Do you ever wonder?
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
Anyone who can explain David Crosby? Very spotty songwriter, limited playing skills, trouble with guns, drugs and the law, um...let's say limited sex appeal, and a decent enough voice. How does he keep getting gigs? If you're a lesbian couple and you needed a sperm donor to get pregnant, how does this guy end up topping your list? I don't get it. Marty |
on a certain level, martykl has david crosby pegged. he was, however, one of the great harmony singers (go back and listen to the early byrds stuff) and has his name on a fair number of classic songs--8 miles high, wooden ships, triad, etc.--and was actually somewhat groundbreaking in his use of alternate tunings, unconventional song strctures and eastern modalities. mostly, i think he was a great counterculture symbol--the anti-authoritian, outspoken mustachioed jerk in a fringe jacket. dylan, for one, praises him mightily in his autobiography. |
Loomis, In my post I acknowledged that he has a singing voice - I was alluding to the harmonies. OTOH, even Artie Garfunkel couldn't live off his harmonies for a decade. I never really appreciated his songs - maybe they deserve another listen these many years later, but still... I'll take the first Stills solo record, the early Neil Young solo stuff, Graham Nash's "Songs For Beginner's. You can keep "If Only I Could Remember My Name". As to alternate tunings, it's funny, but I always think of Joni and Ritchie Havens (but not DC) as the pioneers of that approach, I might have to revisit that one, too. I still suspect that the real reason for his enduring presence is that he had to have the best drugs. Marty |
i do think that certain guys can only make worthwhile music in the context of a band--when they step out solo, they flail around miserably. look at the solo records from mick jagger, roger waters, clapton, pete townsend, roger mcguinn et. al.--very little is in the same league as the stuff they did with their bands. pride goeth before the fall, i guess. |
actually, not that he's a titan of the biz, but ian hunter's epononymous lp and "you're never alone..." were really good 70s pop records. wrt clapton, for some reason i can't abide any of his solo stuff after "eric clapton" (which was really a delaney and bonnie record), whereas i still listen to layla, blind faith and disraeli gears all the time. all personal bias, of course, but he's never had enough songs, or enough voice, to carry the show by himself. sorta like scottie pippen after mj retired... |
| Post removed |
| Post removed |
entire books should be (and probably have been) written about the whole grateful dead cult phenomenom. i've been subjected to their interminable live shows and bootleg tapes, which is my idea of hell. now, i don't think their whole ouevre is entirely worthless--workingman's and american beauty are good country rock lps--but seldom has more adulation been poured over less musical substance. some of my less drug-addled deadhead friends have theorized that (sorta like the rocky horror picture show)artistic merit isn't the point; rather the whole communal let's drop-acid-and-buy-the merchandise-together vibe is the draw; all in all they're a fairly benign place for like-minded aging white people to gather and avoid reality. |
There is/was (may have gone under) a Radio Dead IO internet radio station that I tried a few times recently with my Roku Soundbridge's Internet radio source option thinking I will get to hear a lot of Dead stuff that I've never heard before and find some new gems. But everytime I turned it on, there was some pointless meandering live jam going on where I lost interest in seconds. Maybe I just have a short attention span these days.... |
>Shirley Bassey I do not get yet but then again I have been underexposed to-date. I discovered her videos on YouTube about a year ago, and I love her! from 1968: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KWT_a9g-II from 1973: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51Wg6k9cWhM from 1991: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raQqGLPcHzg |
95% of Grateful Deads music is pretty marginal. The thing is though is that almost everything they have ever done has been recorded and they've been around a long time and played allot of concerts. The math is pretty impressive. So if you can weed through the nonsense and find them on a good night, their playing can be magical. Not so different from the great live jazz bands when the players have those great nights. It's also been my experience that the great GD recordings that I have are all about Jerry Garcia playing these inspired improvisational threads. Some people think it's mindless noodeling but I find it a very high form of art and sheer musical beauty. How come it's OK to improvise on a trumpet or piano but when a guitarist does it, it's mindless noodeling?? I've never understand Clapton bashing. He has a great voice, written a fair share of really great songs, he can play alt country, blues, hard rock, ballads and everything in between. Just check out the DVD tribute to George Harrison when he sings "Something" and completely out classes Paul McCartney. You don't see him running around craving attention like McCartney and Steve Wonder. What's not to like? I also will have to disagree about Wilco. They are one of the better bands out there right now. Check out their last appearance on Austin City Limits. |
I'll go out on a limb and throw U2 on the skewer. I sorta liked their early, punky stuff (I still listen to Boy once in a while), but their mega-grandiose stadium anthem stuff (Joshua Tree et al) sounds kinda like Spinal Tap to me. They seem like nice, sincere guys and all, but I personally can't comprehend their Godlike popularity. |
No U2 fan myself. Bono's down with the funky glasses and the single name thing that the celeb/stars gravitate towards - but that music, e-gad! Left Rickie Lee Jones after Pop Pop. Original Bay Area person who can't take the Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane better but I could live without music of the Haight very well. I don't understand people who don't like Sinatra, but that's my problem. No accounting for tastes. Bye bye. |
The first three are in order. The rest are a tie. 1 John Lennon solo 2 Paul McCartney solo 3 The Eagles Kansas,Styx,Bruce Springsteen(everything after Darkness on the Edge of Town), Phil Collins, Billy Joel, Elton(everything after Yellow Brick Road) Rod Stewart (most everything after Every Picture) J Tull (everything after Minstrel in the Gallery), The Who (most everything after K Moon died), and finally, The Stones, (eveything after Tatoo You). |
What about Wynton Marsalis, the revisionist fraud who made a career off of the supposition that innovation was dead and the 'art of jazz' should be about copying the past? He is not a traditionalist. A traditionalist works in a tradition which is based on INVENTION. He invents nothing. He merely gives echoes of bygone sounds. |
Example of loads of talent and artistry (it takes both) - watch this |
You're puzzled about why the Manhattan Transfer had a successful run? Look, it's not my type of music either, but I can recognize the obvious talent and hard work that went into their recordings (and reputedly performances). I took a jazz arranging class once. The teacher started off the first class by playing an Manh Transfer track explaining all the things they were doing well. I also wonder why you'd even think to include Norah Jones on the list. If I had to make a list, it would be replete with alt/hard rock incompetents like Wilco & Poison. |
There's a difference between not liking particular artists or certain types of music vs. what I think the original point of this thread which is namely; artists who have achieved success even though they SUCK!;) While I don't care much for Wynton Marsalis I don't think it can be denied that he's a skilled & well-trained musician. The same can be said for Manhatten Transfer. Where as someone like Kid Rock, not so much. |
U2 REM Grateful Dead (ok, I guess it's about the drugs) Dave Matthews Band Sting Coldplay Radiohead The Who Those bands have a cult like following for reasons unbeknownst to me. I'm not saying they're a bunch of "no-talent ass-clowns" (to quote a character named Michael Bolton in Office Space referring to the singer of the same name), but I just can't get why they're as popular as they are for as long as they've been. As far as Bono... A good friend of mine worked for MTV. He's met and interacted with a ton of famous musicians and other celebrities. He said Bono was easily the most pretentious douche bag he's ever met. Second place (David Lee Roth) wasn't even remotely close. |
