|
Post by Jeff on Sept 23, 2005 17:28:09 GMT -5
I thought that we would move our discussion over here, Justin. If anyone has anything else to say about your essay, they can do so outside our discussion of the Stones.
Okay, I've made my initial list of influential rock acts. I realized it would be way too long from the beginning. So, I pretty much dropped the needle in the mid 60s. Even so, my initial list has more than 150 acts on it. Let's keep it down to 100. I will whittle on it, and post it later tonight.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 23, 2005 19:34:08 GMT -5
The two biggest obstacles to producing a list of the most influential pop acts since 1965 are a) my own ignorance of all the music during the period in question, and b) my predisposition to include more groups that accord with my own musical preferences. But this is a list that aims to get at the aesthetic criteria that I prefer, so perhaps this kind of prejudice is not only something to be suspected, but to be sought, since it should tell me a little about what I find important and memorable.
Again, I would encourage everyone who reads this to do the same experiment and post your responses. At the very least it will generate an interesting debate about musicians and songs. It might even help us to get clearer on aesthetic criteria, our professed aim.
Gosh I hated editing this list. It was no fun at all to kick the likes of Buddy Holly (d. 1959) and Randy Newman (not very influential) off the list.
The list is not ordered in any meaningful way.
Also, I think I like my rock and roll with love and enlightenment instead of sex and drugs. That may be my problem.
Finally, if Justin does this too, I am sure I won’t stop smacking my head as I read his list.
Jeff
Love it 1. The Beastie Boys 2. The Beatles 3. Chuck Berry 4. David Bowie 5. The Cars 6. Ray Charles 7. The Clash 8. George Clinton/Parliament 9. Elvis Costello 10. CCR 11. Dire Straits 12. Doobie Brothers 13. Jeff Lynne/ELO 14. Eurythmics 15. Brian Ferry/Brian Eno/Roxy Music 16. Lindsey Buckingham/Fleetwood Mac 17. Aretha Franklin 18. Peter Gabriel 19. Jimi Hendrix 20. John Lee Hooker 21. Billy Joel 22. Carole King 23. King Crimson 24. The Kinks 25. Kraftwerk 26. Led Zepplin/ Robert Plant/Jimmy Page 27. John Lennon 28. Bob Marley and the Wailers 29. Roy Orbison 30. Graham Parker 31. Pink Floyd 32. The Police/Sting 33. The Pretenders 34. Prince 35. Queen 36. Otis Redding 37. Lou Reed/Velvet Underground 38. Run-D.M.C. 39. Paul Simon/Garfunkel 40. Sonic Youth 41. Steely Dan 42. Supertramp 43. Talking Heads 44. Tom Waits 45. Nine Inch Nails 46. Depeche Mode 47. Radiohead 48. Duran Duran 49. Weezer 50. Marvin Gaye 51. Al Green 52. Bjork 53. The Cure 54. Jane’s Addiction 55. Johnny Cash 56. Massive Attack 57. New Order 58. Tool 59. Flaming Lips
Hate it 1. The Byrds 2. The Doors 3. Eagles 4. Michael Jackson 5. Jerry Lee Lewis 6. The Grateful Dead 7. Lynyrd Skynyrd 8. Madonna 9. Elvis Presley 10. Ramones 11. R.E.M. 12. The Rolling Stones 13. Bob Seger 14. Bruce Springsteen 15. Rod Stewart 16. The Who 17. Beck
Can live with or without it 1. Black Crowes 2. Black Sabbath 3. James Brown 4. Eric Clapton/ Derek and the Dominos 5. Etta James 6. Jefferson Airplane/Starship 7. Elton John 8. Van Morrison 9. Nirvana 10. Public Enemy 11. Santana 12. Sex Pistols 13. The Smiths 14. The Temptations 15. U2 16. Van Halen 17. Stevie Ray Vaughn 18. Stevie Wonder 19. Neil Young/ Buffalo Springfield 20. Frank Zappa 21. Bob Dylan 22. Thin Lizzy 23. Erasure 24. Dr. Dre/Snoop Dogg
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Sept 23, 2005 22:00:45 GMT -5
Jeff, I like the idea, but I don't have time to do anything on it tonight. Although I'm looking forward to making my list, I think it will be hard to keep it from being a meaningless, after-the-fact categorization of whims istead of the real aesthetic exploration we need.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 23, 2005 23:16:54 GMT -5
Justin,
This is always the problem with beginnings: Where does one build one's intuitions into the system? If you do it after the fact, then the system looks ad hoc, full of epicycles that were tacked on because core intuitions turned out to be incompatible. On the other hand, if you build them in at the beginning, you risk incorporating prejudice and complexity and ruling out some kinds of explanations, even those which the system was supposedly designed to give.
My solution--and this is actually a feature of my dissertation, so it is relevant to the discussion over on that board--is to open the door very wide at the beginning, but to expose the system itself to constant critique. That is, the real problem is not with where to put our intuitions but with the idea that the system is fully settled. Put your intuitions everywhere, but critique them against the rest of your background beliefs—and the fledgling system itself!—at every opportunity. As long as we can accept that our goal is not some settled state of affairs but an ongoing process, we will continue to refine everything at the same time. We educate our appetites by exposing them to systematic organization, and we humanize our abstractions by demanding that they be ever more relevant to our tasks, not less. This picture, I think, fits better with the actual practice of the growth of knowledge. Consulting intuitions is never finished; neither is refining even foundational concepts.
Feel free to kick the tires of this idea, too. I'll be looking forward to your own set of lists.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 23, 2005 23:57:05 GMT -5
Okay, here is my final list. A few notes:
A. I think all of these bands are really important. I made an initial list of about 175 bands, which I whittled down to 100.
B. I tried to be open to very influential bands that I just hate, like The Who, but I know that my musical prejudices didn't allow anything approaching objectivity.
C. The list goes from the bands I like the best to the ones I hate the most, in my case that is from the Beatles to Rod Stewart (See, Justin, I do think there are important bands even worse than the Stones.)
D. I put some idiosyncratic stuff in the list and some stuff that I think has been influential, but only for a short time. I guess Flaming Lips would be an example of both categories.
Here it is. You will find much not to like, I am sure.
Jeff
Likes:
1. The Beatles 2. David Bowie 3. Jimi Hendrix 4. Peter Gabriel 5. Radiohead 6. Ray Charles 7. Johnny Cash 8. Elvis Costello 9. Bjork 10. Talking Heads 11. The Police/Sting 12. Depeche Mode 13. The Cure 14. Lindsey Buckingham/Fleetwood Mac 15. Tom Waits 16. New Order 17. Nine Inch Nails 18. Brian Ferry/Brian Eno/Roxy Music 19. Jeff Lynne/ELO 20. Jane’s Addiction 21. Pink Floyd 22. Bob Marley and the Wailers 23. Flaming Lips 24. Billy Joel 25. Roy Orbison 26. Al Green 27. The Cars 28. The Beastie Boys 29. Paul Simon/Garfunkel 30. Massive Attack 31. Weezer 32. Run-D.M.C. 33. Duran Duran 34. Graham Parker 35. The Kinks 36. The Clash 37. Queen 38. Lou Reed/Velvet Underground 39. Prince 40. Tool 41. Eurythmics 42. Kraftwerk 43. Led Zepplin/ Robert Plant/Jimmy Page 44. John Lennon 45. Dire Straits 46. Supertramp 47. King Crimson 48. The Pretenders 49. Otis Redding 50. John Lee Hooker 51. Carole King 52. Aretha Franklin 53. Doobie Brothers 54. Steely Dan 55. Marvin Gaye 56. George Clinton/Parliament 57. Chuck Berry 58. CCR 59. Sonic Youth
Indifferent:
60. Nirvana 61. Van Morrison 62. Bob Dylan 63. The Smiths 64. Public Enemy 65. James Brown 66. Erasure 67. Black Sabbath 68. Etta James 69. The Temptations 70. Jefferson Airplane/Starship 71. Thin Lizzy 72. Stevie Wonder 73. Frank Zappa 74. Van Halen 75. Stevie Ray Vaughn 76. Neil Young/ Buffalo Springfield 77. Dr. Dre/Snoop Dogg 78. Santana 79. Sex Pistols 80. Eric Clapton/ Derek and the Dominos 81. U2 82. Elton John 83. Black Crowes
Dislikes:
84. Eagles 85. Beck 86. Jerry Lee Lewis 87. Michael Jackson 88. Lynyrd Skynyrd 89. Ramones 90. Bob Seger 91. The Byrds 92. Madonna 93. R.E.M. 94. Elvis Presley 95. The Who 96. The Doors 97. Bruce Springsteen 98. The Rolling Stones 99. The Grateful Dead 100. Rod Stewart
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 0:27:56 GMT -5
Here is the last thing I'll post tonight. I don't know if I ever sent it to you. It is a draft of an essay that I will include in the Handwringing CD, if I ever finish with it.
Handwringing
The aim was to make a five-song EP with each track representing a finger, each finger representing an array of peculiar uses. The songs were to be short, since I thought that these would be best suited for internet distribution. The finished project is 15 songs, and the longer ones are best. In the end I’m always wrong about what I’m doing while I’m doing it. In retrospect, this project was really about understanding the artistic possibilities of a Digital Audio Workstation (DAW) and learning to play the guitar.
Not that I’m a better musician or songwriter these days. My music is without commercial value, its artistic merits decidedly amateur. I am only pressing copies of this CD for friends who have been abused or bemused by the music. Whichever category you find yourself in, these fragmentary notes are here for you to disregard. Perhaps, however, you are a bit interested in the history of some of these tracks. Or maybe you would like to know a bit about my philosophy of music. I’ll start with philosophy, as we all must.
It has taken me six years to finish this recording. The most time consuming aspect of the process was teaching myself to record in an entirely new way. These songs are digital creations. In fact, only some of the vocals and guitars are real instruments. Everything else is synthesized by one miraculous device or another. And this is a good thing.
Contrary to musical conservatives, I do not believe there is intrinsic value in authentic sounds, standard instrumentation, or accepted forms. All art worth appreciating must include something new. It must be an advance of some kind. Art is excess…within control, a teacher of mine once told me. But apart from this essentially political idea, I’ve yet to find any hard and fast rules for evaluating creative works. The struggle between one’s private conservative and progressive impulses works along the same lines and results in the same sorts of tensions as our public power struggles. What to accept, what to move beyond? I don’t think that those questions are ever answered solely on the basis of consequences; exploration implies defiance. The development of an elite cadre of aesthetes is never really the point. “Is the work beautiful to the people who are in a position to know what is beautiful?” Such a question belies a conservative agenda. Still, we can’t be entirely democratic on the point. Populist art is an oxymoron. So long as art can advance—and, as I said, I believe that it must—it cannot be populist. Clearly there is a vast middle ground between those who see nothing very special about Shakespeare or Beethoven and the institutionalization of an aesthetic ruling class who dictate a priori aesthetic sensibility. But both cases are interesting in that either impulse—progressive or conservative—unchecked destroys the very possibility of art. The principles of creation must lie somewhere within the struggle. This is very old wisdom.
I’ve been reading a bunch of Pauline Kael’s old movie reviews. I am struck by how dead on her artistic sensibilities were, and how much I agree with them. She said this of David Lean’s A Passage to India, and though I am not 1/64 of the artist he was, these words apply to me too: “The movie is informed by a spirit of magisterial self-hatred. That’s its oddity: Lean’s grand ‘objective’ manner–he never touches anything without defining it and putting it in its place–seems to have developed out of the values he attacks. It’s an imperial bookkeeper’s style–no loose ends. It’s also the style that impressed the Indians, and shamed them because they couldn’t live up to it. It’s the style of the conqueror–who is here the guilt-ridden conqueror but the conqueror nevertheless. Lean has an appetite for grandeur.” My appetite is exactly the same, and I know that it was produced by the very values that I am always about attacking.
I think that Ethics and Aesthetics—all philosophy really, but it is especially clear in these cases—range over the same kind of deliberative processes. Here is the game: You must first develop a sense of importance, then imagine the drama of sustained importance unfolding—this will have as its focus an act or object of some kind, and finally you must arrange one of these importantly within the unfolding. Those who do this well are moral or artistic. (I would argue that the more general activity is aesthetic, since it can range over any event or object whatsoever, while the ethical is a subcategory since it ranges only over agents and perhaps actions.) There is heart, head, and hand work—in that order, but the hardest is the latter. Appreciating importance requires sustained, if indirect, effort. But it is obviously possible to grow where one has not yet grown. The techniques for this are eminently practical and well known. Some non-believers come to believe; some alcoholics overcome the drink. The imaginative part is less difficult. Of course, the unfolding is an unfolding of otherness, but it is not wholly foreign. It is always already invested with enough understanding to be deemed important. Rather, the difficult part is arrangement. For there is always the possibility of incontinence or self-justified inaction. It is the spiritual hand that is hardest to train, and it is the very soul of the creative. The awful toil of real creative labor accounts for most incontinence. (I believe this has more to do with self-doubt than laziness, but I won’t argue that here.) Fear that what one regards as good may not be good and fear that others will not regard as good what one does: These motives account for most inaction. These reactions are difficult to overcome because they are the appropriate products of feeling and thought. As such, more feeling and thought only exacerbate them. The key is practice, which really means adventure.
And I know little else about art beyond this: It begins and ends in adventure—risk, dare, danger, peril. If our artists were still leading, instead of our businessmen and politicians, they could tell us that the association of art and liberalism isn’t perfect. There is a sustained ground of common value, from which none but the damned attempt escape.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 24, 2005 7:14:42 GMT -5
Here's my list:
1. Beastie Boys
|
|
|
Post by luceph on Sept 24, 2005 8:42:33 GMT -5
I like Tyler's list, with one small correction. Replace the Beastie Boys with every other single band/singer/lounge act ever, throw in that weird guy at Best Buy the other day that was humming "Like a Virgin" to himself whilst he was browsing PSP games, and then place the Beastie Boys there. Now you have my list.
This is fun, we should do this more often.
|
|
|
Post by luceph on Sept 24, 2005 9:37:08 GMT -5
I like your list Jeff, although I think you have left off quite a lot of important artists. Just two quick ones:
Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers N.W.A.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 24, 2005 10:36:21 GMT -5
What about My Bloody Valentine? Lush? The Sundays? I've read articles crediting all of House music to Paul Oakenfold... what bout his limey ass? Here's the last 15 bands I've listened to this morning... Who do you attibute them to? Try to keep in mind that I'm on average 5 years to a decade behind the times... Dozer The Hissyfits Fugazi Electric Eel Shock FischerSpooner Basement Jaxx Royksopp At The Drive-In Atomic Bitchwax BT Soul Coughing Chemical Brothers Ghoti Hook Ozmatli Marilyn Manson
The stones had 2 good songs. Paint it Black and Sympathy for the Devil. The rest was k-rap.
|
|
|
Post by Guest Justin on Sept 24, 2005 11:32:58 GMT -5
Tyler, I see your inclusion of At the Drive-In. Have you heard The Mars Volta? The lead singer is the guy from At the Drive-In. This project, though, it's a wacky but heavy jam band that sounds like a cross between Rush and Tool, with falsetto Spanish vocals that mean absolutely nothing. I think it's good for a confusing laugh, but not as good or as accessible as At the Drive-In's violent take on indie rock.
Still haven't started my list, yet, but I think I'm going to go back to the 1950s, 'cos the arbitrary 1963 date is like saying American history really begins in 1805, when nothing important happened for the first time. Also, I noticed Jeff has not really mentioned the blues or disco, when both were in fact important trends in the development of pop music.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 11:49:32 GMT -5
Hello,
I agree with both of Chad's suggestions. Both acts made it onto my 175 act list, but they were lost in the cutting. (Gotta say though, I felt less pity for Petty than N.W.A.) You may be right Chad: These omissions might be just errors on my part. Looking back, I have to ask whether the Eurythmics should be kicked off my list and N.W.A. inserted. Maybe so.
Tyler I had Chemical Brothers on the 175 list, and I considered MBV and The Sundays (and Pavement). You mention some bands that I quite like: Basement Jaxx and Soul Coughing, for instance. But how would you compare the influence of any of these bands to say, The Stones or Bruce Springsteen? I think they are not so very influential. There are tons of acts that I just love, e.g., The Arcade Fire, Split Enz/Crowded House and Randy Newman, that are not on the list...because, I hate to say it, they are not (yet?) important enough. Alas. (Really, “ALAS!” for Split Enz!)
As for the two stones songs you picked, I like Paint it Black. It is my second or third favorite Stones tune, but like so many of their songs, it’s just too damn repetitive. I don’t like Sympathy for the Devil at all. Justin keeps wanting me to give arguments instead of easy condemnation. I don’t know that I can, but here goes:
Sympathy for the Devil is perhaps the dumbest song I know. First of all, let’s dismiss the idea that the Stones are making fun of the kinds of facile explanations that this song trades on. 1) They aren’t smart enough to do that, and 2) their lyrics don’t come off as satirical. Rather, the Stones are here endorsing insipid, reductive, religious explanation. I ask you: Is this verse easier to read as bashing communism or facile explanations of it:
“I stuck around at St. Petersburg When I saw it was a-time for a change Killed the czar and his ministers Anastasia screamed in vain.”
If there was any humor in it, then maybe you would have some element of satire. But there is not. It is just brutal and matter-of-fact. The whole song seems that way to me. So it reads like an anticommunist lyric. That is not so bad, in itself, since there is a lot to hate about communism in practice. But marshalling religious hatred toward leftist ideas is dangerous, as today’s political climate will attest.
Consider this verse:
“Just as every cop is a criminal (whoo whoo) And all the sinners saints (whoo whoo) As heads is tails (whoo whoo) Just call me Lucifer (whoo whoo) 'Cause I'm in need of some restraint (whoo whoo)”
I’ll start with something I like: I like the IDEA of the inversion of values through religious perspective. But these particular inversions are just stupid. (I ask you, is there any other word!?! Perhaps, unintelligent, dim, brainless, or insipid. Whichever you pick, it is just another reason to dismiss the idea that the lyrics are cleverly satirical.)
But what really gets me is the presence of the word “Lucifer.” The name of the song is “Sympathy for the Devil,” so even idiots know who the Stones are talking about. If you are going to give a name, give it a punch, maybe a political one. “Just call me Legion,” would have been better, and it’s still pretty bad. Leaving out the name altogether would probably be best, since the song trades on a silly kind of guessing game in every chorus. (Yet another inane element with no artistic payoff.) The identification also undermines what is often taken as the song's "message": We cannot look down at evil from some safe, high place. But this message is undermined in other ways, too. For example, when the song gets a chance to answer the question of why we should have sympathy for the devil, it merely threatens, "I'll lay your soul to waste." What? The devoted listener probably gets what they should have said or would like to have said, but the point is so ineptly made, that she has to employ the greatest interpretative generosity to salvage it. Generally, I think the Stones are often saved by the generosity of rock critics.
Musically, the song is incredibly repetitive and wholly uninteresting. The chord progression is used up after the opening. But still it chugs along, as if there is any energy at all in it, for more than six grueling minutes. It is one of those songs that when it ends I feel completely justified in pointing to the CD player and saying, “See that is why that band sucks so much!” The only problem is that Jason and Justin are still dancing and singing, “Whoo, Whoo!”
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 12:01:43 GMT -5
Justin,
The only blues man that survived the final cut was John Lee Hooker. But I had others on the original list: Muddy Waters, B.B. King, Lightnin J. Hopkins, and Bonnie Raitt. I did keep many acts that were heavily influenced by the blues: Jimi Hendrix, Ray Charles, Led Zepplin, and Dire Straits. I think your general point stands, though: I needed to keep more seminal blues acts. Suggestions?
I don't know what to say about disco. I had a couple of disco artists on the list, The Bee-Gees, for instance. But the acts I really know, like K.C. and the Sunshine Band, are acts I know should not be on the list. Perhaps all I can say is that I am too ignorant of disco. Sorry.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 24, 2005 12:31:21 GMT -5
Never ever apologize for a lack of influence by disco in your musical tastes. It is something to be reveled in, not desparaged.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 12:56:01 GMT -5
Tyler, I actually like a lot of disco songs. I guess that is the problem for me: I know the songs and not the artists when it comes to disco.
Okay, I think I can note some general aesthetic tendencies in my list.
1. I tend to prefer progressive, startlingly creative acts.
2. I prefer studio work over live recordings. I even think of the band as what has been recorded rather than as a live act.
3. When bands are conservative, their chief virtue is fidelity to their sources even when those sources are used in new ways. For example, Ray Charles’ take on gospel material scores highly with me in both fidelity and creativity.
4. Virtuosity, especially heroic guitar playing, is not as interesting to me as good song-writing and innovation in other areas.
5. Song lyrics are very important to me, which is one of the reasons the bluesmen got kicked off my list. After you’ve heard the twelve bar blues one time and the title “Whisky and Women,” you already know a great deal about that song.
6. The physical presence of performers means almost nothing to me, in fact I find it distracting. David Bowie is great despite his flamboyance, not because of it. Like Glenn Gould I tend to prefer a 0 to 1 relationship between artist and audience, at least in pop music. (I do not, however, see Gould's sentiment holding for classical music where the sources are scores instead of recordings.)
There may be other things I notice this week, but that is a start!
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 14:01:48 GMT -5
Last thought for now: I tend to see the relationship between pop recordings and live music as analogous to that between theoretical and applied science. As I’ve said before, the real instrument in pop music is the music studio itself. At least that is the one that interests me most.
The translations of studio experiments into live experiences are far less interesting to me. I don’t much like the intrusions of the translator, especially when her invasions are not consonant with the song. The exploration that interests me is much more private, anyway. Even when we seek to overcome creative solitude through a meaningful association with community, honesty demands that the fact of individual solitude still be recognized. Live performances blur this line, and the blur is a lie. To give this up is to overemphasize the importance and communicative capacity of the performing artist. Art is the power, not the person.
All this sounds too Platonic, so it will need to be revised and stated more carefully. But I think the tendency is one I am firmly attached to. Stated strongly: I couldn’t care less about what a person wants to express to me in her art. It is mere adolescent naivety that fancies art as a vehicle for the deeper feeling of the artist. The artist as performer is a technician. By this I do not mean that there is no art to performance. Certainly, there is! But it is a different art than that of the creator. There are countless examples where these two arts are blurred, but that does not mean there is not a real distinction between them. There is. I think part of my difficulty with the Stones derives in large measure from this idea. The Stones like the stage better than the studio. To the degree they have this preference, they are that much less interesting to me.
Its other source can be found in the idea of conservation and progression in art. The Stones are essentially a conservative band. Sure, they’ve tried to experiment a little. But these are almost always abject failures. Their Satanic Magesties Request is, of course, the prime example of their inability to be interesting and progressive. On the other hand, they fail at the chief value of conservatism, which is fidelity. Their sloppy drug-addled lyrics and playing diminishes as it distorts their better source material. In the end the two impressions the Stones leave on me consists of 1) their unlikeability as human beings: Mick and Keith strike me as intensely arrogant grotesques, all attitude and nothing to say. And 2) their lyrical and musical addledness. Everything is a muddle with this band. The only thing that is clear is that they like blues and rhythm guitar, two sentiments I quite agree with. If only they had remained fans instead of distorters and prevaricators.
BTW: I am not arguing that any of these aesthetic opinions are the right ones. I am exposing the way I judge pop music to you. As Justin knows, I have a lot to learn about the subject. So, I expect to find some contradictions here that I need to iron out. But right now, I am just exploring my own beliefs in this public way. I don’t think they are any better than anyone else’s, in fact, I figure they are far less carefully arranged than Justin’s or Mike’s.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 15:07:22 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Sept 24, 2005 16:40:02 GMT -5
By the way, here is an interpretation of Sympathy by Keith Richards that shows he doesn't offer the usual "sophisticated" interpretation of the song. He is also out of touch with reality, not just because he claims to have met Satan, but because the right kind of confusion, namely the suspension of judgment, is the very essence of peace. (This was Socrates' point.) Whereas dogmatic certainty is the royal road to war:
Richards (2002): "Sympathy is quite an uplifting song. It's just a matter of looking the Devil in the face. He's there all the time. I've had very close contact with Lucifer - I've met him several times. Evil - people tend to bury it and hope it sorts itself out and doesn't rear its ugly head. Sympathy for the Devil is just as appropriate now, with 9/11. There it is again, big time. When that song was written, it was a time of turmoil. It was the first sort of international chaos since World War II. And confusion is not the ally of peace and love. You want to think the world is perfect. Everybody gets sucked into that. And as America has found out to its dismay, you can't hide. You might as well accept the fact that evil is there and deal with it any way you can. Sympathy for the Devil is a song that says, Don't forget him. If you confront him, then he's out of a job."
|
|
|
Post by Betterout on Sept 24, 2005 18:34:59 GMT -5
I've made much progress on my list, but I think I've discovered my criteria for selection emerging as I do it. So, I almost feel I don't have to finish it. I find myself wanting to include important bands first and foremost, without really needing to define their importance. It's not, for instance, too difficult to conclude that Aretha Franklin is important, and it's almost unnecessary to really go into much detail beyond that. But it's harder to conclude whether or not Billy Joel is in fact important, as much as I love Billy Joel. Go further than that, and I find myself really wanting to include bands not for their importance but because of the gut appeal. So, what exactly are we talking about here when we mention importance?
Oh, and before I get started on this, I really think I should have stuck to rock, because in terms of pop music, much of which I find extraordinarily boring and banal, we have to include New Kids on the Block, if only for their role as the first truly industry-assembled band of talentless hacks chosen exclusively for their appeal to teen girls. While this had been done in girl groups for years, I really think the NKOTB contribution on the XY chromosome side cannot be underestimated, no matter how universally they are now loathed. Actually, the fact that a group so important to the pop fashion is so consistently despised just adds to their weight within the genre. Furthermore, I don't really know as much about certain sub-fields as I really want to, so I feel like I'm not giving important niche acts (however big the niche) the credit they may deserve. I mean, I like hiphop a great deal, and even love certain acts, but I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether Sugar Hill Gang is more important than Grandmaster Flash. I'd really like to make that call, but I can't in good faith. Anyhow, back to importance...
I find the first thing I'm looking for (at least for inclusion on this list) is overall impact on the face of popular music in particular, or the general culture at large. So, in that regard, the Beatles and Elvis at least are at the pinnacle. That said, I don't particularly like Elvis, so automatically this raises another criterion.
If an act doesn't do it for me--whatever that may be--I find myself begrudging them as I write their name on the list. That is to say, an act really has to have a modicum of surface appeal. Ultimately the tension is between the my assignments of 'important' and 'good.' But I'll get back to that here in a minute, as that's what we're supposed to be doing with this exercise. Oh, and here I'm talking about my own personal attraction to the music, not it's overall popularity, which is something else entirely--even different from impact.
Right next to impact, I'd have to say that an act must demonstrate innovative synthesis of musical its predecessors. Here is where rock n' roll really shines, as it has always been open to outside influence, be it blues, jazz, country, world, etc. The trick though is to avoid slavish copying and attempt a real melting pot approach. It's easy, for example, for me to see the synthetic approach of the Velvet Underground as not only diverse in scope but executed very well. Who else could turn both sockhop and doowop styles into gut-wrenching odes to death, and pull it off like no one else before or since? That's something special.
Some acts aren't particularly synthetic, but seem to chart their own course. This is what I'd call originality for lack of a better word--although in truth such acts are not necessarily original on a grand scale of artistic expression simply because they act within a pretty well defined medium. That's not to impune their skill, though, 'cos these guys are great. But they're a little hard to categorize at times because some of these folks have had huge impacts. For example, James Brown and Neil Young are originals, but since their respective impacts are so large, I wouldn't classify them here. Leonard Cohen and Tom Waits, however, do fit here. Such acts tread brand new water, and even if nobody seems interested in following, that doesn't diminish the importance of their actions.
Some acts are important simply because they represent their genre better than any other at a particular place and time. Simply by virtue of who they are, they're somehow statements in the history of pop music. Donna Summer is the best disco act. Gary Newman is the best example of that whole Moog period. One might argue that they're important for no other reasons than these, but that's not to say that they're unimportant--'cos they clearly are.
There are some acts who I really wanted to include based on just these criteria, but found I still couldn't. That's because these criteria are by themselves insufficient. For example, I would like to add that an act must exude either passion or attitude, regardless of how lofty or base it may be. When Bjork sings some gibberish I can't understand, and really puts her heart in it, I can feel it, whatever it is. When Muddy Waters is laying it down for us on how mannish he truly is, and his backup guys yell, "YEAH!!!!" I know that they're hearts are in the proper place. Likewise, I don't really know or care what the hell Tom Petty is talking about in "Here Comes My Girl," he clearly believes (at least for this song) that nothin' really ever felt so free and so right. That really resonates with me. It doesn't have to be intense, either. Nick Drake is definitely feeling something, even when his songs are smooth as silk.
I like it when a band is aware of their place in the timeline, particularly with respect to the genre. I guess you'd call this historical presence. When Pavement sings, "goodnight to the rock n' roll era," they mean it. Throughout the album Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain they seemed to comment on how the whole style at the time was up for grabs, how the old ways were not the same as the new ways, and how the remainder of the acts bearing the rock mantle would be forced simultaneously to claim membership to a defunct club, struggle to blaze their own trails, and still attempt to find an audience in world with no guarantees. Well, agree or not, I think it's a bold statement, and I think it indicates that they know they're lot in life.
I appreciate understated talent, and it doesn't really have to be instrumentship, although that's clearly what I tend to listen for. It can just as easily be songwriting, singing, or lyricism. It's not that I don't love talent when it's in your face. I do like that at times, especially when it comes to acts like Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Wonder, Van Halen, Prince, or Mariah Carey. Those guys are without a doubt as talented as musicians can become, and they show it well. But I loved discovering how good a guitar player Robert Smith was by seeing him in Dallas, or hearing Jeff Buckley's soul-quaking voice for the first time not on the MTV cut he released.
I like surprises. The first thing I think about when I hear the name Billy Corgan is not how impressed I was with the first two Pumpkins albums, or how great a live act they are, but rather that baldheaded dork screaming the curious phrase, "And in the eyes of the jackal, I say KA-BOOM!!!"
I like memorable, desirable songs, songs I'll wake up tp in the morning when I'm 45 and hang on to for days at a time, or those I know I'll get the sudden and uncontrolable desire to listen to them. Some of this is a song's consise mood (Jimmy Buffet's "Margaritaville") or enjoyable melody (Cutting Crew's "The Broadcast") or interesting words (Built to Spill's "Twin Falls"). But it's not consistently any one of those things. I wouldn't for instance say that "Twin Falls" is any better than "Margaritaville" or "The Broadcast." In fact, I'd say the best of the three there is "Margaritaville."
As much as I used to love obscurity, I do really appreciate an act that can really achieve a broad audience based on their charisma in what they do, whatever it is. There's a reason why the Eagles, Billy Joel, Frank Sinatra, Garth Brooks, Duran Duran, Fleetwood Mac, and Boston are some of the most popular acts of all times. They really do have all the magic at reaching people. If someone like Randy Newman had such charisma, the world would be fair. But that's not to say that those with charisma are somehow all unimportant simply because they know how to say something that might get them laid.
Ant that, boys and girls, is basically what I'm interested in, important or not, when it comes to pop music.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Sept 24, 2005 19:53:38 GMT -5
I am more lacking in artistic sense and knowledge than perhaps anyone else I know. So, my criteria has to be simple, because anything more complex would break that part of my brain that's dedicated to that stuff. I've always had one criterion for music and that was that it inspired emotion in me.
|
|