
disrespect, and all the other BS that goes along with it because I
believe in what I do. It's that simple. So, when I hear someone talk
in hallowed terms about SHARING music, as you have, or someone blaming
recordings for keeping people from making music I have to laugh. WTF?
It would have been a LOT easier to get a gig doing something else and
play music as a hobby.
3. I have high standards. Sue me. Britney and talentless rappers ARE a
big part of pop music, and disco did suck. (I played disco for a
living, so I can say that with impunity.) We only get two English
speaking radio stations in our house, so when my wife listens to the
radio I get to hear KTEX (modern country) or the "rock" station. The
music on both those stations is putrid, both in the music content and
in the lyric/message side of things. I listen to the zillion radio
stations in Spanish when I'm driving, and there's a pretty high
percentage of out-of-tune, banal crap on those stations as well. If
this is what gets airplay nobody, and I mean nobody, should feel
embarrassed about opening their mouths to sing or playing an
instrument. It's just not a sound argument.
Clay
Gerry
> On May 22, 9:34 am, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
>> I don't really follow your point on any of this and think you took the
>> wrong tack on what I was trying to say.
>
> Gerry, you'd argue with a rock.
Clay, you're a fool to start off with an assesment of me. It's unfair
and it doesn't bolster any point you attempt to make. I'd certainlly
argue with what I disagree with. It seems you share that trait with me.
Thanks to referring to all the points I made above in your post that
follows.
> Here are my points:
>
> 1. Recordings, by themselves, have not necessarily stopped amateurs
> from making music. What has happened is, as a culture, we - meaning
> folks in the USA - have become largely passive. I could go on at
> length as to why this is so, but the short answer is this has been
> done by design. We're bombarded constantly by media, and most of it is
> designed to get us to passively "take in" things, not do things.
It's designed to sell something. Usually ideas, and usually ideas
regarding buying something.
> As a very simple illustration of this point, when was the last time you
> read or heard a news article that referred to us as "citizens?"
Every day. I read the op-ed page.
> No, instead they call us "consumers." What does a consumer do? He or she
> consumes. The "doing" that is encouraged mostly revolves around
> procuring expensive machinery like Jet Skis or taking vacations, not
> art or mastery.
Well you're talking about consumers, because, I assu,e, you're talking
about chatter from marketing departments. And then there are all the
sheep out there mindlessly barking cliches to make for additional peer
pressure to make it stick. So we have Faux News telling us that Barak
Obama is a moslem, and then we have the sheep repeating it. We have
the rock dj's telling us "disco sucks" and we have the sheep repeating
it. We have some musicians telling us that "karaoke sucks" then we
have the sheep repeating it. That's why when there's carping about the
horror of people enjoying themselves singing on their own, I tend to
pipe up and say it doesn't suck. That it is, indeed, a good thing.
> 2. Yes, I get paid for playing music, but I do a LOT of music work
> that is gratis or so low paying that it may as well be gratis. I also
> get out and support other people playing live music, quite a bit. I
> take the hard knocks of gigging for low money, the frequent
> disrespect, and all the other BS that goes along with it because I
> believe in what I do. It's that simple.
That's a good thing. You are an honest and dedicated musician.
> So, when I hear someone talk in hallowed terms about SHARING music,
Hallowed?!? I said "I'd rather SHARE music, certainly music of lesser
'professional' quality, than have everybody be in their little rooms
listening to their ipods..." I think you over-reacted to the word
"share".
> ...as you have, or someone blaming
> recordings for keeping people from making music I have to laugh. WTF?
> It would have been a LOT easier to get a gig doing something else and
> play music as a hobby.
I never made any reference to recordings keeping people from sharing
music. I made a reference only to the fact that karaoke is not
"usually" bad, and point out it doesn't make any difference what you or
others l think about it's quality. It's people who want to make music.
Why would a musician ever complain about htat? And I point out that
mariachi's aren't "usually" awful either, just like most of everything
isn't awful. Between marginally competent mariachis and piped-in music,
I'll take the mariachis everytime.
> 3. I have high standards. Sue me.
I'm not discussing your standards, I'm discussing your dismissive
generalizations.
> Britney and talentless rappers ARE a
> big part of pop music, and disco did suck. (I played disco for a
> living, so I can say that with impunity.)
You're leveraging your opinion with sweeping statements about pop music
by citing a few you don't like and making them a proxy for all pop. I'm
no fan of Britney. She doesn't account for .5% of the market. I've
never heard any rap that interested me. Rap accounts for a sizeable
part of the market, and assuming that it's all talentless rappers, that
leaves all the REST of the pop music to disregard. I think that's going
a bit far. If all of current pop can be dismissed under the headline
Britney and Rappers, than I suppose all jazz can be dismissed as all
Kenny G. Both are unfair, and small-minded.
Disco didn't suck. Disco was simply a dance music. Some of it was
highly predictable programmed crap and all rest was black pop music.
Sweeping Stevie Wonder, the Ohio Players, Kool and the Gang, the
O'Jays, and every other black pop act into the "disco sucks" dustbin
was the intent of one faction of corporate power. They had all the dj's
spreading the word, and hapless sheep too. I played "disco" for a
living too and so I can say with impunity that the entire strata of
black urban music from 1972 to 1978 didn't suck. Whenever I tried to
play EW&F for a friend they'd ID it as the dreaded discosucks and
refuse to listen. They were sheep.
> We only get two English
> speaking radio stations in our house, so when my wife listens to the
> radio I get to hear KTEX (modern country) or the "rock" station. The
> music on both those stations is putrid, both in the music content and
> in the lyric/message side of things.
You seem to have a very solid understanding of what sucks and what's
putrid. You're welcome to it. Many do not agree. And at least one finds
your "assessment" suspect.
> I listen to the zillion radio stations in Spanish when I'm driving, and
> there's a pretty high
> percentage of out-of-tune, banal crap on those stations as well.
Why do you listen to so much crap? It's tough to judge a style, a
culture, a music from outside.
I have no interest in fencing with Clay personally, but I do have an
interest in the topic. Honesly, do you know much about ranchera, or
banda, or norteno music? Are is it all just the Mexican music you have
to put up with on the radio while trying to find something that isn't
Mexican music?
> If this is what gets airplay nobody, and I mean nobody, should feel
> embarrassed about opening their mouths to sing or playing an
> instrument. It's just not a sound argument.
I think you've confused my ideas with another. I don't care anything
about what gets airplay and what doesn't. Other than I wish there was
more diversity.
So I don't find the corellary here. If somebody wants to sing I think
they should do it, even if it's karaoke or mariachi. Even if they suck
when they do it. As for me and karaoke or open-mics: I'd much rather
hear bad amateurs than boring professionals. The former can still be
entertaining, at least for a while.
cl...@claymoore.com
> Why do you listen to so much crap? It's tough to judge a style, a
> culture, a music from outside.
>
> I have no interest in fencing with Clay personally, but I do have an
> interest in the topic. Honesly, do you know much about ranchera, or
> banda, or norteno music? Are is it all just the Mexican music you have
> to put up with on the radio while trying to find something that isn't
> Mexican music?
Mira güey. Es claro que tu no me conoces muy bien. ¿Crees que estoy
afuera de la cultura mexicana? ¿Estas en serio? Yo me crié en la
frontera de Mexico, y he estado viviendo en la ciudad más mexicana en
los EE.UU. durante los dos últimos años. Aqui mis amigos, compañeros
de trabajo, estudiantes y vecinos son casi todos mexicanos. Si, estoy
familiarizado con los diferentes estilos de música mexicana. Puedes
creer o no, pero voy a escuchar la música mexicana, así como otros
estilos. Yo no soy racista. No seas pendejo.
Clay
Gerry
> On May 22, 12:40 pm, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
>> Why do you listen to so much crap? It's tough to judge a style, a
>> culture, a music from outside.
>>
>> I have no interest in fencing with Clay personally, but I do have an
>> interest in the topic. Honesly, do you know much about ranchera, or
>> banda, or norteno music? Are is it all just the Mexican music you have
>> to put up with on the radio while trying to find something that isn't
>> Mexican music?
Writing in Spanish is too laborious for me, but it's certainly good
enough to read. I note that you're not responding to any of my other
points but this one, I assume you are conceding them.
> Mira güey. Es claro que tu no me conoces muy bien. ¿Crees que estoy
> afuera de la cultura mexicana? ¿Estas en serio? Yo me crié en la
> frontera de Mexico, y he estado viviendo en la ciudad más mexicana en
> los EE.UU. durante los dos últimos años.
That doesn't mean you know anything about Mexican musics. That's why I
asked. I live in a state with the same percentage of hispanics as
Texas, and the city I'm living in now has a similar percentage as El
Paso, at 76%. I know very few non-Hispanics here that know or care
anything about Mexican music. Most of them throw it in with all rap and
all disco as things to avoid.
> Aqui mis amigos, compañeros
> de trabajo, estudiantes y vecinos son casi todos mexicanos. Si, estoy
> familiarizado con los diferentes estilos de música mexicana. Puedes
> creer o no, pero voy a escuchar la música mexicana, así como otros
> estilos.
In that case I'm even more surprised that you think most mariachi are
awful. If "most" of anything is bad, then that must be a stylistic
component, aspect? Surely you're not trying to compare it to over
musics?
> Yo no soy racista. No seas pendejo.
I never implied anything of the sort.
andy...@mailinator.com
> many years generally unhip to open your mouth and sing except from a
> stage. Who knows how it got that way? I have some ideas but they are
> only guesses. I take a guitar to a party from about 1980 to 2000 and
> could hardly get a person to open their mouth and "look like a fool" by
> singing. I use to take the guitar to Christmas parties with a big
> seasonal fake book and a few lyric sheets. They wouldn't touch them.
> In the 90's, on a few rare occasions I actually got folks singing
> carols, perhaps because I started so late in the evening. Eight people
> sang and six sat there and looked nervous and uncomfortable. They were
> afraid even in this setting, of looking like an idiot and not singing
> "good enough". The next day at work the people who sang came to my
> office and raved about how much fun it was after so many years without.
> And some who didn't actually came over and appologized and said they
> wished they could sing along too, but felt too nervous.
Gerry's "party"....................
cl...@claymoore.com
> Writing in Spanish is too laborious for me,
Yeah? Maybe you'll remember that next time you try and go all vato on
me.
> but it's certainly good
> enough to read. I note that you're not responding to any of my other
> points but this one, I assume you are conceding them.
Not at all.
>
> > Mira güey. Es claro que tu no me conoces muy bien. ¿Crees que estoy
> > afuera de la cultura mexicana? ¿Estas en serio? Yo me crié en la
> > frontera de Mexico, y he estado viviendo en la ciudad más mexicana en
> > los EE.UU. durante los dos últimos años.
>
> That doesn't mean you know anything about Mexican musics.
It doesn't mean you do, either.
> That's why I
> asked. I live in a state with the same percentage of hispanics as
> Texas, and the city I'm living in now has a similar percentage as El
> Paso, at 76%.
Yeah, but where you live doesn't have Ciudad Juarez next to it, it's
got Disneyland and the Crystal Cathedral. And, BTW, I live in
Brownsville, which is, at last census, 91% "hispanic" and next to
Matamoros. BTW, the folks I know down here don't like that term,
because it means from Hispaniola, not from Mexico.
> I know very few non-Hispanics here that know or care
> anything about Mexican music. Most of them throw it in with all rap and
> all disco as things to avoid.
I know very few non-Hispanics here at all.
>
> > Aqui mis amigos, compañeros
> > de trabajo, estudiantes y vecinos son casi todos mexicanos. Si, estoy
> > familiarizado con los diferentes estilos de música mexicana. Puedes
> > creer o no, pero voy a escuchar la música mexicana, así como otros
> > estilos.
>
> In that case I'm even more surprised that you think most mariachi are
> awful. If "most" of anything is bad, then that must be a stylistic
> component, aspect? Surely you're not trying to compare it to over
> musics?
I didn't say that, I said *some* are awful. Some are. Some play wrong
changes and out of tune and sound really sloppy. Some don't.
>
> > Yo no soy racista. No seas pendejo.
>
> I never implied anything of the sort.
No, of course not. You just pulled out the "black R&B=disco" card and
asked if I tried to avoid the Mexican radio stations while I was
searching for some acceptable gringo music. No mames, güey.
Gerry
> On May 22, 2:22 pm, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
>
>> Writing in Spanish is too laborious for me,
>
> Yeah? Maybe you'll remember that next time you try and go all vato on
> me.
It's not that memorable really. I'm not going anything on you, I'm
asking questions, I'm differing with your viewpoint.
> Yeah, but where you live doesn't have Ciudad Juarez next to it, it's
> got Disneyland and the Crystal Cathedral. And, BTW, I live in
> Brownsville, which is, at last census, 91% "hispanic" and next to
> Matamoros.
I'll try one last time before you wind up clawing your eyes out. I live
in a community dominated by a immigrant Mexican population. Being Anglo
in this community doesn't mean one listens to their music, knows it or
likes it. Maybe you overlooked that point of my message. Since being a
musician in a Hispanic community doesn't mean you know anything about
the music, I asked you. What--is that a kick the nuts or something?
> BTW, the folks I know down here don't like that term, because it means
> from Hispaniola, not from Mexico.
To demographers and English-speakers it means: "Hispanic: Of or
relating to Spain or to Spanish-speaking countries, esp. those of Latin
America."
> I didn't say that, I said *some* are awful. Some are. Some play wrong
> changes and out of tune and sound really sloppy. Some don't.
You did indeed. I stand corrected.
>>> Yo no soy racista. No seas pendejo.
>>
>> I never implied anything of the sort.
>
> No, of course not. You just pulled out the "black R&B=disco" card and
> asked if I tried to avoid the Mexican radio stations while I was
> searching for some acceptable gringo music.
Right, and I don't see either as a racist nor personal insult. I
pointed out other places in which jingoistic platitiudes were just as
pointless. You're free to find your subliminal insults wherever you
like. I assume you'll find it with as much frequency as you find bad
music; Apparently every where you go.
cl...@claymoore.com
> You're free to find your subliminal insults wherever you
> like. I assume you'll find it with as much frequency as you find bad
> music; Apparently every where you go.
Hi Gerry,
You'll probably be surprised to learn that I agree with you on this. I
do find subliminal insults everywhere I go, or at least most of the
places I go. I find it insulting, for example, that the state of Texas
allows people to drive cars on the beaches, and as a result the
beaches are like trash dumps filled with used diapers, broken bottles,
and Styrofoam. I find it insulting that jackasses on Harleys and
crotch rockets roar up and down city streets at all hours of the day
and night. I likewise find it insulting that people have 20,000 watt
stereos in their cars and drive them blaring down my street at 2:00
a.m. I find it insulting that every public place now has one or more
TVs going, so that you really can't escape them if you go out
anywhere. I find it insulting that I buy a vacuum cleaner or a weed
whacker and two months later they're broken and have to be thrown in
the trash because the company doesn't provide parts or service to fix
them. I find it insulting that a huge percentage of once free and open
land to roam and admire nature has been bulldozed to build condos that
nobody wants and shopping malls that nobody needs. I find it insulting
that some people have told my wife and I that we are damaging our four
year old child by not putting her in "school," i.e., daycare. I find
it insulting that prisons in the US are run for profit and we have the
highest incarceration rate in the world. IN THE WORLD. I find it
really insulting that many people in this country bought into the
bullshit that we had to go to war with Iraq, and now many are having
second thoughts about it. And, yes, I'm insulted by the enormous
amount of crap that is piped through the media - radio, TV,
newspapers, magazines, etc., that feeds and sustains the above.
The ONLY thing I think anyone can do about any of this is to create,
to create something of beauty, or at least try. So I don't agree with
pronouncements that having excellent models of beauty, for example, a
recording of a virtuoso musician, is something that has damaged us as
a culture. There are WAY, WAY more things that damage us as a culture
on a daily basis, but if I try to point them out I'm told I'm being
negative or making sweeping generalizations, and I find that
insulting, too.
Clay
cl...@claymoore.com
> Gerry's "party"....................
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2q4NPa56v0
Now *that's* funny!
Clay
Gerry
> The ONLY thing I think anyone can do about any of this is to create,
> to create something of beauty, or at least try.
At the end of the day, I still think that's worthwhile.
> So I don't agree with
> pronouncements that having excellent models of beauty, for example, a
> recording of a virtuoso musician, is something that has damaged us as
> a culture.
I can't imagine that anybody and anytime believes that. If somebody
used that in an argument it's laughable even as rhetorical device.
> There are WAY, WAY more things that damage us as a culture
> on a daily basis, but if I try to point them out I'm told I'm being
> negative or making sweeping generalizations, and I find that
> insulting, too.
Far be it for me to recommend laughing at such arguments and moving on,
but that's my recommendation. On the other hand, we've always had slop
and noise in culture. That includes cheap fiction, scandal media,
shlock pop, faddish junk food and the list goes on. For the most part
it passes out of the system and leaves very little residue. Some of it
doubtless has a worse effect than others. I don't include junk tv or
movies as quite so benign, by the way.
I know it's important to grouse about Britney and rap. Why? Because you
think it's important, and it's clearly a seminal factor in your
(honorable) musical thinking. I'm not sure such broad and aimless
cliches effect much, but if you do, enjoy.
I think it's better to PR the stuff that IS good. In pop music, as in
Mexican music, there are artists worth concentrating on. Concentrating
on the horrors of one artist or another, making them iconic for the
entire genre? Not helpful. That's my (honorable) musical/cultural
thinking.
Because there is so much *culturally inculcated* disregard for all
Mexican musics, I'm sensitive to people pissing on it in cliche and
not-particularly invested cliche at that. Maybe that's not you, but
it's lots of people I bump into casually where I live. So maybe I have
a hard time recognizing your (honorable) disregard for a limited
portion of it, versus guys on line at the supermarket typifying a whole
culture with beaner/wetback and now "illegal immigrant" music.
So much for the fundamental culture-wrecking aspects of Britney and
sloppy mariachis. Now to my basic point.
The EXACT same thing that discosucks (tm) promulgated is reflected in
karaokesucks (tm). I don't give a damn what you think about good
vocalists, bad vocalists, who is to be admired, who is to be villified
or how offensive the word SHARE is to you: karaoke is a good thing.
It's good for people, it's good for community, it's good fun, it's good
for promoting an interest in music, it's good for promoting an interest
in participating in music. It's good.
Now it may just be incidental that you carped about karaoke in some
limited way and didn't touch on anything positive, that you used it as
a general cliche. Or perhaps I was mistaken. But I never hear anything
about karaoke incidentally,whether limited in scope, in non-sweeping
generalizations or any other kind of way, that isn't essentially:
karaokesucks (tm).
[ Editorial digression: I think that when discosucks (tm) finished it's
job it left a hole so big in pop music you could drive a truck--or a
new style like rap, right through. Rap was inexpensive to produce, easy
to find "artists", easy to market by independent businessmen. If they
had a full and expansive "urban pop" style hogging the road, that might
not have been so easy. Try to read that without being concluding it
says "you're a racist". It's not about you. ]
If it's important to you to foist your model of art and beauty on the
world as part of being a musician of honor, a musician with not only
some self-respect but one who wants to add his two cents to the
correction of the culture on a citizen-level basis, go for it. It would
be helpful to that same process not only to avoid carping about
karaoke, about which there is absolutely nothing wrong culturally at
any level at all, but to show your support for it. In this way people
who respect your opinion may hesitate before giggling and puking up the
same old cliche again: karaokesucks (tm) (read: "I'm afraid to sing in
front of of others.")
If you made it this far, thanks for reading it.
Joe Finn
>
> I think karaoke and American Idol are two reasons why some people have
> taken back a modicum of control on this.
Gerry: This really jumped off the screen at me. The only control being
asserted here is that of major showbiz financial interests. The contestants
are mere fodder. There is a strong element of exploitation in a show like
this too especially when mediocre participants are subjected the abuse of
the commentators.
> It isn't quite as unhip or uncool to sing somewhere other than from a
> stage. I think that's good.
I may be misreading you here but singing from a stage doesn't mean the
singing is any good. .....joe
--
Visit me on the web www.JoeFinn.net
Joe Finn
> I made a reference only to the fact that karaoke is not "usually" bad,
> and point out it doesn't make any difference what you or others l think
> about it's quality.
Gerry: Karaoke is egotism run amok. To me it's not just that it's "usually
bad", it's much worse than that. It encourages unpleasant displays of
narcissism. It devalues what real performers deliver.
>
> Disco didn't suck.
omg. If I get a vote, I say it sucked. 8-) .....joe
p.s. I'm sorry for cherry picking your post but some of these remarks out of
context are priceless.
Joe Finn
"Gerry" <some...@sunny.calif> wrote
>
> At the end of the day, I still think that's worthwhile.
>
>
> I can't imagine that anybody and anytime believes that. If somebody used
> that in an argument it's laughable even as rhetorical device.
>
> Far be it for me to recommend laughing at such arguments and moving on,
There is still a difference between pop culture and actual culture. It's a
big huge difference. Talking about the distinctions is part of how we
promote, protect and preserve the real thing. Sometimes it means pointing
out something that is detrimental to the things we wish to defend.
.....joe
pmfan57
> "Gerry" <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote
>
> - Show quoted text -
Frank Sinatra's Capitol recordings were pop culture that happened to
be hight art. Satchmo was popular as well.
Heck, Beethoven was hugely popular and attracted enormous crowds, as
did Verdi. This was the pop music of it's day. Unless you're simply
assuming your own conclusions in your terminology, I'm not sure what
you're talking about.
cl...@claymoore.com
I promise you and everyone else this is my last post on this topic. I
really, really have to take care of some other things.
On May 23, 11:46 am, Gerry <somewh...@sunny.calif> wrote:
> > So I don't agree with
> > pronouncements that having excellent models of beauty, for example, a
> > recording of a virtuoso musician, is something that has damaged us as
> > a culture.
>
> I can't imagine that anybody and anytime believes that. If somebody
> used that in an argument it's laughable even as rhetorical device.
See Dennis's original post that I responded to.
> I know it's important to grouse about Britney and rap. Why? Because you
> think it's important, and it's clearly a seminal factor in your
> (honorable) musical thinking. I'm not sure such broad and aimless
> cliches effect much, but if you do, enjoy.
Dude, you completely missed the point of what I said. I really spend
almost no time thinking or grousing about Britney or rappers. I was
using them as ONE example of not-so-high skill levels in so-called
professional music because Dennis said pros discourage amateurs
because of their skill. You're like a blind pit bull; you'll bite at
anything and try and shake it to pieces.
> The EXACT same thing that discosucks (tm) promulgated is reflected in
> karaokesucks (tm). I don't give a damn what you think about good
> vocalists, bad vocalists, who is to be admired, who is to be villified
> or how offensive the word SHARE is to you: karaoke is a good thing.
> It's good for people, it's good for community, it's good fun, it's good
> for promoting an interest in music, it's good for promoting an interest
> in participating in music. It's good.
I was using karaoke as an example of how amateurs make music without
necessarily being good at it or being "professional," again, in
response to Dennis's post. Jesus Cristo, I wasn't vilifying it; don't
get your panties all in a wad.
>
> Rap was inexpensive to produce, easy
> to find "artists", easy to market by independent businessmen. If they
> had a full and expansive "urban pop" style hogging the road, that might
> not have been so easy. Try to read that without being concluding it
> says "you're a racist". It's not about you. ]
I'm going to go on record that rap was made popular completely by
design because it glorifies drug culture. To understand why I believe
this and think it's important I suggest every American read and re-
read the chapter from Michael Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon
entitled "The CIA is Wall Street, Wall Street is the CIA, and Drug
Money is King." Another must-read on the subject, though it would have
been a much better book with the aid of a good editor, is The Drug War
by Dan Russell.
> It would
> be helpful to that same process not only to avoid carping about
> karaoke, about which there is absolutely nothing wrong culturally at
> any level at all, but to show your support for it.
See above. No carping or using any other type of fish. I really don't
give a carp who karaokes.
Clay
Gerry
> "Gerry" <some...@sunny.calif> wrote
>>
>> I think karaoke and American Idol are two reasons why some people have
>> taken back a modicum of control on this.
>
> Gerry: This really jumped off the screen at me. The only control being
> asserted here is that of major showbiz financial interests. The contestants
> are mere fodder. There is a strong element of exploitation in a show like
> this too especially when mediocre participants are subjected the abuse of
> the commentators.
I don't agree. I think seeing "average" people singing on TV makes
other "average" people think they can sing too. They can.
>> It isn't quite as unhip or uncool to sing somewhere other than from a
>> stage. I think that's good.
>
> I may be misreading you here but singing from a stage doesn't mean the
> singing is any good. .....joe
I'm not talking about your good or your bad or anybody else's. As long
as people are intimidated by what other people sing, that many fewer
people get to find the joy of making music.
Gerry
> There is still a difference between pop culture and actual culture. It's a
> big huge difference.
"Actual culture". Popular culture isn't "actual"? The world culture
is usually preceded by an indiction of subset: national culture, social
culture, popular culture. The distinctions of all are not easily found
in consensus.
> Talking about the distinctions is part of how we
> promote, protect and preserve the real thing.
The slippery slope now is the "real thing". Whatever your definition
of that is, I can guarantee a difference of opinion.
> Sometimes it means pointing
> out something that is detrimental to the things we wish to defend.
Whether high ar or low art, people with an interest in art will jump in
with their viewpoints.
Gerry
> You're like a blind pit bull; you'll bite at anything and try and shake
> it to pieces.
I disagree with another's viewpoint and that makes me a pit bull. And
here you are doing the same thing, making you poodle, I suppose? Other
references to me below are laundered for the appearance of civility.
> I was using karaoke as an example of how amateurs make music without
> necessarily being good at it or being "professional," again, in
> response to Dennis's post.
Re-read my message for content and you'll see that I disagree with the
mundane villification of karaoke. We were talking about karaoke and
that's my viewpoint. If it turns out that you're a supporter of
karaoke, then my apologies.
>> Rap was inexpensive to produce, easy
>> to find "artists", easy to market by independent businessmen. If they
>> had a full and expansive "urban pop" style hogging the road, that might
>> not have been so easy. Try to read that without being concluding it
>> says "you're a racist". It's not about you. ]
>
> I'm going to go on record that rap was made popular completely by
> design because it glorifies drug culture.
That sounds unlikely to me. You can't sell something to a market that
is satisfied with another product. You can't sell something to people
who don't want it.
Gerry
> "Gerry" <some...@sunny.calif> wrote
>
>> I made a reference only to the fact that karaoke is not "usually" bad,
>> and point out it doesn't make any difference what you or others l think
>> about it's quality.
>
> Gerry: Karaoke is egotism run amok.
Karaoke is a machine.
> To me it's not just that it's "usually bad", it's much worse than that.
> It encourages unpleasant displays of
> narcissism.
All singers singing with a machine are bad?
> It devalues what real performers deliver.
"Real performers", thank god for them. And what is the difference
between "real" and "unreal" performers again? A few bucks?
How about you, as a musician; aren't you providing "unpleasant displays
of narcissim".
>> Disco didn't suck.
>
> omg. If I get a vote, I say it sucked.
Sure, everybody loves a slogan, and hopefully as thin on content as possible.
Did you think that Stevie Wonder and Marvin Gaye and EW&F were disco?
They got the discosucks (tm) vote during the 70's too. That's why I
bitched then. That's why I bitch now.
rakmanenuff
> karaoke is a good thing.
> It's good for people, it's good for community, it's good fun, it's good
> for promoting an interest in music, it's good for promoting an interest
> in participating in music. It's good.
According to an interview, the singer in the rock band Catatonia
used to seek out the nearest karaoke bar after finishing her
concerts in foreign countries. That way she could drink and sing
with the locals, and I can totally see why that would be more
fun than receiving VIP treatment in some upmarket club or
staying in her hotel room practicing sophisticated vocal technique.
> [ Editorial digression: I think that when discosucks (tm) finished it's
> job it left a hole so big in pop music you could drive a truck--or a
> new style like rap, right through. Rap was inexpensive to produce, easy
> to find "artists", easy to market by independent businessmen. If they
> had a full and expansive "urban pop" style hogging the road, that might
> not have been so easy.
Haha, I've read some discussions about rap and disco in other
forums and the topics usually revolve around the following:
"Ass music": The old school disco funkers think hip hop is too slow
and can't understand why people think it's good dance music.
The girls dance, but the men just stand there.
"Real instruments" The old school brigade preach the importance
of real instruments, then refer to a drum machine/synth funk track
they used to dance to in 1983 as proof of why real music was
better. It's impossible to generalize without at some point
contradicting oneself or becoming a hypocrite. Whether it's about
rap, mariachi or Kenny G.
"Soul". The vocal purists want real singing, the ass purists
just wanna dance. Neither of the two like hip hop. But then the
old school hip hoppers don't like the new hip hop either...
All these stylistic preferences are ok, even the dreaded "jazz
snobbery" is a good thing in my opinion. I wish there were more
funk purists around instead of ppl thinking that rigid, machine-like
slapping on the bass or abstract fretless solos have something
to do with funk. Maybe this "mis-labelling" is the reason for
Kenny G being such an icon in this forum....
I like smooth jazz personally.
But they're preferences, not universal truths.
I've got a Mexican version of Beatles' Hey Jude on CD and
it's the funniest thing ever LOL.
rakmanenuff
>
> I'm going to go on record that rap was made popular completely by
> design because it glorifies drug culture.
Half of your jazz heroes were on heroin, so maybe jazz glorifies
drug culture too then. But otherwise yeah "Trapstar" by Nivea,
"rob the liquor store" and whatnot.
You can turn almost anything into a conspiracy theory if you
want to, and even find facts to back it all up. There may be
elements of truth there, but also generalizations that don't make
any sense. There are many types of hip hop that don't glorify
drug culture, like Christian rap for instance. Maybe those are
less marketable or less visible, but they're very much "rap".
What's wrong with Kenny G anyway?
Gerry
> "Real instruments" The old school brigade preach the importance
> of real instruments, then refer to a drum machine/synth funk track
> they used to dance to in 1983 as proof of why real music was
> better. It's impossible to generalize without at some point
> contradicting oneself or becoming a hypocrite. Whether it's about
> rap, mariachi or Kenny G.
A hypocrite might be a little strong. It's certainly difficult to cover
your general prejudice--that is the decisions you made about the
general which you then apply willy-nilly to all the specific.
> All these stylistic preferences are ok, even the dreaded "jazz
> snobbery" is a good thing in my opinion.
Again it's only "snobbery" if somebody puts down YOUR favorites. I
think it's important to have standards by which you judge things. It's
impossible for everyone to use your standards, of course. But when we
talk about jazz snobs among the jazz loyalists, it's certainly quite
different than listening to jazz loyalists "critique" pop, rap, et al.
> I wish there were more funk purists around instead of ppl thinking that
> rigid, machine-like
> slapping on the bass or abstract fretless solos have something
> to do with funk. Maybe this "mis-labelling" is the reason for
> Kenny G being such an icon in this forum....
> I like smooth jazz personally.
Smooth jazz sucks! :-)
> But they're preferences, not universal truths.
> I've got a Mexican version of Beatles' Hey Jude on CD and
> it's the funniest thing ever LOL.
It's only in recent years I've begun to explore Mexican pop/folk musics
like ranchera and banda. Hell, if I'm going to listen to it sitting at
a red-light all day long I might as well try to get into it...
Joe Finn
>Frank Sinatra's Capitol recordings were pop culture that happened to
be high art. Satchmo was popular as well.
>Heck, Beethoven was hugely popular and attracted enormous crowds, as
>did Verdi. This was the pop music of it's day. Unless you're simply
>assuming your own conclusions in your terminology, I'm not sure what
>you're talking about.
I'm talking about intent. Some efforts at commerciality are somehow
perceived as art while certain forms of artistic expression achieve wide
popularity. Your examples are a perfect illustration.
The other point is that art is worth preserving, protecting, etc.
Joe Finn
>
> "Actual culture". Popular culture isn't "actual"?
No. You have to look at the intent. Artistic expression is by definition put
forward as such. That's actual culture. Pop culture has more to do with
bringing certain commercial presentations to the marketplace in hopes of
turning a profit.
>
> The slippery slope now is the "real thing". Whatever your definition of
> that is, I can guarantee a difference of opinion.
I'm referring to art as the real thing. The definitions are well known.
People will quibble over specific works and whether or not they rise to the
standard; but the standards themselves pretty clear.
>
> Whether high art or low art, people with an interest in art will jump in
> with their viewpoints.
And that's as it should be. When you love something, as in the instance of
jazz music, you want to protect it, preserve it and promote it. You want it
to grow and flourish. .....joe
Joe Finn
>
> "Real performers", thank god for them. And what is the difference between
> "real" and "unreal" performers again? A few bucks?
A real performer is someone who is presenting honest work as performing art.
The performance is put forward with earnest intent, a high level of
technical mastery that can take years to develop, and a certain level of
originality.
This is really not about money.
>
> How about you, as a musician; aren't you providing "unpleasant displays of
> narcissim".
I certainly hope not. 8-)
...............................joe
Joe Finn
"Gerry" <some...@sunny.calif> wrote in message
news:2008052312355716807-somewhere@sunnycalif...
> On 2008-05-23 10:30:28 -0700, "Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> said:
>
>>
>> Gerry: This really jumped off the screen at me. The only control being
>> asserted here is that of major showbiz financial interests. The
>> contestants
>> are mere fodder. There is a strong element of exploitation in a show like
>> this too especially when mediocre participants are subjected the abuse of
>> the commentators.
>
> I don't agree. I think seeing "average" people singing on TV makes other
> "average" people think they can sing too. They can.
Some sing better than others, but that's not the point. The entire
production is under the control of major corporations who are cashing in big
time. A major component of the presentation seems to be exploiting the
humiliation of some poor sap getting kicked off the show, no? It's not just
that the show is of no significance. It embarrasses people publicly and
encourages the viewer to laugh at someone's pain and disappointment. That's
some sorry shit.
> I'm not talking about your good or your bad or anybody else's. As long as
> people are intimidated by what other people sing, that many fewer people
> get to find the joy of making music.
If you want intimidation just listen to the announcer on the show!! I don't
know his name but he's the snotty one with the british accent. He is
downright abusive at times and it's ugly. He seems less interested in the
joy of making music and much keener on bullying, humiliating and
embarrassing people. He deals in dashed hopes and burst balloons. He's made
a career of it from what I can see.
.....................joe
rakmanenuff
> A real performer is someone who is presenting honest work as performing art.
> The performance is put forward with earnest intent, a high level of
> technical mastery that can take years to develop, and a certain level of
> originality.
According to the dictionary a "performer" is someone who
"entertains an audience"..
But I suppose if the performer is a real fake, or a fake real..
hold on... or if the audience is a bunch of fakes too.. hmm.
Maybe if the performer is a REAL fake he could go on
reality TV and fake it.
Or he can keep it real with a "fake book". Stranger things
have happened.
> This is really not about money.
"Honest work", but not money. Awesome.
Joe Finn
"rakmanenuff" <rakma...@hotmail.com> wrote
> On May 24, 3:44 am, "Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> wrote:
>
>> A real performer is someone who is presenting honest work as performing
>> art.
>> The performance is put forward with earnest intent, a high level of
>> technical mastery that can take years to develop, and a certain level of
>> originality.
>
> According to the dictionary a "performer" is someone who
> "entertains an audience"..
That's ok if your definition of entertainment is broad enough to include
serious performing art like opera, ballet, theatre, music, etc.
> But I suppose if the performer is a real fake, or a fake real..
> hold on... or if the audience is a bunch of fakes too.. hmm.
A comedian who entertains an audience with a dummy and some ventriloquism is
showing us something we all know is not real. We suspend our disbelief and
laugh at the jokes. We don't care that the dummy is not a real performer.
> Maybe if the performer is a REAL fake he could go on
> reality TV and fake it.
That reminds me.
We don't see enough female impersonators on tv anymore. 8-)
> Or he can keep it real with a "fake book". Stranger things
> have happened.
I see guys faking it with a real book too but that's not unusual.
>
>> This is really not about money.
>
> "Honest work", but not money. Awesome.
Of course you know I'm refering to honest artistic work here. There's no
money in friendship, no money in love. There's no money in having a child
either but our humanity steers us in the direction of friendship, love and
raising children. Art is a labor of love and no, it's not about money; it's
about humanity. ....joe
Joe Finn
>
> According to the dictionary a "performer" is someone who
> "entertains an audience"..
>
> But I suppose if the performer is a real fake, or a fake real..
> hold on...
I know your comment is somewhat tongue in cheek but there is another common
everyday performance example. A theatrical presentation features actors that
are playing roles. We know they are not really the characters they are
portraying, it's just play-acting. Our enjoyment of the presentation
requires the suspension of disbelief. All kinds of other performers and
entertainers are presenting us with various illusions too. Apart from the
value of such a presentation the technique of illusion is quite common.
Gerry
>> "Actual culture". Popular culture isn't "actual"?
>
> No. You have to look at the intent. Artistic expression is by definition put
> forward as such. That's actual culture. Pop culture has more to do with
> bringing certain commercial presentations to the marketplace in hopes of
> turning a profit.
For god's sake buy a dictionary.
>> The slippery slope now is the "real thing". Whatever your definition of
>> that is, I can guarantee a difference of opinion.
>
>
> I'm referring to art as the real thing. The definitions are well known.
Great. It should be really easy to cite them from an authoritative source.
Gerry
>> "Real performers", thank god for them. And what is the difference between
>> "real" and "unreal" performers again? A few bucks?
>
> A real performer is someone who is presenting honest work as performing art.
> The performance is put forward with earnest intent, a high level of
> technical mastery that can take years to develop, and a certain level of
> originality.
It's impossible to claim "reality" about performers based on
projections regarding their honesty, originality and all the rest,
except as thoroughly anemic rhetoric.
A "real performer" is somebody who performs in front of an audience,
whether they are good or bad, paid or otherwise. Look it up in the
worst of dictionaries and check what the worlkd thinks a performer is.
Quality never qualified a performance by definition. This is the same
intellect-in-the-mist that states, as someone does here about once a
year, that they aren't an artist as a guitarist, because they "aren't
that good yet". It's pretty simple: an artist is somebody who produces
art. A performer is somebody who performs. Their level, style, intent,
honesty, originality are factors that make them an "unoriginal artist"
or a "predictable performer" and so forth.
You are free, of course, to invent your own lexicon. It's just that it
makes it difficult to talk meaningfully to others if your words have
such a highly personal definitions. I can see how the word "artist"
takes on cultural baggage, seems to some to involve pretension or
self-indulgence. But that's just parochial sensibilities. But even
"performer"? Sheesh...
Gerry
>>> Gerry: This really jumped off the screen at me. The only control being
>>> asserted here is that of major showbiz financial interests. The
>>> contestants are mere fodder. There is a strong element of exploitation
>>> in a show like this too especially when mediocre participants are
>>> subjected the abuse of the commentators.
>>
>> I don't agree. I think seeing "average" people singing on TV makes other
>> "average" people think they can sing too. They can.
>
> Some sing better than others, but that's not the point. The entire
> production is under the control of major corporations who are cashing in big
> time. A major component of the presentation seems to be exploiting the
> humiliation of some poor sap getting kicked off the show, no?
You think the show is about humiliation and dismissal. I think it's a
show about singers singing in competition. Either way the show is
comprised of actual people singing.
> It's not just that the show is of no significance. It embarrasses
> people publicly and
> encourages the viewer to laugh at someone's pain and disappointment. That's
> some sorry shit.
You say the competition is all about the pain of the loser. I say it's
all about the victory of the winners. Every show has a lot more
winners than losers don't they?
>> I'm not talking about your good or your bad or anybody else's. As long as
>> people are intimidated by what other people sing, that many fewer people
>> get to find the joy of making music.
>
> If you want intimidation just listen to the announcer on the show!! I don't
> know his name but he's the snotty one with the british accent. He is
> downright abusive at times and it's ugly. He seems less interested in the
> joy of making music and much keener on bullying, humiliating and
> embarrassing people. He deals in dashed hopes and burst balloons. He's made
> a career of it from what I can see.
I think you're talking about a judge, Simon, who critiques their
performance after the fact. I think he's the only one of the lot that
has much candor. Would you want a critique that didn't concentrate on
any of your failings?
In any case I don't give a damn whether it's a good show or not. I've
seen it a few times but never watch it except by accident perhaps once
a year. My point is that millions of people do watch it, and I think
it's at least partially responsible for people believing that they are
"as good as those folks" and thus have an interest in singing. I don't
really care how people get interested and excited about the idea of
performing, learning an instrument, participating in art. I'm just
glad they do.
Joe Finn
> On 2008-05-23 19:31:40 -0700, "Joe Finn" <J...@JoeFinn.net> said:
>
>>
>> No. You have to look at the intent. Artistic expression is by definition
>> put
>> forward as such. That's actual culture. Pop culture has more to do with
>> bringing certain commercial presentations to the marketplace in hopes of
>> turning a profit.
>
> For god's sake buy a dictionary.
Well, let's see, what definitions are we really concerned with here? Intent?
Artistic expression? I think pop culture is clearly what we're talking
about. Why is it called "pop" culture? Is there a reason that we feel like
we need a definitive way of distinguishing it from some other kind of
culture? What is it about the nature of popularity that makes the use of
the phrase "pop culture" uniquely suited to describing certain forms of
expression? Is it the commerciality? Profit motive?
>> I'm referring to art as the real thing. The definitions are well known.
>
> Great. It should be really easy to cite them from an authoritative
> source.
We've touched on this before. If you like I can review that topic at some
point. ...joe
Joe Finn
>
> It's impossible to claim "reality" about performers based on projections
> regarding their honesty, originality and all the rest, except as
> thoroughly anemic rhetoric.
You have to appreciated the context. I am referring to a type of reality
that comes from the years it takes to develop the technique to perform at a
high level. There is a reality that comes from being steeped in a style and
it's traditions. The reality that allows a great performer to make a sincere
and original artistically valid statement in his given milieu.
As much as we love the finger paintings of five year old children it's not
art. It's not put forward as such.
> A "real performer" is somebody who performs in front of an audience,
> whether they are good or bad, paid or otherwise. Look it up in the worst
> of dictionaries and check what the worlkd thinks a performer is. Quality
> never qualified a performance by definition. This is the same
> intellect-in-the-mist that states, as someone does here about once a year,
> that they aren't an artist as a guitarist, because they "aren't that good
> yet". It's pretty simple: an artist is somebody who produces art. A
> performer is somebody who performs. Their level, style, intent, honesty,
> originality are factors that make them an "unoriginal artist" or a
> "predictable performer" and so forth.
Yes, but quality is the real issue here isn't it? Being an artist means
putting something forward that is of very high quality. The technical and
conceptual aspects of this are obvious. Part of the reason that the art
resonates with the audience in the way that it does is that it has this
certain characteristic high level of technical expression. The level, style,
intent, honesty, and originality are indeed among the key factors that
distinguish real art and culture from pop art, pop culture, etc.
> You are free, of course, to invent your own lexicon. It's just that it
> makes it difficult to talk meaningfully to others if your words have such
> a highly personal definitions. I can see how the word "artist" takes on
> cultural baggage, seems to some to involve pretension or self-indulgence.
> But that's just parochial sensibilities.
Like you said an artist creates art. Art is something that taps into deeper
levels of eternity and universality regarding the human condition. It's an
uplifting and spiritual thing. I didn't invent this stuff but it's a good
idea for people in the arts to reflect on this from time to time.
>But even "performer"? Sheesh...
Oh, come on now!! The stripper down at the local titty bar is a "performer".
8-) ..............joe
Joe Finn
>
> I think you're talking about a judge, Simon, who critiques their
> performance after the fact. I think he's the only one of the lot that has
> much candor. Would you want a critique that didn't concentrate on any of
> your failings?
The little I've seen of this involved no candor. I saw condescension and
condemnation. He wants to rain on somebody's parade. It's like the gong show
minus the humor. If this is what passes for mass market pop culture
entertainment these days, you can have it. I think it is deplorable to set
people up for disappointment and embarrassment in front of a tv camera the
way they do.
> In any case I don't give a damn whether it's a good show or not. I've
> seen it a few times but never watch it except by accident perhaps once a
> year. My point is that millions of people do watch it, and I think it's at
> least partially responsible for people believing that they are "as good as
> those folks" and thus have an interest in singing. I don't really care
> how people get interested and excited about the idea of performing,
> learning an instrument, participating in art. I'm just glad they do.
It's a bad show. It represents a certain insidious and negative force in
popular media today. I believe it does the opposite of what you suggest. The
message seems to be that if your singing does not meet a certain standard
you should sit down and shut up. I don't watch this nonsense but children
do. I believe they are getting some bad messages. Part of the message is
that a performer could or even should be the object of ridicule and scorn if
their technique is judged to be wanting. I object to the idea that
ridiculing others is an ok thing to do. I find this offensive. .......joe
