| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
dtguitarfan 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
 Posted: June 05 2012 at 12:09 |
 Failcore wrote:
A complete sidetrack, but Nightwish is going to be at PPUSA?!!! I might cancel my plans to go now. What a dreadful inclusion. |
No disrespect, but that's a silly reason not to go for two reasons: 1) they're not really part of the fesival but actually play the "pre-party" Wed and Thurs night shows, and 2) it's ONE of 16 bands at the festival....
|
|
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:52 |
Snow Dog wrote:
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!! Back up there! You are Indian? |
Yes. I have mentioned it before in conversations, I think, though it's not mentioned in my profile.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:51 |
darkshade wrote:
rogerthat wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
Sorry but I have to differentiate between the two here. Gabriel struggles most of the time to hit them, not only on his bad days which is perfectly acceptable. Some other member of this forum once mentioned that plenty of overdubs were used to beef up his voice. I am not saying it tantamounts to miming, but there is some level of make believe in supposedly authentic music too. What is the point of recording in a studio if you don't get the most out of its facilities, after all. |
This is why I like jam bands and jazz bands, most, if not all, of their greatest works, are recorded live, warts and all.
|
On the other hand, I have no objection to Gabriel or anybody else enhancing the appeal of his singing or performance in the studio. I just don't buy into any pretension of perfection. I should hope that that is not all prog music is meant to be and the best prog music certainly means a lot more to me than just being 'authentic' or 'replicable'.
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:48 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for.
|
But this is again a matter of perception. There are kids who claim listening to Linkin Park changed their lives, what are you going to do about that. I have heard people who work in the music industry cite some sappy Michael Jackson ballad as something that changed their life. There is no universal perception of true beauty; it's all in the eyes of the beholder. So a hypothesis that today's pop is incapable of achieving anything more than momentary titillation, which the OP seems to be driving at, may not be very accurate.
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:47 |
darkshade wrote:
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry. |
I'm not concerned, I know I'm not the demographic, I'm just following this thread. My sister is just starting to become a real person (she's 15 now) but is still into all that stuff, along with some of her friends, so I think it goes on past the age of 8. I remember when I was 15 girls my age were still into Backstreet Boys and N'SYNC, and this was 2003 already.
|
I wasn't aware that girls of 15 watched the Disney Channel, it was seldom on when my daughter was younger.
|
|
What?
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:44 |
rogerthat wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
Sorry but I have to differentiate between the two here. Gabriel struggles most of the time to hit them, not only on his bad days which is perfectly acceptable. Some other member of this forum once mentioned that plenty of overdubs were used to beef up his voice. I am not saying it tantamounts to miming, but there is some level of make believe in supposedly authentic music too. What is the point of recording in a studio if you don't get the most out of its facilities, after all. |
This is why I like jam bands and jazz bands, most, if not all, of their greatest works, are recorded live, warts and all.
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:43 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
Sorry but I have to differentiate between the two here. Gabriel struggles most of the time to hit them, not only on his bad days which is perfectly acceptable. Some other member of this forum once mentioned that plenty of overdubs were used to beef up his voice. I am not saying it tantamounts to miming, but there is some level of make believe in supposedly authentic music too. What is the point of recording in a studio if you don't get the most out of its facilities, after all.
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:42 |
Dean wrote:
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry. |
I'm not concerned, I know I'm not the demographic, I'm just following this thread. My sister is just starting to become a real person (she's 15 now) but is still into all that stuff, along with some of her friends, so I think it goes on past the age of 8. I remember when I was 15 girls my age were still into Backstreet Boys and N'SYNC, and this was 2003 already.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:36 |
Failcore wrote:
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
If you think the whole record buying public is under the age of eight then sure.
This is what I really don't get about this thread... you are not members of the demographic that is buying this manufactured pop you all so vocally decry. What does it matter that pre-teen girls pin-up pictures of Justin Beiber and Katy Perry - no one is expecting you to go and buy any of it.
This is not what is wrong with the music industry.
|
|
What?
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:33 |
Failcore wrote:
This. In defense of OP, there is commercialism in all music, but it is more blatant and unabashed in pop music. That's not saying there isn't marketing and industry forces present in other genres. But in the pop music arena, they have focused so much on marketing to the point that it is deleterious to the music. Call me a cliche progger, but I think this dysfunction came about in the early 80s, when record label execs figured out you could just hand a hot dude/chick a guitar and use studio magic to cover his lack of instrumental acumen and make big money.
|
It has always been like that - The Monkees didn't play on their early recordings, neither did The Sweet. While live on stage Sweet were a balls-out heavy rock band in the studio they were singing vocals over sessions musicians recording of Wig-Wam Bam and Poppa Joe. At that time it was cheaper to pay a sessions guitarist £20 to record a track than spend hours on studio trickery.
|
|
What?
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:30 |
darkshade wrote:
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
The man of few words sums it all up.
|
|
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:23 |
|
You want to know what pop music has become? Watch The Disney Channel.
/thread.
|
|
|
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout
Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:22 |
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for. |
Those synonyms are not replacements for "entertain" - you don't go to see an agreeablement, you don't come away having been pleasuremented, the artists on stage are not diversioners - while amusement is partial, not every entertainment will amuse you. The etymology of words is a means of understadning why we can use some words in some contexts and not in others, for examle the dictionary definition of entertain is most certainly "to keep, hold, or maintain in the mind" and "to hold the attention of with something amusing or diverting" and that is the reason why we use "entertainment" for a for an activity that diverts the mind. I think you are understating the lasting power of any "entertainment", belittling them with your own indifference as it were while overstating the life-changing effect of "art".
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is. |
I fear you are still making distinctions based on intent ... you are giving a low value to music produced (in your eyes) solely for entertainment ... ie it is the intention of the artist merely to entertain. I am saying that all art is entertainment. This is not something I've just invented for this discussion - I have made this point dozens of times throughout this forum - all music is art, all art is entertainment. You can be as judgemental as you like on the value or worth of some of that art if you wish, but it is your judgement, not a universal truth.
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
In response to all the further comments about studio alteration: I never said that I was against overdubs, or changes to perfect a band's sound, or the fixing of minor mistakes in the studio. I even gave the example of auto-tuning James Labrie's vocals as an alteration I really couldn't care less about. So when I talk about accurately reproducing a studio work (I probably didn't make this clear enough), I don't mean reproducing it perfectly. Everyone knows that you need a backing track, loops, or additional musicians to reproduce overdubs on stage. You're not trying to fool anyone with overdubs; everyone knows, when they listen to 2112, that Alex Lifeson can't play two guitars at once and that they overdubbed the solo over the rhythm guitar part. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded. |
I read and understood your acceptance of minor studio fixes of errors. You said "the end result of the studio record, and the band's ability to perform it live" - I merely pointed out that because of multitracking and overdubs that is not possible. If you now qualify that as "I don't mean reproducing it perfectly" then that's fine, you agree with me.
|
|
What?
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 11:20 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Some years ago I saw a special at Discovery Channel about the "Boys Band Manufacture".
There was a guy in his late 50's with "Rich Texan" outfit (Hat and everything), this guy owned a studio (huge storage room to be honest) where he recruited 1 or 2 hundred boys simultaneously from 15 to 18 years, dressed them in the best clothes available for kids, matching them according to size and physical characteristics (voice didn't mattered).
So he created like 25 or 50 boys bands simultaneously, made them record a demo with music by a group of composers hired by him and sent the kids on gigs.
The interviewer asked the "Rich Texan" if he didn't lost money and he laughed while saying something like "Probably 98% will be failure, with one I get back my investment, with two I get a lot of money and if I'm lucky enough to have three with a hit single and a record, I can close the factory or start the process again"
This made me angry, because it seemed an insult to art, but there was something worst.
In Mexico they used to create mixed groups (young men and very sexy girls together) like Timbiriche or similar.
One of this groups (not sure which) came to Perú (they had a huge fanbase among stupid teenagers), but we have a guy who has a great musical program and knows about Rock (he hates this groups) so he went to interview them, on purpose went to the leader and asked him what were their musical influences and why they got together, the kid (early 20's) replied "No me preguntes eso, a nosotros nos llamaron para una prueba y los mas bonitos nos quedamos" (Don't ask me that, we went to an audience, and the cutest of us stayed), of course before this selection they have recruited a female and a male young artist that can more or less sing, leaving the rest almost a s a choir. This was really amazing, kids with no musical formation, knowledge, skills or even basic musical studies are joined only in base of their looks.
Iván
|
This. In defense of OP, there is commercialism in all music, but it is more blatant and unabashed in pop music. That's not saying there isn't marketing and industry forces present in other genres. But in the pop music arena, they have focused so much on marketing to the point that it is deleterious to the music. Call me a cliche progger, but I think this dysfunction came about in the early 80s, when record label execs figured out you could just hand a hot dude/chick a guitar and use studio magic to cover his lack of instrumental acumen and make big money.
|
|
|
|
Ivan_Melgar_M
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19535
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 10:54 |
Some years ago I saw a special at Discovery Channel about the "Boys Band Manufacture".
There was a guy in his late 50's with "Rich Texan" outfit (Hat and everything), this guy owned a studio (huge storage room to be honest) where he recruited 1 or 2 hundred boys simultaneously from 15 to 18 years, dressed them in the best clothes available for kids, matching them according to size and physical characteristics (voice didn't mattered).
So he created like 25 or 50 boys bands simultaneously, made them record a demo with music by a group of composers hired by him and sent the kids on gigs.
The interviewer asked the "Rich Texan" if he didn't lost money and he laughed while saying something like "Probably 98% will be failure, with one I get back my investment, with two I get a lot of money and if I'm lucky enough to have three with a hit single and a record, I can close the factory or start the process again"
This made me angry, because it seemed an insult to art, but there was something worst.
In Mexico they used to create mixed groups (young men and very sexy girls together) like Timbiriche or similar.
One of this groups (not sure which) came to Perú (they had a huge fanbase among stupid teenagers), but we have a guy who has a great musical program and knows about Rock (he hates this groups) so he went to interview them, on purpose went to the leader and asked him what were their musical influences and why they got together, the kid (early 20's) replied "No me preguntes eso, a nosotros nos llamaron para una prueba y los mas bonitos nos quedamos" (Don't ask me that, we went to an audience, and the cutest of us stayed), of course before this selection they have recruited a female and a male young artist that can more or less sing, leaving the rest almost a s a choir. This was really amazing, kids with no musical formation, knowledge, skills or even basic musical studies are joined only in base of their looks.
Iván
Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - June 05 2012 at 10:59
|
|
|
|
Ambient Hurricanes
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 25 2011
Location: internet
Status: Offline
Points: 2549
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 10:48 |
Dean wrote:
Ambient Hurricanes wrote:
Dean wrote:
You are never going to "get" this, but still I try. The market for the music you like is limited, this is not through the music industry choking the market with music you don't like, it is simply that the total number of people in the world who can ever like what you like is very small - marketing and promotion and education will never change that, the music you like simply does not have mass appeal, it never has and it never will. You just have to accept that the people who like Justin Beiber will never like Dream Theatre and the people who like Black Eyed Peas will never like Symphony X - marketing has absolutely nothing to do with that, education has absolutely nothing to do with that and the music industry has nothing to do with that. All the music industry does is create product for specific markets and by far the biggest market is the mainstream pop market. |
Insofar as music is entertainment, this is a completely sensible view of the music industry. The point of entertainment is to put out material that people will like, and like immediately. If the music industry finds the cheapest and most loophole-filled ways to do this as possible, who cares? There's no real integrity to entertainment (unless you're talking about moral integrity with regard to lyrical content and such), because there's no such thing as objective value to entertainment. The only thing objective about entertainment is the amount of people who like it, and the music industry is trying to make that objective number as large as possible with the lowest possible cost.
Insofar as music is art, however, the modern industry is the worst thing that could ever have happened. There is an integrity to art; art takes skill and discipline and effort and pain and hard work, not merely from businessmen but from the artists themselves. Above all, art must move the soul and influence the mind; it's not just for entertainment, it's for catharsis, not just to momentarily distract you from your troubles but to lift you out of them, to lift you out of yourself to experience the world through someone else's eyes, to identify with his emotions and to share in them. Whether it's music, painting, drama, or sculpture, art has the power to change people, and the power to make them feel things they could never feel otherwise.
Don't misunderstand me; there's nothing intrinsically wrong or evil about the music out there that exists soley for entertainment, but there is something wrong when, as a society, that's all we see in music. You're not hurting yourself by listening to Justin Beiber, but you could be doing so much better for yourself if you listened to Bach and Mozart as well. That isn't to say that music meant for entertainment cannot be good art as well; Rush see themselves as entertainers as do many other prog bands, and much of the music we consider "classical" "art" music today was originally intended for mere entertainment. There are some very good pop bands; I think that Coldplay is one of the best groups in music today, and I find real value in One Republic as well, not to mention many of the "classic" pop groups. But I think that Geoff is correct in saying that the modern method of producing pop music is not conducive to artistic value. If you took his original post and specified that we were talking about most (not all) of modern top 40 pop music, and specified that we were talking about artistic value, then I'd basically agree with what he said.
|
All music is produced for entertainment of some kind, whether that is to entertain the feet or the mind, it is still entertainment - musicians are entertainers and performances are shows. Entertain is derived from inter - 'in ones self' and tenir - 'to hold' - when you have been entertained it means 'to hold in your mind' - you take something of that performance into yourself - it means you have been diverted or engaged, or by your own words: "it's for catharsis, not just to momentarily distract you from your troubles but to lift you out of them, to lift you out of yourself to experience the world through someone else's eyes, to identify with his emotions and to share in them" ... that is essentially the definition of 'entertainment'.
Classical music more than any other has been about the performance, the entertainment, whether that was Bach or Mozart, Paganini or Straus, Stravinsky or Cage - the academic high-brow analysis of that is a seperate diversion but it is still a form of entertainment through distraction and engagement, they dress it up but it's still entertainment. For many Classical music is a crashing bore, yet they are happy for it to entertain them as a soundtrack to something else, whether a film or a firework pagent - the music itself has not changed, the difference is context and context defines perception.
So up to a point Jacob I do understand you and I do agree with what some of you have said, however I do not agree on "artistc value" or that "you could be doing so much better for yourself if you listened to Bach" - that to me does not compute because you are making distinctions based upon intent. |
Dictionary wrote:
Entertainment: 1. The act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement; solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many. 2. Something affording pleasure, diversion, or amusement, especially a performance of some kind: the highlight of the ball was an elaborate entertainment. |
You're defining entertainment by it's word roots, not by what it actually means in the English language. These definitions include words and synonyms like "agreeable," "pleasure," "amusement," and "diversion," but not anything about power and lasting effect and unspeakable beauty and the experience of love, joy, and agony through music. Mere entertainment might engage the mind for the moment; it might even stick with you throughout the day if you get songs stuck in your head easily, but it will never change you, and it will never give you a taste of the experience of true beauty that humans really long for.
Remember, I never said that music meant for entertainment couldn't have artistic value. In fact, I said just the opposite. I know full well that a great deal of classical music was meant for entertainment. I will defend the value of Rush's music till the day that I die, and they see themselves as entertainers. I'd imagine that most prog bands think the same way. I'm not "making distinctions based upon intent;" I'm making distinctions based upon musical value, regardless of intent. I never said anything about our modern analysis of classical music, either; our analysis is not the art, the music itself is.
In response to all the further comments about studio alteration: I never said that I was against overdubs, or changes to perfect a band's sound, or the fixing of minor mistakes in the studio. I even gave the example of auto-tuning James Labrie's vocals as an alteration I really couldn't care less about. So when I talk about accurately reproducing a studio work (I probably didn't make this clear enough), I don't mean reproducing it perfectly. Everyone knows that you need a backing track, loops, or additional musicians to reproduce overdubs on stage. You're not trying to fool anyone with overdubs; everyone knows, when they listen to 2112, that Alex Lifeson can't play two guitars at once and that they overdubbed the solo over the rhythm guitar part. When Peter Gabriel struggles to hit his high notes on stage or when Steve Howe misses a few notes in his solo, I don't consider that to be a failure in reproducing the studio record. It's musicians showing that they're human, whereas on a record everything has to be perfect, by today's standards, anyway. The audience knows this, and they know that nothing can be reproduced exactly the way it was recorded.
|
|
I love dogs, I've always loved dogs
|
|
Failcore
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 27 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 4625
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 10:47 |
|
A complete sidetrack, but Nightwish is going to be at PPUSA?!!! I might cancel my plans to go now. What a dreadful inclusion.
|
|
|
|
dtguitarfan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 24 2011
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Status: Offline
Points: 1708
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 10:41 |
rogerthat wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
I don't have much to say as Jacob made a lot of the points I was trying to make much more eloquently than I could. But I will say this: Jacob touched on the idea of artistic integrity. And that phrase resonates with me. As a father, I hope my kids pick heroes that are good examples. I hope the heroes they pick are ones I can point to when they are trying to get away with not giving a task their best and say: "you want to be like that? Well the only way that person got to where they are is through a lot of hard work." Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of times the most successful people are not the hardest working. In fact, it often seems like the hardest working people don't get rewarded for their work. Often the richest, most successful people didn't get to where they are through hard work - maybe they were born rich and just got richer, maybe they were born good looking and got rich off of that. Whatever the case, I hope my kids pick heroes that exemplify good principles. |
A simple, if crude, example. Why is the lion the king of the jungle when he doesn't even hunt once he owns a pride while the donkey is called the beast of burden? It stands to reason that the donkey works much harder than the lion just to survive. Successful pop music enterprises are smart and 'with it'. They understand what the audience wants and deliver it. Once or twice is pure luck, but a long career is about great gut feel. That's what Quincy Jones or Clive Davis were about, that's also what George Martin was about.
Just because Beatles did stuff that the musos like, we overlook the fact that we would hardly be talking as much about them after all these years if it were not for smart people who saw their potential where most of us might have failed to in their place and only seen - in the words of Beatles haters - a bunch of people who were sissy and couldn't really play all that much.
The mistake you are making here is to look at the whole thing through just the prism of your tastes. People who don't like prog don't have the most flattering things to say about it. Is that really down to just their inferior intellect and your insight or is it simply divergence in musical tastes? As an Indian, I could eat Western veg cuisine only in small doses and certainly not on a daily basis because I am used to far more savoury food. Is that down to poor culinary skills on one side of the planet or plain and simple cultural differences? That's how it works in music as well. Much as you might wish otherwise, we can't all listen to the same music. Even progheads don't like prog metal as much as they should, right?  |
I think part of why this debate keeps going on and on is that this is about more than just the music. I'd love to hear what you'd have to say after actually watching the movie I took the clip from that I opened up this thread with. The movie is called Before the Music Dies, and it's more about how the industry does things these days than it is about the actual music, I think.
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 09:42 |
rogerthat wrote:
dtguitarfan wrote:
I don't have much to say as Jacob made a lot of the points I was trying to make much more eloquently than I could. But I will say this: Jacob touched on the idea of artistic integrity. And that phrase resonates with me. As a father, I hope my kids pick heroes that are good examples. I hope the heroes they pick are ones I can point to when they are trying to get away with not giving a task their best and say: "you want to be like that? Well the only way that person got to where they are is through a lot of hard work." Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of times the most successful people are not the hardest working. In fact, it often seems like the hardest working people don't get rewarded for their work. Often the richest, most successful people didn't get to where they are through hard work - maybe they were born rich and just got richer, maybe they were born good looking and got rich off of that. Whatever the case, I hope my kids pick heroes that exemplify good principles. |
A simple, if crude, example. Why is the lion the king of the jungle when he doesn't even hunt once he owns a pride while the donkey is called the beast of burden? It stands to reason that the donkey works much harder than the lion just to survive. Successful pop music enterprises are smart and 'with it'. They understand what the audience wants and deliver it. Once or twice is pure luck, but a long career is about great gut feel. That's what Quincy Jones or Clive Davis were about, that's also what George Martin was about.
Just because Beatles did stuff that the musos like, we overlook the fact that we would hardly be talking as much about them after all these years if it were not for smart people who saw their potential where most of us might have failed to in their place and only seen - in the words of Beatles haters - a bunch of people who were sissy and couldn't really play all that much.
The mistake you are making here is to look at the whole thing through just the prism of your tastes. People who don't like prog don't have the most flattering things to say about it. Is that really down to just their inferior intellect and your insight or is it simply divergence in musical tastes? As an Indian, I could eat Western veg cuisine only in small doses and certainly not on a daily basis because I am used to far more savoury food. Is that down to poor culinary skills on one side of the planet or plain and simple cultural differences? That's how it works in music as well. Much as you might wish otherwise, we can't all listen to the same music. Even progheads don't like prog metal as much as they should, right? |
Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!! Back up there! You are Indian?
|
|
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: June 05 2012 at 09:36 |
dtguitarfan wrote:
I don't have much to say as Jacob made a lot of the points I was trying to make much more eloquently than I could. But I will say this: Jacob touched on the idea of artistic integrity. And that phrase resonates with me. As a father, I hope my kids pick heroes that are good examples. I hope the heroes they pick are ones I can point to when they are trying to get away with not giving a task their best and say: "you want to be like that? Well the only way that person got to where they are is through a lot of hard work." Unfortunately, it seems like a lot of times the most successful people are not the hardest working. In fact, it often seems like the hardest working people don't get rewarded for their work. Often the richest, most successful people didn't get to where they are through hard work - maybe they were born rich and just got richer, maybe they were born good looking and got rich off of that. Whatever the case, I hope my kids pick heroes that exemplify good principles. |
A simple, if crude, example. Why is the lion the king of the jungle when he doesn't even hunt once he owns a pride while the donkey is called the beast of burden? It stands to reason that the donkey works much harder than the lion just to survive. Successful pop music enterprises are smart and 'with it'. They understand what the audience wants and deliver it. Once or twice is pure luck, but a long career is about great gut feel. That's what Quincy Jones or Clive Davis were about, that's also what George Martin was about.
Just because Beatles did stuff that the musos like, we overlook the fact that we would hardly be talking as much about them after all these years if it were not for smart people who saw their potential where most of us might have failed to in their place and only seen - in the words of Beatles haters - a bunch of people who were sissy and couldn't really play all that much.
The mistake you are making here is to look at the whole thing through just the prism of your tastes. People who don't like prog don't have the most flattering things to say about it. Is that really down to just their inferior intellect and your insight or is it simply divergence in musical tastes? As an Indian, I could eat Western veg cuisine only in small doses and certainly not on a daily basis because I am used to far more savoury food. Is that down to poor culinary skills on one side of the planet or plain and simple cultural differences? That's how it works in music as well. Much as you might wish otherwise, we can't all listen to the same music. Even progheads don't like prog metal as much as they should, right?
Edited by rogerthat - June 05 2012 at 09:41
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
How to Create a Pop Star
