RESULTS - 1967 ALBUMS - FINALS
SavoyBG
CONSOLATION ROUND - THIRD PLACE
Buffalo Springfield - Buffalo Springfield Again - Atco 226 vs. Byrds - Younger
Than Yesterday - Columbia 9442
BYRDS TAKE 3rd PLACE, 22 to 18
CHAMPIONSHIP
Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band - Capitol 2653 vs. Doors - The
Doors - Elektra 74007
NO CONTEST, SGT. PEPPER CRUSHES THE DOORS, 29 to 11
Interesting that the Buffalo Springfield album did the best head to head with
Sgt. Pepper (20 to 13), but yet lost to the Byrds album, which lost to the
Doors album. Then the Doors goes and gets thumped by Sgt. Pepper.
As I type this I am listening to the Pepper album, and I must admit, that it's
a lot better as an album than in just listening to one of the songs by itself.
There is only one song on the album (A Day In The Life) that made my top 100
for 1967, but almost every song on the album IMO is at least good or very good,
other than "Within You, Without You." I would guess that if I stretched out my
1967 list to a top 250 for the year that there would probably be about 9 songs
from the album on the list.
In contrast, I listened to the Doors album just before this, and there's NO WAY
that it is as good of an album as Sgt. Pepper, despite the fact that there are
two songs on it that are excellent IMO, it just doesn't have the same kind of
FEEL to it that would place it up in the category of SP as an ALBUM.
I think almost everybody who voted in this tournament has albums from 1967 that
they like better than Sgt. Pepper, but all of us differ on which albums that we
think are better, thus, most likely the right album emerged as the winner of
the tournament.
The next year I will do will be 1960. I have a preliminary list already, and
the albums from that year are very weak, so weak that I am only going to award
automatic berths in the "Tournament Of Champions" to the final four albums from
1960, instead of the final eight albums like in the other years. I may do the
same for 1961, it depends on what the list looks like when I get to it. This
leaves more room for "at-large" berths from the later years, where there are
many more deserving albums.
Here are the albums that so far have been given berths into the "Tournament Of
Champions."
AUTOMATIC BERTHS:
1962:
Bobby Bland - Here's The Man!!!
Ray Charles - Modern Sounds In C & W Music
Ray Charles - Modern Sounds In C & W Music (Volume 2)
Dion - Lovers Who Wander
Drifters - Save The Last Dance For Me
Howlin' Wolf - Howlin' Wolf
Roy Orbison - Crying
Ike & Tina Turner - Dynamite
1967:
Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band
Buffalo Springfield - Buffalo Springfield
Buffalo Springfield - Buffalo Springfield Again
Byrds - Younger Than Yesterday
Cream - Disraeli Gears
Doors - Strange Days
Doors - The Doors
Jimi Hendrix - Are You Experienced
1968:
Bob Dylan - John Wesley Harding
Jimi Hendrix - Axis: Bold As Love
Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland
Kinks - Something Else
Rolling Stones - Beggars Banquet
Simon & Garfunkel - Bookends
Beatles - White Album
Van Morrison - Astral Weeks
1969:
Beatles - Abbey Road
CCR - Green River
CCR - Willie And The Poor Boys
Neil Young - Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere
Rolling Stones - Let It Bleed
Sly & The Family Stone - Stand
Spirit - The Family That Plays Together
Zombies - Odessey & Oracle
AT-LARGE BERTHS (SO FAR):
1962:
Johnny Cash - Sound Of Johnny Cash
1967:
Beatles - Magical Mystery Tour
Aretha Franklin - I Never Loved A Man
Jefferson Airplane - Surrealistic Pillow
Kinks - Face To Face
Left Banke - Walk Away Renee/Pretty Ballerina
Velvet Underground - Velvet Underground & Nico
The Who - Happy Jack (A Quick One)
1968:
The Band - Music From Big Pink
Johnny Cash - Johnny Cash At Folsom Prison
Kinks - Village Green Preservation Society
Love - Forever Changes
The Who - The Who Sell Out (Sorry Todd)*
1969:
The Band - The Band
CCR - Bayou Country
Crosby, Stills & Nash - Crosby, Stills & Nash
Led Zeppelin - Led Zeppelin II
* My thinking on the Who album. The fact that it got a real tough matchup early
in the 1968 tournament against the eventual winner (The White Album), and did
about as well against the Beatles' album as any other album did warrants giving
it a berth in the "Tournament Of Champions." That, along with its status of
being in this newsgroup's hall of fame IMO override the fact that it lost in an
early round matchup.
IMO, if I don't give it a TOC berth, the album ends up paying a double price
for its rough early round matchup. I see it as more equitable to give a strong
album a chance to redeem itself by possibly winning a few rounds in the TOC
than to not include it. My objective for the TOC is to get the stronger albums
in there if possible, rather than just sticking some weaker album that had a
lucky draw, and that would most likely get crushed in the first round of the
TOC.
So far we have 49 albums that have qualified for the TOC. There will be another
40 or 44 automatic berths in the reaming 6 years (60, 61, 63, 64, 65, 66). Even
if I include 8 automatic berths in 1961, that's still leaves room for 35
at-large berths, most of which would undoubetly come from 64, 65 & 66. In the
end there where probably be some other albums added from 67, 68, and/or 69.
MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html
Todd Lucas
No need to apologize. Depending on the match-ups, it might do pretty
well in the TOC. Even though I might have at least waited to see which
other albums deserve an at-large bid before granting one here, I see
your reasoning.
Todd
PhillyGuy
> Here are the final results from the "Battle Of The Albums" for 1967.
>
> CONSOLATION ROUND - THIRD PLACE
> Buffalo Springfield - Buffalo Springfield Again - Atco 226 vs. Byrds - Younger
> Than Yesterday - Columbia 9442
> BYRDS TAKE 3rd PLACE, 22 to 18
>
>
> CHAMPIONSHIP
> Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band - Capitol 2653 vs. Doors - The
> Doors - Elektra 74007
> NO CONTEST, SGT. PEPPER CRUSHES THE DOORS, 29 to 11
>
> Interesting that the Buffalo Springfield album did the best head to head with
> Sgt. Pepper (20 to 13), but yet lost to the Byrds album, which lost to the
> Doors album. Then the Doors goes and gets thumped by Sgt. Pepper.
>
This may be a case of those completely familiar with BSA, which has
the lion's share (largest apportionment) of their best songs, and
works as well-put together work (as opposed to an uneven album), are
strong fans of its charms, as opposed to those whose extent of
familiarity with the band may be based on their purchase of say,
Retrospective, which the BSA songs don't quite shine as well as in the
context of the original, as often happens with Best Ofs, or even less
familiarity of them (maybe only a track or single or two from BSA).
The argument could be made that it is the 3rd place finisher here at
least unofficially, because didn't it also dispatch "Strange Days",
which some people, like TTC and myself prefer to the first Doors lp?
However, I will give kudos to those were behind Younger Than
Yesterday, which deserves a shout-out as a memorable Byrds album, but
I wouldn't rate it this far ahead of all the other competition myself.
I wonder how it would have finished against either Doors lps, and I'm
not sure it would have beaten Are You Experienced?, and that's a point
to contemplate for a moment for serious about ranking group favorites.
Another way to analyze the results is to compare the top 4 or 5
finishers vs. Sergeant Pepper, head-on. One thing you might want to
try is to re-do these contests in say, in 10 years if people still
care about rec.60's, and use the results here (and elsewhere) in
weighted seedings based on results here.
-tb
JGM
>As I type this I am listening to the Pepper album, and I must admit, that
>it's
>a lot better as an album than in just listening to one of the songs by
>itself.
Ah, finally starting to get it; this goes back to the discussion of a few
rounds back about "influence". After Pepper, any artist that wanted to be
respected had to release albums that were more than a convenient way to collect
a bunch of singles and filler songs. You've claimed that Pepper ruined rock
and roll; far from it. The birth of the rock album didn't *preclude* the
creation and inclusion of great RnR singles, but it added a layer of depth,
emotional arc, and the opportunity for those great jewels of tunes to be placed
in a setting where they shined even more brightly.
JGM
Todd Tamanend Clark
> The next year I will do will be 1960.
To quote Benjamin J. Grimm:
"What a revoltin' development!"
> I have a preliminary list already, and the albums from that year
> are very weak...
Ain't that the truth!
> ... so weak that I am only going to award automatic berths in the
> "Tournament Of Champions" to the final four albums from 1960,
> instead of the final eight albums like in the other years.
See what I mean!
> I may do the same for 1961...
You'll probably have to!
> ... it depends on what the list looks like when I get to it. This
> leaves more room for "at-large" berths from the later years, where
> there are many more deserving albums.
There certainly are!
Which is why I was hoping that we would be voting on 1966 next.
And after that 1965.
And so on in reverse chronology.
- - - -
TODD TAMANEND CLARK
Poet/Composer/Multi-Instrumentalist/Cultural Historian
The Monongahela River, Turtle Island
- - -
Still Available:
Staff, Mask, Rattle (Double CD: Instrumental)
http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/ttc2
Bruce Grossberg
I disagree with this. I still say that Sgt. Pepper, along with Hendrix
was the ruination of rock and roll. The fact that all of these other
artists THOUGHT that they now had to compete with Pepper runied the
music IMO.
The Stones "Satanic" album was a piece of shit, and they soon realized
it and went back to what they did best...rock and roll, in the form of
"Jumpin' Jack Flash."
Once the accent went away from singles, and on to albums, it was all
downhill from there.
Eramon1
>
>Once the accent went away from singles, and on to albums, it was all
>downhill from there.
>
Because, in my opinion, people stopped writing songs that really grabbed people
and got complacent, thinking "this is an album cut" about sub-standard work.
-Eric
Eramon1
>Or...perhaps people stopped writing songs based on superficial hooks,
>and starting aiming deeper.
I would argue that hooks *are* deeper and that they are not at all superficial.
I have a feeling we're gonna disagree on this one!
-Eric
Yogi
news:20040216224948...@mb-m18.aol.com...
The phrase "this is an album cut" precedes the Beatle's Sgt Pepper.
The whole point is that pre Beatles, albums were considered secondary and so
filler like Mr Moonlight was perfectly acceptable. The UK and the Beatles in
particular, declined to put hit singles on LPs, so albums had to have a bit
more effort put into them to justify the purchase. As the sixties wore on
artists thought they had to make an album a coherent whole. And I would say
Sgt Pepper was not the first step on this path - Pet Sounds for example.
Brian Wilson himself thought that Rubber Soul was the album that started the
move.
That being so, dismissing a sub-standard track as "this is an album cut"
doesn't actually make any sense in the period after Sgt Pepper. So I reject
your comment as a oxymoron.
That said, a lot of rubbish was released masquerading as "serious" album
music, but the idea that say Led Zeppelin didn't release any singles because
they were all dismissed as album cuts is simplistic.
PhillyGuy
><snip for brevity>
> was the ruination of rock and roll. The fact that all of these other
> artists THOUGHT that they now had to compete with Pepper runied the
> music IMO.
>
> downhill from there.
Gee, and an older generation of music lovers thought (the emergence
of) Elvis ruined "Good Music", PERIOD. Every form has a 10-year run.
Big Band, roughly '35 to '45, its day in the sun. Classic Pop
Vocalist-dominated? (think young Sinatra, Perry Como, Nat Cole, Peggy
Lee, Jo Stafford, etc.) roughly end of the WWII until "Rock Around The
Clock" (mid-'55). Then Golden Age of Rock and Roll (55-64),
Progressive Rock (Rubber Soul, electrified Dylan, Yardbirds, "I Can't
Get No Satisfaction" (an unforeseen sound)/etc. etc. - and going
forward from there until....Springsteen-Seger-arena rock
leaders/Disco/Punk-New Wave era - roughly '75 to '85 for its day in
the Sun, before giving way to Grunge and Modern Rock. Now some of the
best music is post 1995.
It's an illusion to think you can stop progress. Nothing is more
inevitable than an idea whose time has come.
-Tom
Todd Lucas
>based on superficial hooks, and starting aiming
>deeper.
>I would argue that hooks *are* deeper and that
>they are not at all superficial.
Absolutely, I don't get the viewpoint that says hooks are a bad or even
superficial thing. Hell, The Beatles managed to keep writing pop hooks
into the best of their "deeper" material. It's a damn shame how
overlooked that kind of talent has become.
Todd
Bruce Grossberg
is that there are a ton of great things from BEFORE 1967 that I need
to concentrate on. There were 40 years of great significany music
before that "ALBUM" shit ever came about.
From the Jimmie Rodgers to Robert Johnson and on up, there's much more
that I want to explore about the music of the 20s, 30s, and 40s, the
stuff that led to rock and roll. It holds a lot more interest for me,
than what happened after "Sgt. Pepper" and "Are You Experienced."
The music of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s came out of an era before mass
communications, before records were specifically made in formula
fashion to attempt to have a hit.
The music of these early years was a lot more indicative of life
during those days, instead of artists trying to one-up each other with
some new wrinkle or new concept.
Also, especially for JGM, I know the 50s and earlier are not really
your thing, but there's a ton more kinds of music aside from just what
were, as you termed, "(something like) updates on Rocket 88."
I assume you probably have very little interest in the vocal group
sound of the 50s, for instance, which had nothing whatsoever to do
with "Rocket 88," or the down home blues sounds of people like Sonny
Boy Williamson and Jimmy Reed, who never really changed their sound
over to rock and roll.
When I mentioned that "Sgt. Pepper," worked better as an ALBUM than
the Doors first album, that was not at all an endorsement for the
whole ALBUM format. I still much prefer the uneveness of something
like "Magical Mystery Tour," which has 3 or 4 songs that are better
than anything on "Sgt. Pepper" IMO.
Many years ago AOR radio stations discovered that one of the worst
things that they could do was to program a mediocre track from a
strong album. In the end, music is still about SONGS, not ALBUMS.
JGM
>Also, especially for JGM, I know the 50s and earlier are not really
>your thing, but there's a ton more kinds of music aside from just what
>were, as you termed, "(something like) updates on Rocket 88."
>
>I assume you probably have very little interest in the vocal group
>sound of the 50s, for instance, which had nothing whatsoever to do
>with "Rocket 88," or the down home blues sounds of people like Sonny
>Boy Williamson and Jimmy Reed, who never really changed their sound
>over to rock and roll.
I have little interest in doo-wop and most '50s rock and roll. However,
blues and other roots music (both historic and current) is actually my primary
interest right now, much more so than the Classic rock which dominates the
Album competitions. (However having grown up with the album era, as you grew
up with the '50s RnR era, it's in my blood and, clearly, one man's nostalgia is
another man's poison).
>When I mentioned that "Sgt. Pepper," worked better as an ALBUM than
>the Doors first album, that was not at all an endorsement for the
>whole ALBUM format. I still much prefer the uneveness of something
>like "Magical Mystery Tour," which has 3 or 4 songs that are better
>than anything on "Sgt. Pepper" IMO.
Understood. Personally I find the evolution of the album format fascinating;
it's probably the main contribution Rock music made to popular culture. An
interesting side issue is that CDs have essentially killed the album format,
since what has become the "standard" length of over an hour is too long to hold
a theme or one's attention span; even on multi-disc LPs the side breaks allowed
-- required -- the experience to be broken down into discrete suites. It's no
accident that most symphonic works fit nicely on an album side; this is a
natural length of time for humans to focus on music, I think.
>Many years ago AOR radio stations discovered that one of the worst
>things that they could do was to program a mediocre track from a
>strong album. In the end, music is still about SONGS, not ALBUMS.
True, at least as far as radio goes. The further irony is that in the emerging
world of per-song downloads discs are merely carriers for collections of songs
-- my kids pick MP3s off the computer to play the way we'd stack up singles on
the changer as kids.
JGM
Todd Lucas
>essentially killed the album format, since what
>has become the "standard" length of over an
>hour is too long to hold a theme or one's
>attention span
Not to mention the fact that it's very easy to pick and choose which
tracks you want to hear on a CD, as opposed to a vinyl album.
Todd
Eramon1
>Not to mention the fact that it's very easy to pick and choose which
>tracks you want to hear on a CD, as opposed to a vinyl album.
>
and don't even mention tape!
Brian
An
> interesting side issue is that CDs have essentially killed the album format,
> since what has become the "standard" length of over an hour is too long to hold
> a theme or one's attention span; even on multi-disc LPs the side breaks allowed
> -- required -- the experience to be broken down into discrete suites.
While the album format is in decline nowadays (though I belive not, as
some have asserted, on the way to becoming extinct entirely), and it's
certainly true that for a long time CDs really were entirely too
lengthy with even really strong records like BloodSugarSexMagik having
just too damm much of the same damm stuff to maintain anyone's
interest all the way through, In the past few years I've noticed a
trend of artists seeing the error of those ways and releasing CDs of
much more reasonable lengths and finding that their fans don't feel
ripped off. The album by that new group The Darkness is listed as
being less than 40 minutes; a few years ago it that sort of
commercially oriented "big" arena type Hard Rock album would almost
certainly have had to have filled an entire CD. And some of the
albums are downright short: Weezer's CDs are all well under a half
hour (except for maybe the first one I think), and I think it was Sum
41 whose first album was under 25 minutes, and some people weren't
even sure if it should be considered an album or some kind of EP. Not
surprisingly, it seems to be the younger bands who are catching on to
this, with the Older artists who had to learn to adapt to the change
to CDs in the first place proving more reluctant to discard the idea
that an album has to fill up an entire CD whether you've really got
the material for it or not.
It's no
> accident that most symphonic works fit nicely on an album side; this is a
> natural length of time for humans to focus on music, I think.
Actually, when they were first developing the CD format, I believe the
original 74 minute maximum length of a CD was chosen because it was
just long enough to fit the maximum length of some sort of category of
classical music piece, some sort of opera or something that one of the
designers happened to have a fondness for (back then CDs were seen as
mostly high-end audiophile type items, largely intended as a format
for "serious" Classical-type music).
I've always thought that in certain ways the "Symphony" format of
Classical Music was an interesting parallel to the later concept of a
unified "album": both consisted of music divided into several discrete
sections that was nevertheless intended to be heard all together in a
particular order, and in somewhat different ways the work was expected
to be unified by the music all having a common theme or feel. And
while symphonies are sometimes performed in their entirety, in most
cases it seems that just like with albums that contain one or two hit
singles, there's generally only one or perhaps two sections of most
symphonies that are performed 99% of the time, which seem to stand up
perfectly well on their own outside the larger piece they were
intended to be a part of and so become among the composer's most
widely recognized, popular "hits", and interestingly these are usually
the sections with what some might call the most recognizable, catchy,
hummable "hooks". In certain ways, it seems like things haven't
changed nearly as much as we think.
(And if you want to extend the analogy to the point of absurdity, you
could sort of consider Beethoven's 9th Symphony, with it's running
time of well over an hour, and such unprecedented, experimental, and
perhaps even gimmicky touches as the inclusion of a vocal chorus
section, as being something akin to the Overblown Progressive Rock
Opus of it's day. At the very least, if some here insist on "blaming"
Ray Charles for Billy Joel, then it makes just as much sense that
Beethoven gets some of the blame for Tales Of Topographic Oceans.)
Brian
Bruce Grossberg
> blues and other roots music (both historic and current) is actually my primary
> interest right now, much more so than the Classic rock which dominates the
> Album competitions. (However having grown up with the album era, as you grew
> up with the '50s RnR era, it's in my blood and, clearly, one man's nostalgia is
> another man's poison).
JGM, I DID NOT grow up with the 1950s era. I was born in 1957, and
never even listened to the radio until late 1968. My interest in 1950s
music was entirely self-propelled. Growing up my favorite artist was
CCR, and I loved things like "Let's Work Together" by Canned Heat and
"I Hear You Knocking" by Dave Edmunds, and I soon discovered
why....because these artists were influenced by the artists that would
eventually become my all time favorites once I started to hear their
records....Fats Domino, Little Richard, Bo Diddley, Elvis, Hank
Williams...etc...
I was crazy about records like "Before You Accuse Me" by CCR and "I
Ain't Got You" (Yardbirds) which I heard on the "History Of Eric
Clapton" album. Little did I know it then, but there were even BETTER
versions of both of those songs out there, that I eventually
discovered.
To me, it was alays about "a sound" that hit me a certain way.
As far as nostalgia goes, for me, the only years that evoke any
nostalgia are from the fall of '68 to around the fall of '72, in the
years before I really started to get interested in older music.
Also, while you may use the term "Doo-Wop" to mean ANY vocal group
from the 50s, there's a big difference between early 50s R & B groups
like the Swallows, Five Keys, Orioles, Clovers, etc... and the
"Doo-Wop" groups of the mid to late 50's.
1950s music does not hold any shred of nostalgic meaning to me. It's
entirely about WHAT the records sound like, NOT about any kind of
memories.
> -- my kids pick MP3s off the computer to play the way we'd stack up singles on
> the changer as kids.
>
> JGM
EXACTLY!!!
That entire "ALBUM" thing was forced on to listeners by the record
companies as a way to make more money. Not only did albums produce
more revenue, but they also btrought way less returns to the record
companies, as 45s were alwqays 100% returnable, and the record
companies were losing a lot of money because of certain people who
figured out ways to take advantage of the return policy on the 45s.
They would buy up 45s cheaply, fresh off jukebox routes, and return
them to the companies. As long as the record was still in the catalog,
they had to take them back, even if they were used.
Of course critics endorsed this whole "ALBUM" concept, as it SEEMED to
be more intelligent and complex, but in reality, MOST people do not
want to listen to "ALBUMS." They want to hear their favorite cuts,
like your kids do.
Brian
> The music of the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s came out of an era before mass
> communications, before records were specifically made in formula
> fashion to attempt to have a hit.
>
> The music of these early years was a lot more indicative of life
> during those days, instead of artists trying to one-up each other with
> some new wrinkle or new concept.
I don't agree that there was any less of an effort for musicians to
one-up each other with a "new wrinkle or concept" back then. Even if
you're a 20's Bluesman strumming an acoustic guitar for a dozen or so
people in a local honky tonk, you still want to find some little thing
to set you apart from the crowd, to find some little signature or
gimmick to get you noticed.
And while the formulas back then were very different and not geared to
"Radio airplay", from what I've read they were definitely there and
every bit as ridged as today. The sales criteria for a "successful"
record might have been much, much less than the sort of numbers we're
familiar with, but it's still a fact that some records sold much
better than others, and got played on jukeboxes much more, and that
when a record did well the record company immediately tried to
reproduce that success by releasing a flood of records in the same
style.
Louie Armstrong first became noticed as a recording artist as an
uncredited sideman when the record company noticed that the discs he
happened to appear on, both under the name of his bandleader King
Oliver and also various other bits of session work, greatly outsold
all their other releases, as people seemed to recognize & seek out his
unique style of playing even if they perhaps didn't know his name. So
they got him on as many records as they could, and gave him ever more
space for his solos (and also tried to get the other trumpet players
they recorded to sound as much like him as possible), so that by the
time he finally recorded under his own name with the "Hot Fives" there
was already a pretty well established formula for a "Louie Armstrong"
record for him to follow (although it would continuously evolve over
time, particularly when he started singing).
And one peculiar type of ridged "formula" from back in the 30's that I
find fascinating is that of Billie Holiday's early Columbia sides (btw
apparently these records were conceived almost entirely with Jukebox
play in mind, relatively few of them were actually sold to people to
play in their homes). The thing I find fascinating about these
records is that while for the most part they're supposedly cheesy,
third rate pop songs of the day, that really doesn't matter because
from the moment the needle drops it's just one really tight,
incredibly inventive jazz solo after another. Billie wouldn't even
start to sing until the record was two thirds over, she'd sing maybe
one or two verses but it somehow seemed like a full & complete song,
and then there'd be one or two more showboating solos, all in the
space of three minutes, and yet it never sounded like aimless jamming,
it always seemed like an actual "song" (even so, if you listen to an
album full of these tracks all at once, you start to realize just how
ridged this "formula" really was). Today a typical Pop song is often
about five minutes long, and in that time they can find space for at
most two instrumental solo breaks, but those two & a half minute early
Billie Holiday cuts often seemed to have four different, wildly
creative solo breaks all fitting together seemlessly in the structure
of a song (often played by some of the greatest names of the era
playing anonymously for a few extra bucks, such was Columbia's & John
Hammond's clout).
Brian
Todd Lucas
>concept, as it SEEMED to be more intelligent
>and complex, but in reality, MOST people do
>not want to listen to "ALBUMS." They want to
>hear their favorite cuts, like your kids do.
>Indeed...I've often noticed a childlike >sensibility to your ideas.
Seriously though Mike, when you're listening to a CD, say in the car, do
you always listen to the entire disc straight through or do you often
jump around to certain songs?
Todd
Bob Roman
> yet it never sounded like aimless jamming,
> it always seemed like an actual "song" (even so, if you listen to an
> album full of these tracks all at once, you start to realize just how
> ridged this "formula" really was).
No artists ever had a more rigid formula than the Ink Spots.
Bob Roman
Brett A. Pasternack
Other than Wesley Willis. B^)
Bruce Grossberg
>
> Seriously though Mike, when you're listening to a CD, say in the car, do
> you always listen to the entire disc straight through or do you often
> jump around to certain songs?
>
> Todd
Todd, I assume thye comment that you responded to was from Mike G.,
since it didn't show up on Google.
It's certainly not just children who want to listen to JUST the tracks
that they like.
Mike G., unfortunately, is a victim of his time, having been
brainwashed by the era that he grew up in, and by the critics, etc.,
into believing that the "ALBUM" was somehow what was important in
music, rather than just the best individual tracks by whomever,
whether they are from and album or not.
The whole ALBUM thing, as I've said before, was just a plan by the
record companies to produce more revenue, and to battle all of the
returns that they were getting on 45s.
In 2004, it's still INDIVIDUAL TRACKS that remane memorable for most
listenrs, NOT albums, and it will always be that way.
Mike G.
> Mike G., unfortunately, is a victim of his time, having been
> brainwashed by the era that he grew up in, and by the critics, etc.,
> into believing that the "ALBUM" was somehow what was important in
> music, rather than just the best individual tracks by whomever,
> whether they are from and album or not.
>
> The whole ALBUM thing, as I've said before, was just a plan by the
> record companies to produce more revenue, and to battle all of the
> returns that they were getting on 45s.
>
> In 2004, it's still INDIVIDUAL TRACKS that remane memorable for most
> listenrs, NOT albums, and it will always be that way.
It still amazes me that anyone takes this pompous moron seriously. Also
amazing, how he twists a facile "NOTHIN' BUT DA HITS!!!!" mentality into
somehow being more "sophisticated" or "scholarly." Add to this the
bizarre assertion that anyone who appreciates an artist's overall sound
rather than his (often atypical) "catchy singles" must be
"brainwashed"....
Idiocy.
I half-expect to hear him start ranting about "horseless carriages," one
of these days.
Bruce Grossberg
I'm not surprised that you totally misconstrued my post. Your reading
comprehension does seem to be pretty weak at times.
How do you turn "INDIVIDUAL TRACKS" into "Catchy singles?"
I didn't see you answer Todd's question about wheteher or not you
ALWAYS listen to an entire album straight through or not?
Todd Lucas
>"horseless carriages," one of these days.
LMAO!! Pretty funny. I don't know though, Bruce grew up in the album
era, so at least he's not merely nostalgic for the hit single.
Todd
Todd Lucas
>wheteher or not you ALWAYS listen to an entire
>album straight through or not?
He answered but it probably didn't show up where you are. This is what
he said:
>Seriously...I listen to the CD straight through.
>Especially because as someone who is still a
>very active music consumer, I'm playing a CD
>for the first time more often or not.
>The only times I listen to an isolated track from
>a CD is when either 1) I'm trying to figure out a
>song's chords/melody, and need to recheck
>some fuzzily remembered bit, or 2) I read some
>bit of trivia about a particular recording which I'd
>like to check ("Listen to how the guitarist plays
>a wrong note at 1:42"...something like that).
Lou Pecora
gon...@juno.com (Brian) wrote:
> And while the formulas back then were very different and not geared to
> "Radio airplay", from what I've read they were definitely there and
> every bit as ridged as today. The sales criteria for a "successful"
> record might have been much, much less than the sort of numbers we're
> familiar with, but it's still a fact that some records sold much
> better than others, and got played on jukeboxes much more, and that
> when a record did well the record company immediately tried to
> reproduce that success by releasing a flood of records in the same
> style.
I seem to recall a bit of history in which sales of sheet music in the
early parts of the 20th century were also a source of revenue, maybe as
much as the actual records.
Anyone know?
--
-- Lou Pecora
My views are my own.
Mark Dintenfass
<pec...@anvil.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
As I understand it, in the 19th Century sheet music was THE major
source of income for songwriters. In the first part of the 20th century
sheet music income continued to be important, but record sales (and
radio play) gradually overtook it. Still, as late as the early 1950s a
song still had an existence quite independent of records--which is why
many different recorded versions of a song often vied for sales, and
why the "cover record" phenomenon was able to exist--and sheet music
sales of hit songs were still considerable. With the coming of r'n'r,
songs finally became almost completely identified with particular
recorded performances of the songs, and that pretty much relegated the
sheet music market to insignificance. It also ended the "cover" market.
Ever since the 1960s, in a sense, people haven't been buying "songs;"
they have been buying performances. After all, who would want to listen
to his sister plink-playing "Strawberry Fields" or "Stairway to Heaven"
on the family piano?
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
Brian
Well, until a decade or two into the 20th century when the quality of
recordings and home players improved to the point of listenablility, I
think it was actually the main source of income. And of course it was
the *only* source of retail revenue for at least a half century or so
before Edison whipped up his little toy (almost literally down the
street from where I am right now, btw), when most middle class
families had an upright piano in the parlor that they'd all gather
around to sing & play the popular music of the day. This was actually
the start of the Music Business, or at least the humble beginning of
it as a "goods" oriented business having an actual product to
physically sell to the public, rather than purely a service industry
providing musical performances for the public to go and experience
I saw an American Experience show on Stephen Foster in which they made
an interesting case for him being a close analogy to a Pop Music
recording star before the era of recording. Although mostly written
to be performed in Minstrel shows and the like, his songs were the big
pop "hits" of the day, their popularity & success directly measured by
the retail sale of the sheet music to the public, kind of the same
way Billboard has been keeping track of record sales during the
recording era. (Well, there doesn't seem to have been any sort of
comprehensive "chart" of the best selling sheet music of the era
compiled anywhere, but there's no doubt that Foster was far & away the
best selling author of sheet music before the recording era, with a
number of his songs being the best selling sheet music titles for
months on end.
...As far as anyone could tell. Because so much of his popularity was
coming through sheet music sales, Foster's efforts to insure himself a
piece of that were instrumental in helping to establish the very
concept of a song's author receiving his fair share of the money being
generated from selling written transcriptions (and later recordings)of
his music to the public. This meant, among other things, trying for
the first time to seriously & accurately keep track of just what those
sales numbers were. His success was also key in the development &
enforcement of serious music copyright laws, as he and his publisher
had to contend with people printing up & selling unauthorized copies
of his sheet music in quantities that had never been seen before.
Foster was at best only partially successful in trying to get some of
the huge money that was being generated by the sale of his songs
directly to the public (not surprising, we all know how music
publishers & record companies would continue screwing artists out of
their money well over 100 year later), but it was largely the result
of the huge sales he generated that the very notion of a significant
"music industry" making serious money selling their product to the
public came about, and when commercial recordings eventually became
available the business was to some extent all set up & ready for them,
as the whole system for the retail selling of the records, splitting
the proceeds among the record companies & publishers and screwing the
artists, was just adapted straight from the sheet music business.
(and FWIW, I'm sure the sale of piano rolls, which seem to inhabit
some strange middle ground between a printed transcript and actual
recording of a piece of music and were major sellers for a number of
years, are also a big part of the picture somewhere in there as well.)
Brian
Brian
It's been commented on several times here how early Rock & Roll seemed
to coincide with this change of attitude where one particular recorded
performance of a song came to be regarded as the "real" version and
the widespread practice of simultaneous "covers" started to fade away.
But I've been wondering: was it really something about Rock & Roll &
the supposedly spontaneous nature of its performance that sparked this
change in attitude, or was it more that the generation that embraced
the original Rock & Roll music happened to be about the first
generation to truly grow up listening to prerecorded music for the
most part, so that when they would hear a familiar song on the radio
they would have been conditioned to *expect* that it would be not only
the same song but the same performance that they had heard before?
Exactly when did radio in America switch from broadcasting largely
live performances to almost entirely playing records? I think there
were a couple of recording boycotts in the early 40's, where the
musicians union wouldn't let its members participate in any commercial
recording sessions, and I think one of the big issues behind the
strike might have been musicians being compensated for having their
records played on the radio and/or musicians losing work because radio
was starting to play more records and employ musicians for live
performances less.
Brian
Lou Pecora
gon...@juno.com (Brian) wrote:
> (and FWIW, I'm sure the sale of piano rolls, which seem to inhabit
> some strange middle ground between a printed transcript and actual
> recording of a piece of music and were major sellers for a number of
> years, are also a big part of the picture somewhere in there as well.)
Thanks for the history lesson. :-)
SavoyBG
>He answered but it probably didn't show up where you are. This is what
>he said:
>>Seriously...I listen to the CD straight through.
Todd, I find this very hard to believe, and would bet that Mike G. has made
plenty of tapes in his day made up of various tracks from different places.
MY LISTS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg/myhomepage/index.html
SURVEYS - http://hometown.aol.com/savoybg1/myhomepage/index.html
SavoyBG
>Other than Wesley Willis. B^)
Who?
<Insert Mike G. response here>
Mike G.
> >He answered but it probably didn't show up where you are. This is what
> >he said:
>
> >>Seriously...I listen to the CD straight through.
>
> Todd, I find this very hard to believe, and would bet that Mike G. has made
> plenty of tapes in his day made up of various tracks from different places.
That is ABSOLUTELY not true. I have never made a "mixtape" for myself in
my life. Have not made one for anyone else either, unless you count a
few homemade "best of this artist" compilations. One artist per tape.
SavoyBG
>That is ABSOLUTELY not true. I have never made a "mixtape" for myself in
>my life.
You've got to be the only music fan I know who never has.
Mark Dintenfass
<gon...@juno.com> wrote:
> But I've been wondering: was it really something about Rock & Roll &
> the supposedly spontaneous nature of its performance that sparked this
> change in attitude, or was it more that the generation that embraced
> the original Rock & Roll music happened to be about the first
> generation to truly grow up listening to prerecorded music for the
> most part, so that when they would hear a familiar song on the radio
> they would have been conditioned to *expect* that it would be not only
> the same song but the same performance that they had heard before?
> Exactly when did radio in America switch from broadcasting largely
> live performances to almost entirely playing records? I think there
> were a couple of recording boycotts in the early 40's, where the
> musicians union wouldn't let its members participate in any commercial
> recording sessions, and I think one of the big issues behind the
> strike might have been musicians being compensated for having their
> records played on the radio and/or musicians losing work because radio
> was starting to play more records and employ musicians for live
> performances less.
I think several other factors were at work in the change besides the
ones you mention. One is the end of the big band era after WWII, mostly
for economic reasons, and that led to a greater emphasis on vocalists.
(The Frank Sinatra mania in the 40s was one product of this change, and
it foreshadowed a lot of what was to occur later.) Another is the
coming of television, which in a short period of time pretty much
forced radio to go to much cheaper programming. Live music programming
was expensive; playing records was cheap. Still another factor was the
invention of the 45--portable and "unbreakable," perfect for kids.
Still another was the proliferation of the jukebox--for a while a lot
of chart placement was dependent on jukebox distribution and play. All
of that contributed to making the particular recording more important
than the song. But r'n'r was important, too. If you had recordings by,
say, Patti Page and Doris Day competing in the marketplace, you might
settle for buying either without worrying too much about which
performance was marginally better than the other. And a deejay might
program either one without worrying about audience reaction.
Stylistically, they'd be very similar. But when your choice was between
Pat Boone and Little Richard, then performance became everything. The
choice divided the audience starkly (people still say amazingly bitter
things to each other about these things over in the 50s group), and a
deejay choosing one over the other was bound to alienate some of his
potential audience. At that point style of performance has become the
commodity, not the song.
SavoyBG
>You're not taking into account that you live in a cave.
What did I just do, tunnel my way to Memphis?
I CERTAINLY know WAY more music fans than you do.
SavoyBG
> I CERTAINLY know WAY more music fans than you do.
>
>And what could you possibly base this assertion on?
1 - My age, I'm 46 years old and have just been around a lot longer than you.
2 - I was in the music business for many years, managing a record store for
about 15 years, and DJing in clubs for even longer than that. The store I
managed specialized in collector's records. I met collectors from all over the
world in there over the years, as well as just mainstream music fans. I knew
every DJ in the North Jersey area, as they all came into the store.
3 - I also worked at record shows, and in running record auctions for a number
of years. At one point I either knew, or was in contact with, virtually every
rock and roll record collector of note in the world.
For around 20 years, everything I did, all day, almost every day, involved
music and records. Virtually everybody I associated with a record collector
and/or a music fan.
I don't know what you do for a living, but unless you are in the record
business, and have been doing that every day for many years, it's highly
unlikely you could possibly have been involved with as many music fans as I
have.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> >From: "Brett A. Pasternack"
>
> >Other than Wesley Willis. B^)
>
> Who?
One of the most bizarre artists to come along. Basically, Wesley was a
schizophrenic from Chicago who made music to drown out the voices in his
head. Along the way, he invented a completely new way to write songs,
which makes any other "formula" seem downright open. Basically,
virtually every song he ever wrote was the same song--same melody, same
structure. Quick keyboard intro, four lines of verse, repeat the title
four times, four more lines of verse, repeat the title four more times,
long instrumental break, four more lines of verse, repeat the title four
more times, and close with the words "Rock over London, rock on Chicago"
and a commercial slogan.
Now, some people doubtless just thought it was funny and laughed at him,
but I do think there was something special about him. Part of it was
just his contagious enthusiasm for the music, but a big part of it was
the very fact that it was so formulaic. His songs were intensly
personal, and he wrote about *everything* that happened to him. There's
something about hearing the details of a schizophrenic episode told in
exactly the same way that the same person told you about a concert he
went to and what a good time he had. I feel that I understand Wesley in
a way that I understand few other musicians through their art, and I
also feel that I've come away from his work with a much greater
understanding of mental illness. Also, the guy had a real way with
words; there are some phrases of his that I use a lot and wonder how I
ever did without.
You'd probably hate his stuff, especially since you have so little
interest in lyrics (and, to be fair, most people probably wouldn't like
it), but if you'd like to read about him and download a song or two, you
can do so here:
http://www.alternativetentacles.com/bandinfo.php?band=wesleywillis
You know, I really ought to write a Wesley Willis song about you, Bruce.
B^)
SavoyBG
>Other than Wesley Willis. B^)
>>
>> Who?
<answer snipped>
Brett, thanks, but I really didn't want to know.
Todd Lucas
>made a "mixtape" for myself in my life. Have not
>made one for anyone else either, unless you
>count a few homemade "best of this artist"
>compilations. One artist per tape.
This is sort of interesting. Not sure why you'd ever accuse anyone else
in this group of being anal, after a revelation like that. NEVER?
Todd
Todd Lucas
>everything.
Not really, but the fact that you made special mention of never
including more than one artist per tape seems pretty regimented, as does
always listening to CD's straight through from beginning to end. All
I'm saying is that you throw around terms like "anal" and "obsessive"
all the time and should realize that others can just as easily see you
in that light.
Todd
Inyo
> Here are the final results from the "Battle Of The Albums" for 1967.
>
> CONSOLATION ROUND - THIRD PLACE
> Buffalo Springfield - Buffalo Springfield Again - Atco 226 vs. Byrds - Younger
> Than Yesterday - Columbia 9442
> BYRDS TAKE 3rd PLACE, 22 to 18
Why do so many people continue to think that this Byrds stinker is
such a great album? The best song is Crosby's composition, "Lady
Friend," but if I'm not mistaken, that song (which actually made
Billboard's 100 (in the 80s? I seem to recollect) was not included on
the original 1967 release. "Lady Friend" shows up on the more recently
released CD version of "Younger Than Yesterday."
>
>
> CHAMPIONSHIP
> Beatles - Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Heart's Club Band - Capitol 2653 vs. Doors - The
> Doors - Elektra 74007
> NO CONTEST, SGT. PEPPER CRUSHES THE DOORS, 29 to 11
Only "The Crystal Ship" rates high with me from this 1967 release by
the Doors. "Light My Fire" is such a musical pain in the ass that I
hesitate to even comment on it.
>
> As I type this I am listening to the Pepper album, and I must admit, that it's
> a lot better as an album than in just listening to one of the songs by itself.
> There is only one song on the album (A Day In The Life) that made my top 100
> for 1967, but almost every song on the album IMO is at least good or very good,
My opinion--wnen I first listened to Sgt. Pepper a number of years
ago, there were only two songs on the entire album that I believed
were of genuine musical excellence: "Getting Better" and "A Little
Help From My Friends." Time has not altered that opinion. Sgt. Pepper
was/is the most overrated, overhyped, overproduced LP in the history
of Pop music.
> other than "Within You, Without You." I would guess that if I stretched out my
> 1967 list to a top 250 for the year that there would probably be about 9 songs
> from the album on the list.
"Within You Without You" is a classic throwaway song by Harrison, who
didn't want anything to do with the Pepper project, as I understand
it. Maybe he knew something before anybody else did about the project?
Such prescience deserves high commendation.
By the way, I've always been intrigued by the electric guitar work on
the title tracks (goofy songs, both). Sure sounds like Clapton to me.
Harrison could never capture that kind of clean, crisp, fully
controlled guitar sound. Also, on the White Album, the electric
playing on "Birthday" is most definitely Clapton-sounding. I know he
only received "afterthought" credit for "While My Guitar Gently
Weeps," (quite sporting of the Lads, don't you think?), but add
"Birthday" to an uncredited Clapton, in my opinion.
The Acoustic Guitar Music Of Inyo
http://ojai.topcities.com/music/acousticinyo.html
(if you receive a topcities.com error message, please try again later
on. Sometimes I exceed my day's allotte bandwidth and my server simply
shuts me down for a short while.)
SavoyBG
>But you're a documented reclusive wanker, who ignores the world and
What exactly is a "wanker?"
I would say the opposite, that you, with your practice of ALWAYS playing an
album all the way through, and NEVER listening to mucis in any other fashion,
are ignoring the world, and the way that most others in the world prefer to
listen to music.
>lives for such niggling, self-absorbed activities.
So if I had 1,000 tapes of complete albums exactly in the roder that the songs
appeared 0on the albums, that would NOT be self-absorbed.
>Your tastes are essentially static, because you have a huge collection
>yet have no interest in music of the last 20 years.
My tastes run from the 1920s through the 1980s. I am constantly discovering
music that I like a lot, but have never heard before.
My tastes are not static. I don't like any modern music at all (last 12 to 15
years), but my taste among the music of the 20th century does change at times.
I like some 30s and 40s things a lot more than I did 3 or 4 years ago, for
instance.
>So, your collection
>is essentially "complete," with redundant little holes to be filled in
>now and then.
I wish.
But, yes, I have indentified the sound that I like best, and have no interest
in the more modern music. The things that I like best about music were at their
peak in the 1950s (Acoustic bass, sax, piano, simplicity) don't exist much in
modern music.
>You have made absolutely no point here, beyond stating the obvious. And
>somehow, you're determined to switch the issue from whether to play an
>entire album from beginning to end to whether to have all of an album's
>tracks in rotation. Whatever....
The point is that if people were given two choices.
1 - ALWAYS listen to music in only one fashion, by only listening to albums in
their entirety.
2 - ALWAYS listen to music in only one fashion, by only listening to mixed
artist tapes.
I believe that a very small minority would choose # 1.
SavoyBG
>My opinion--wnen I first listened to Sgt. Pepper a number of years
>ago, there were only two songs on the entire album that I believed
>were of genuine musical excellence: "Getting Better" and "A Little
>Help From My Friends."
There's only ONE song that I thought was excellent, "A Day In The Life."
I did think that there were many songs that were "very Good," but not
"Excellent."
>Sgt. Pepper
>was/is the most overrated, overhyped, overproduced LP in the history
>of Pop music.
overrated maybe, but I don't think it is anywhere near the most overhyped or
overproduced album in history.
SavoyBG
>Obviously, it takes a lot more fussing and handwringing to make 1,000
>mixtapes than 1,000 album tapes. Obviously.
Proving a much more intense interest and a devotion to the music.
Any idiot can just buy an album and play 9it all the way through.
It takes a lot more interest and intiative to make mixed tapes.
Lou Pecora
in...@altavista.com (Inyo) wrote:
> Only "The Crystal Ship" rates high with me from this 1967 release by
> the Doors. "Light My Fire" is such a musical pain in the ass that I
> hesitate to even comment on it.
Eh? Some of the stuff on that album is a matter of taste (The End,
Alabama Wiskey Song), but Break on Through, Take it as IT Comes, We're
On our Way, are good rockers. AND Light My Fire was the #1 song in
1967. But that's your opinion, I guess.
-- Lou Pecora
My views are my own.
"The Blues got pregnant, and they called the baby Rock 'n Roll"
- Muddy Waters
SavoyBG
>Oh brother. No, it just takes having an "accountant" perspective on
>music, over a "music lover" one.
No it doesn't, it takes a discerning ear, to do away with the tracks that I
don't want to listen to.
With your inane system, you force yourself to endure bad recordings that you
don't like.
Once again, ANY IDIOT can put an an entire album and just play it.
>Anyway, it makes more sense for you to
>make mixtapes than me, because you have loads of 45s and those are a
>pain to sift through (no spine).
MOST of my mixed tapes were made from albums and CD's, because of better sound
quality than the 45s.
>45s are a teensy percentage
You like words like "teensy" and "tool" huh? But I'm the one who is childish,
right?
> Imagine regarding one's
>personal "mixtapes" as a source of such fierce pride.
I think many of the posters around here feel the same way about their mixed
Brian
> >From: "Mike G."
>
> >Obviously, it takes a lot more fussing and handwringing to make 1,000
> >mixtapes than 1,000 album tapes. Obviously.
>
> Proving a much more intense interest and a devotion to the music.
>
> Any idiot can just buy an album and play 9it all the way through.
>
> It takes a lot more interest and intiative to make mixed tapes.
That's actually not quite as true as it used to be. Since I got my CD
burner, I've found it to be extremely easy, and fun, to rip songs from
different CDs (and even an occasional record or tape), and play around
with re-aranging the running order and maybe even editing the tracks
themeelves to get just the "flow" I want before actually burning the
CD.
Brian
SavoyBG
>Do you ever take a step back and think about what an utter loser you
>look like,
Aren't there any mirrors in your house?
>bragging about your "talent" for listening to an album and
>picking your favorite tracks?
It's not a talent, it's something that everybody does. I'm not saying that I'm
any better at it than anyone else, ONLY that you are a weirdo for ALWAYS
listening to each and every album all the way through.
>Do you honestly think *anyone* doesn't
>take note of which tracks he/she likes most, when playing an album?
You don't. You've already stated that you ALWAYS play each and every album all
the way through from beginning to end, so, by definition, you have t9o play
each song an equal number of times.
>The
>feebleness of your "boasts" just gets funnier and funnier.
Stick around, they aren't going to stop anytime soon.
>Also: As I said before, still being an active music consumer, I'm
>usually listening to albums which I don't know well yet. I simply don't
>have the pre-existing experience to skip the lesser tracks.
>
So you admit that when you listen to older album that you are familiar with
that you SKIP trhe lesser tracks?
>And any idiot can make a list of favorite tracks, albums or artists.
No they can't. It takes time, thought, and initiative. MANY people have
commented to me that they wish they had the dedication needed to rank all of
their favorite recordings, but that it's just too hard.
>It's just a question of having a lifestyle which is idle
Jealous?
>and be so hopelessly narrow
>that you disdain all other forms of creative media.
You're a jack of all trades, master of none.
SavoyBG
>I've found it to be extremely easy, and fun, to rip songs from
>different CDs (and even an occasional record or tape), and play around
>with re-aranging the running order and maybe even editing the tracks
>themeelves to get just the "flow" I want before actually burning the
>CD.
According to Mike G. you are committing a sacrilige.
I spent years researching, looking for recrds, and recording (before CDs even
existed) a gigantic series which chromologically documents the history of R & B
from 1950 through 1970.
Every major and minor hit record is painstakingly recorded with the best
quality possible, and they all come on in the order that you would have heard
them in if you were listening to black radio at that time.
Thousanfds of hours of research and actual recording and documenting time went
into this project.
Let Mike G. go buy his new albums and listen to them. I don't know why he comes
around these parts in the first place.
Taliesyn
> sav...@aol.com (Record Collection Guy) wrote:
>
> But damn, what a hilarious caricature you are. Imagine regarding one's
> personal "mixtapes" as a source of such fierce pride.
>
I don't take kindly to that statement; it's insulting to anyone who
creates things they love.
"Fierce pride?" You're damn right!!!! *I'm* exceedingly proud of some my
mix tapes. They are artistic creations! I don't just simply take a ball
point pen and write "Mix Tape 706" on it. And who the hell makes tapes
anymore anyway? I make CDRs and go the full artistic distance, labels
and all.
I made a special series called The Millennium Collection: Music For The
Ages (no, I don't sell them). Each of the four volumes (5 CDs actually)
has gorgeous medievel-ish covers (you couldn't tell it was home-made!),
accompanied by 48 to 72 page glossy covered booklets, coated paper (full
pages folded in half). Each volume took a half year to make and
contained some of my absolute favorite songs. I had lyrics to every
song, period photos of the artists, bios, who played what instrument,
rare background stories, trivia, etc. Some of the volumes had 100
images. A wonderful, colorful, mini reference work to honour some of my
best loved songs. And from the title you could tell it was begun at the
turn of the Millennium, 1999/2000, when the theme was popular. Since
I've used up all the "great" songs (my opinion, of course!), it may be
the end of that series.
I even digitally remastered (equalized) many of the songs to my own
taste, mixing a couple of the endings differently. Hey, it's for my own
ears, no? We now have the technology to make exact copies of songs,
design and print CD covers and liners every bit as good as store bought
ones, find anything we need to know about an artist on the Internet,
and the power to reshape the actual music to individual taste. Can it
get any better than this?
Let me have my fun - I love certain music and I get an artistic kick
once in a while. There ain't no crime in that. I even design my own
highly artistic greeting cards that people beg to be put on my mailing
list... or is there something unusual about that activity too?
-Taliesyn
SavoyBG
>I don't take kindly to that statement; it's insulting to anyone who
>creates things they love.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should use the
word "create" here.
You are not "creating" anything. You are merely "compiling" something.
ONLY the artist is "creating" something.
>"Fierce pride?" You're damn right!!!! *I'm* exceedingly proud of some my
>mix tapes. They are artistic creations!
They may be artistic "compilations," or "compendiums," but they are definitley
not "creations."
>And who the hell makes tapes
>anymore anyway? I make CDRs and go the full artistic distance, labels
>and all.
The format is not really relevant to the discussion.
Essentially Mike G. is a clown who can't even comprehend the "fierce pride"
that you (and many of us here) feel when we put together a real strong
compilation of music. Rather than understanding what we feel, he portrays me
(and I would guess anyone who feels like you do) as "losers."
Mike G. is a winner because he has every episode of The Simpsons" memorized,
but you and I are losers because we spend countless hours involved with music
that we love.
>I had lyrics to every
>song, period photos of the artists, bios, who played what instrument,
>rare background stories, trivia, etc. Some of the volumes had 100
>images. A wonderful, colorful, mini reference work to honour some of my
>best loved songs. And from the title you could tell it was begun at the
>turn of the Millennium, 1999/2000, when the theme was popular. Since
>I've used up all the "great" songs (my opinion, of course!), it may be
>the end of that series.
>
>I even digitally remastered (equalized) many of the songs to my own
>taste, mixing a couple of the endings differently. Hey, it's for my own
>ears, no? We now have the technology to make exact copies of songs,
>design and print CD covers and liners every bit as good as store bought
>ones, find anything we need to know about an artist on the Internet,
>and the power to reshape the actual music to individual taste. Can it
>get any better than this?
>
>Let me have my fun - I love certain music and I get an artistic kick
>once in a while. There ain't no crime in that. I even design my own
>highly artistic greeting cards that people beg to be put on my mailing
>list... or is there something unusual about that activity too?
>
>-Taliesyn
I commend you for being dedicated to your music.
Like I said to Mike G., ANY IDIOT can just play an album.
It takes a ton of initiative to do what you or I have done with our music
collections.
I think in this case the G. in Mike G. stands for Goofball. He thinks that the
things that I do are so funny, but the fact that he thinks that guys like us
are the ones that look bad here is what's so funny.
Brett A. Pasternack
>
> >From: "Mike G."
> >bragging about your "talent" for listening to an album and
> >picking your favorite tracks?
>
> It's not a talent, it's something that everybody does. I'm not saying that I'm
> any better at it than anyone else, ONLY that you are a weirdo for ALWAYS
> listening to each and every album all the way through.
You said "it takes a discerning ear". Obviously it doesn't.
Todd Lucas
>pain to sift through (no spine).
I've meant to alphabetize mine for the past several years and have never
gotten around to it. So yeah, lots of painful sifting on this end. I
think the best thing about 45's is that you never know what'll turn up
with just a little searching. While a lot of people still regard albums
as collectible, all sorts of old singles get sold off for as little as a
quarter, including some really great stuff.
Todd
Taliesyn
>>From: Taliesyn
>
>
>>I don't take kindly to that statement; it's insulting to anyone who
>>creates things they love.
>
>
> I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should use the
> word "create" here.
>
> You are not "creating" anything. You are merely "compiling" something.
>
> ONLY the artist is "creating" something.
>
>
>>"Fierce pride?" You're damn right!!!! *I'm* exceedingly proud of some my
>>mix tapes. They are artistic creations!
>
>
> They may be artistic "compilations," or "compendiums," but they are definitley
> not "creations."
>
By definition they are compilations of songs. But the complete package -
- with the more than fancy booklets and the "professional" looking
artwork, - becomes a "creation" when I get through with it. I apply the
word "creation" to the entire package. Had I simply written the title
with a ball-point pen I would agree with you. Anyone can make a
compilation. ;-)
-Taliesyn
Taliesyn
Yeah, I found a "rare" Vancouver (BC) single, never played stamped radio
copy, in a pile marked "3 for a $1.00".... That's 33 cents! I would
have gladly paid $50 for it! Anyone else find something dirt cheap they
would have (gladly) paid big bucks for?
I have about 700+ singles, cleaned and indexed in sealed plastic or
those nifty, crisp, clear plastic comic book sleeves. They fit
perfectly. Top left corner has an applied white label identifying each
single. Have them all lined up vertically in a cabinet. Easy to find
anything and nice to just browse.
-Taliesyn
SavoyBG
>Actually, these days a lot of art, both musical and visual, is not made
>"from scratch," but out of "found objects." For example think of those
>hip-hoppers who used to come into the record store and ask you for R&B
>records they could sample.
> I'm with Tali, I think of a perfect mix as a creation.
I have to disagree.
You are not CREATING anything by simply placing full recordings on a tape or a
CD in some particular order.
You are simply COMPILING recordings.
Different story maybe if you were just SAMPLING bits and pieces of certain
recordings to produce some sort of finished product, for instance,"The Flying
Saucer" by Buchanan and Goodman.
But to simply take full existing recorings and place them in a particular order
is NOT a creation.
>For example I take great pleasure in my 3 "That Girl Group Sound!" CD's and
>I feel very happy when I give them to other "girls" who appreciate them.
>
You should, but you still didn't CREATE anything. You COMPILED a bunch of
recordings.
SavoyBG
>Anyone else find something dirt cheap they
>would have (gladly) paid big bucks for?
Of course, tons of times.
I once found a record in a used book store (Lorraine by Buddy Covelle) for 50
cents. I eventually sold it to a guy in Belgium for $150.00.
>I have about 700+ singles, cleaned and indexed in sealed plastic or
>those nifty, crisp, clear plastic comic book sleeves.
Are you saying that 700+ singles is the extent of your entire collection, or
just that you have 700+ singles stored in this one particular way?
SavoyBG
>- with the more than fancy booklets and the "professional" looking
>artwork, - becomes a "creation" when I get through with it.
The booklets I guess can be called creations, but the actual CD or tape itself
is just a compilation.
Taliesyn
>>From: Taliesyn
>
>
>>I have about 700+ singles, cleaned and indexed in sealed plastic or
>>those nifty, crisp, clear plastic comic book sleeves.
>
>
> Are you saying that 700+ singles is the extent of your entire collection, or
> just that you have 700+ singles stored in this one particular way?
>
Referring to just my singles collection. I also have several hundred
albums and CDs. Years ago many old singles were replaced by newer copies
on vinyl albums and CDs later. I threw out a lot singles that meant
nothing to me, but kept some of my very first purchases for posterity.
Bought my first single in '63 - "Blowin' In The Wind", though I don't
have it any more. That's not when I started liking music, that goes back
to the mid-Fifties. I have kept a few of my original 45s from '64 when
I started buying heavily due to surplus "bus money" - "Glad All Over"
and "Because" (DC5) and some memorable items from the Hermits and
Stones. These scratched-up mementos are not stored with my regular
singles. I do put them on my turntable once in a while for amusement,
just to hear how bad they sounded. But we were happy then.
-Taliesyn
JGM
>>From: "DianeE"
>
>>Actually, these days a lot of art, both musical and visual, is not made
>>"from scratch," but out of "found objects." For example think of those
>>hip-hoppers who used to come into the record store and ask you for R&B
>>records they could sample.
>
>> I'm with Tali, I think of a perfect mix as a creation.
>
>I have to disagree.
>
>You are not CREATING anything by simply placing full recordings on a tape or
>a
>CD in some particular order.
>
>You are simply COMPILING recordings.
C'mon BG: Diane makes a cogent argument, and you just flatly disagree,
holding firm to another pointless semantic distinction, along the lines of
"cover" vs. "remake".
I will give you points for consistency, though: it's clear to see why someone
who sees no potential for creativity in the selection and sequencing of songs
would also not understand why albums have an artistic value over and above a
simple random-ordered collection of tunes.
Anytime you consciously bring into existence something that doesn't exist,
you are creating.
Great DJs (on the radio, in the clubs, even at a wedding) are creative
artists. Similarly, anybody who's ever made a really good mix tape has gotten
the satisfaction of being creative. The transitions, flow, and emotional arc
of a well-sequenced group of songs simply *don't exist* until the sequence is
created. Adding, as Tali does, supplemental material such as artwork that
resonates with the content furthur amplifies the creative results.
JGM
Mark Dintenfass
<jgmc...@aol.com> wrote:
> C'mon BG: Diane makes a cogent argument, and you just flatly disagree,
> holding firm to another pointless semantic distinction, along the lines of
> "cover" vs. "remake".
How many times must it be pointed out that the distinction between
"cover" and "remake" is crucial to anyone curious about 50s music and
the origins of rock'n'roll? The fact that it is of no interest to you
does not make it a "pointless semantic distinction." You can certainly
find better ways of arguing with Bruce than repeating that old wheeze.
--
--md
Remove xx to respond
SavoyBG
>C'mon BG: Diane makes a cogent argument, and you just flatly disagree,
>holding firm to another pointless semantic distinction, along the lines of
>"cover" vs. "remake".
A very bad comp JGM.
"Cover" and "Remake" are unfortunately almost interchangeable tames given
today's evolved meaning of "coevr."
"create" and "compile" are two totally seperate things, and I will always
maintain that if you simply take an artist's work (a recording) and transpose
it on to a tape, CD, etc.., and also transpose other works by other artists on
to any kind of mixed compilation, that you are certainly not "creating"
anything.
Just check the credits of any collection that was ever put out by any record
company. It will always say "compiled" by, or some other words to that affect.
It will NEVER say this was "created" by.....
> I will give you points for consistency, though: it's clear to see why
>someone
>who sees no potential for creativity in the selection and sequencing of songs
I NEVER said that. There is DEFINITELY creativity involved in ordering the
songs, although I would prefer tro use the word "skill" or "imagination" rather
than the word "creativity," but the finished product is not a creation, but
rather, a creative, or skillful, or imaginative compilation.
Again, you are not "creating" anything, you are simply taking other peoples'
creations and compiling them.
>Anytime you consciously bring into existence something that doesn't exist,
>you are creating.
But you are not bringing into existence something that doesn't exist. You are
simply re-ordering things that do exist.
If I were to take 10 of the most famous paintings of all time, and arrange them
on a wall in a certain order, I am not "creating" anything, I am simply
"arranging" the paintings in what I hope will be an skillfully imaginitve
order.
>Great DJs (on the radio, in the clubs, even at a wedding) are creative
>artists.
True, but there are other factors when you DJ, You don't always play the entire
record for one thing, as you mix in and out of recordings during instrumental
breaks, etc...
>Similarly, anybody who's ever made a really good mix tape has gotten
>the satisfaction of being creative.
Again, if you can show me just one commercial mixed album where in the credits
it says "created" by, rather than "compiled by" or "researched by" or "produced
by" etc... I will concede that you are correct.
>Adding, as Tali does, supplemental material such as artwork that
>resonates with the content furthur amplifies the creative results.
>
I've already admitted that his booklets, etc.. would be a creation.
A simple mixed tape of muisc though, is not something that you create.
SavoyBG
>which would
>make almost *anyone* classify you as a "goofball."
Really?
I would bet my house right now that MOST people in the country have not read
any fiction since they finished their schooling.
>and the "loser" smell on you is almost
>overpowering to any casual observer.
We all can't be winners like you.
By the way, what do you do for a living...or is that a secret like your actual
name?
> You're a laughable stereotype, and
>you aren't even aware enough to know it.
>
There are obviously no mirrors in your house.
SavoyBG
>"But the foo-ool on the hill...sees the sun going down, and the eyes in
>his head see the world spinning ro-ounnnnd...."
So let's get this straight now.
You believe that it is foolish for a music historian to want to put together a
series of tapes to document all of the recordings that were popular in a given
time period?
So wyhen I went to the library and went through Billboard and Cash Box on
microfilm for many hours, to put together a list of recordings that were
popular in a given year, I was being a fool.
When I did all of this research, let's say for argument's sake, on 1956,
writing down ever record that was listed as a regional hit, and exactly when it
was popular.
Then I took the list if recordings, let's say about 300 songs, and put them in
the proper chronological order that you would have heard them in at the time.
Then I went about the task of finding a good quality copy of each and every
recording for the series, this taking place in the pre-CD days, when I actually
had to use 78s, and even get people from all over the country to send me tapes
of certain things.
I would then take the recordings and transfer them on to reel to reel tapes in
the order that they needed to be in, and also type of sheets that listed the
song, artist, label, and chart info for each record.
A tremendous series of tapes and imformation, documenting the history of R & B
in this country between 1950 and 1970, and in your opinion, this makes me a
fool?
SavoyBG
>>Anytime you consciously bring into existence something that doesn't exist,
>>you are creating.
So let's say I take the Beatles White album, and I put it on tape, but I
rearrange the order of the songs.
Did I create something?
Todd Lucas
>never played stamped radio copy, in a pile
>marked "3 for a $1.00".... That's 33 cents! I
>would have gladly paid $50 for it! Anyone else
>find something dirt cheap they would have
>(gladly) paid big bucks for?
Well, I don't know if the term "big bucks" really applies in my case,
since I've never spent over $20 on a single and, even then, only rarely.
As recently as two months ago, I found a couple of records that are
worth about 50 bucks apiece for $0.50 each.
I find stuff that I'm totally unfamiiar with all of the time. If it
looks like a good record and is priced right, I'll snap it up.
Occasionally, I'll wind up with something worth a few bucks too.
>I have about 700+ singles, cleaned and
>indexed in sealed plastic or those nifty, crisp,
>clear plastic comic book sleeves. They fit
>perfectly. Top left corner has an applied white
>label identifying each single. Have them all
>lined up vertically in a cabinet. Easy to find
>anything and nice to just browse.
I'm not sure how many 45's I have. Probably around 1000 or so. Like I
said, they're in no special order, except for a few by the same artist
that I've managed to group together. Most are just in plain, white
sleeves, mainly because I bought a few hundred of the sleeves from a guy
at a flea market, years ago. I'm even out of those now.
Todd
SavoyBG
>I doubt that's true. If it was, bookstores wouldn't be so prevalent
Mike, you may not know this, but MOST books in book staores are not fiction
books.
I have hundreds of books in my house, but virtually all of them are
non-fiction. I think I may have a few books that are fiction in cases where I
bought a whole box of books at one time at a garage sale or somethibng, but I
have never walked into a book store and boought a book that was fiction.
>And as ever, being such a
>thickheaded dolt, you totally fail to see the enormous philosophical
>difference between not taking the time to read and being PROUD of not
>reading.
I take PLENTY of time to read. I just choose to read non-fiction. In fact, I'm
sure that I read a lot more books than you do.
I never said anything about being proud of not reading.
I aid I was proud of not being aware of noted fiction writers, literature.
>some thread where you were so
>obsessed with the "credentials" of an opponent that you actually *phoned
>his alma mater* to check if he was indeed an alumni.
Only after he told me to call the school.
So obviously you are embarrassed to tell us what you do for a living.
SavoyBG
>So, you're claiming the fiction sections of bookstores go largely
>untouched?
No. I'm claiming that if all they had was fiction that they wouldn't be able to
stay in business, that nore than 50% of their sales are non-fiction.
>Are any of them about something other than old music or baseball?
Yes, some are about old movies, old TV shows, and basketball.
Jim Colegrove
<Tired...@SorryFolks.com> wrote:
>
>"SavoyBG" <sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20040227005629...@mb-m24.aol.com...
>> >From: Taliesyn
>>
>> >I don't take kindly to that statement; it's insulting to anyone who
>> >creates things they love.
>>
>> I understand where you are coming from, but I don't think you should use
>the
>> word "create" here.
>>
>> You are not "creating" anything. You are merely "compiling" something.
>>
>> ONLY the artist is "creating" something.
>>
>> >"Fierce pride?" You're damn right!!!! *I'm* exceedingly proud of some my
>> >mix tapes. They are artistic creations!
>>
>> They may be artistic "compilations," or "compendiums," but they are
>definitley
>> not "creations."
>----------
>Actually, these days a lot of art, both musical and visual, is not made
>"from scratch," but out of "found objects."
You must be a Rauschenbeg fan?
Jim Colegrove
Greg Ioannou
"Mike Mooney" <m.j.m...@bradford.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:403f71a3$1...@chlorine.cen.brad.ac.uk...
> "Taliesyn" <tali...@netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:403F57BB...@netscape.net...
>
> >
> > Anyone else find something dirt cheap they
> > would have (gladly) paid big bucks for?
> >
>
> singles that I didn't buy on release, that I wished I had. The
unchallenged
> top two on my list were Heads, Hands & Feet's "Warming Up The Band" (1972)
> and Becket's "Little Girl" (1974). I searched and searched for them for
> years, but no joy.
>
> Then one day, over *20 years* later, I was in a used record shop, and on
my
> way out very nearly walked past the tatty cardboard box marked "Singles -
> 25p" (that's about 15c). I hestitated, and went back for a quick browse.
> There, near the front - right next to each other - were not one, but BOTH
of
> my "Holy Grails" - both in mint condition. I could have cried with joy.
>
> Some days, the sun just *shines*!
Nice! I don't know the Beckett single, but the Heads Hands and Feet one is
terrific. (I don't have the single. The song is on their "Tracks... plus"
CD.) What was the b-side?
Greg
SavoyBG
>Though maybe if you stick to asking
>fellow sports nuts....
I figured you were a spastic geek who never liked sports, thanks for confirming
it.
>
>Wow...such a Renaissance man. So you scorn movies and TV of the past 20
>years too?
No, actually I like loads of movies from the past 20 years, although not many
TV shows. My favorites are The Sopranos and Curb Your Enthusiasm.
SavoyBG
>I like sports fine, and have an athletic physique (and a killer jump
>shot).
Really, did you play high school basketball?
I'm just not one of those yahoos who weaves the achievements of
>sports franchises into his own emotional life, such that a victory is a
>case of "We won!" rather than "They won!"
I don't root for any teams anymore, haven't for many years. Once I became an
official I looked at the games differently than I did when I was younger.
>I glanced at rec.sport.baseball once, recently...it's telling how your
>arguments are virtually identical in tone over there. The bullying, the
>pettiness, the stats fixation, the trivial one-line insults....
Consistency. I am nowhere near the top of the heep over there when it comes to
stats fixation.
Mike Mooney
>
> I would bet my house right now that MOST people in the country have not
read
> any fiction since they finished their schooling.
>
I do try not to get dragged into these silly arguments, but this
"anti-fiction" thing just staggers me.
So how about a straw poll?
I know I'm not in "the country" (I am in *a* country though!), but I read
lots and lots and lots of fiction (and non-fiction, come to that). In fact
*everybody* I know reads at least some.
So, seriously - is there *anybody* here except Bruce who has "not read any
fiction since they finished their schooling" ?
Mike M
Mike Mooney
news:JIT%b.25556$ah....@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
If you have the "Tracks... plus" CD (as I do), you have it - it was "Silver
Mine".
Becket did one (self-titled) album, which could best be described as "Led
Zeppelin Lite". The single was a pop/rock ballad (a bit reminiscent of Terry
Reid), and not on the album. Neither has ever been on CD, much to my
disappointment. Although maybe they will be soon - there has been a spate of
reissues from my "wants list" in the last few weeks - "Spirit of 76", "Jerry
Lee Lewis London Session", "Stealers Wheel", the first two Pocos, and so on.
Damn, I need more money...
Mike M
SavoyBG
>So, seriously - is there *anybody* here except Bruce who has "not read any
>fiction since they finished their schooling" ?
>
I would doubt that you'll get many others HERE, since the mere fact that they
bother to post usually means that they like to write, appreciate words, etc...
I think the average poster here is more likely to have gone to college, or at
least SOME college, than the average person in the country.
There are a ton of blue collar people in the country (and the world) who aren't
into discussing things in newsgroups on the internet, and a larger percentage
of those people would fall into the "don't read fiction" category.
>In fact
>*everybody* I know reads at least some.
I don't know who you associate with exactly, but a large number of people that
I know (mostly blue collar guys) have no interest in fiction at all.
Still, let's see what the response is here to your question.
Mark Dintenfass
<sav...@aol.com> wrote:
> >From: "Mike Mooney"
>
> >So, seriously - is there *anybody* here except Bruce who has "not read any
> >fiction since they finished their schooling" ?
> >
>
> I would doubt that you'll get many others HERE, since the mere fact that they
> bother to post usually means that they like to write, appreciate words, etc...
>
> I think the average poster here is more likely to have gone to college, or at
> least SOME college, than the average person in the country.
>
> There are a ton of blue collar people in the country (and the world) who
> aren't
> into discussing things in newsgroups on the internet, and a larger percentage
> of those people would fall into the "don't read fiction" category.
>
> >In fact
> >*everybody* I know reads at least some.
>
> I don't know who you associate with exactly, but a large number of people that
> I know (mostly blue collar guys) have no interest in fiction at all.
>
> Still, let's see what the response is here to your question.
If mysteries, sci-fi, romance novels, and other genres are included in
the category of fiction, then I know plenty of people who didn't go to
college and nonetheless read fiction.
SavoyBG
>If mysteries, sci-fi, romance novels, and other genres are included in
>the category of fiction, then I know plenty of people who didn't go to
>college and nonetheless read fiction.
Sure some do.
I don't think too many males read romance novels, but I guess there would be
some.