Why? Why not?! My generation (the 60's) embraced first "Frat" Rock (The Beach Boys, The Ventures, Paul Revere & The Raiders, etc.), then British Invasion, both the 1st wave (Beatles, Rolling Stones, Kinks, Animals, Yardbirds, etc.) and 2nd (Cream, Hendrix---though American, he was perceived as British, Led Zeppelin, Traffic). Why? The 50's generation liked Jazz, Pop vocalists, the original Rock n' Roll. Why? In the early 70's singer/songwriters (Carole King, James Taylor, Elton John, many others) ruled, and Progressive Rock was hugely popular. Why? The mid-to-late 70's saw the rise of the "anti-Prog Rock" Punk movement spearheaded by, it can be argued, The Ramones (though The MC5 and The Stooges inspired them). The early 80's was the era of Corporate Rock (name your poison ;-) and, for the trendier, New Wave. Why? The late 80's were owned by the Sunset Strip hair bands/Arena Rock "acts". Why? The 90's saw Alternative (REM, all the other "College Radio" bands) become THE music to like. Why? And then, every once in a while an Artist comes along who endures for decades---Dylan, Tom Petty, Springsteen. Pop music is largely just fashion, no different than clothes or hair styles. How then can Rap have stay popular for so long, defying the normal rules of fashion? A person or people who don't like Rap (I have a feeling that's most Audiogoners) is/are the wrong one/s to ask. One may as well ask why jeans have been fashionable for so long. Pre-50's men did not wear jeans, sporting khaki's and slacks their entire lives. Post-50's guys rarely wear anything but jeans. Unlike the examples in the above musical timeline, Rap didn't replace anything---it is it's own genre. It may be thought of as younger peoples Blues, which it is somewhat similar to. As with Rap, Blues was originally criticized (by white America, of course, for whom it was neither created nor intended, but also by Baptist Preachers) for it's crude/vulgar lyrics, repetitive musical structure, lack of melody, and general unlistenability, just as was 50's Rock n' Roll by the Big Band generation. That generation couldn't understand how the following one could like the music it did; I know 60's guys who continue to piss and moan about how music nowadays is no good, they not being able to accept the fact that "their" music (The Beatles in particular, it seems) is no longer being made (it is, but only on a cult level), or popular the masses. Why should they expect it to be? That is no different than their WWII parents bemoaning the death of the Big Bands. We had our time---it's now "theirs"! |
I couldn't agree with you more taters. I myself am one who finds Rap not merely unlistenable, but unbearable. When heard, I do everything in my power to get as far away from the sound source as possible. I not only can't answer why it has stayed popular as long as it had, I can't fathom how it can be liked in the first place. But I am about as far from Rap's target audience as you can get. You too taters, apparently! |
I have no doubt that Rap is viewed in certain circles as merely the current phase in the continuing downward spiral of Western Civilization, the dumbing down of humanity. Rock n' Roll was certainly viewed thusly in the mid-50's by the WWII generation, and I've read that intellectuals in the 20's felt the same way about early Jazz. I'm thinking every generation views the following one in that way. And it may be true---no music that followed J.S. Bach is as good as his ;-)! |
tomcy6---I'm aware of all you said. But, Jimi went over to England as an unknown, where he was heard by Chas Chandler (bassist in The Animals), who signed him to a management deal. A British band was put together (drummer Mitch Mitchell and bassist Noel Redding), and The Jimi Hendrix Experience started playing around England, where he immediately caused a stir. Clapton, Jeff Beck, Lennon, McCartney, and Harrison all going to see him perform. Chandler got Jimi a British record deal, and the first album was recorded and released in England and Europe, where it broke big. All that before he came back to the U.S., as an already successful British/European act. He was introduced to the U.S. market that way, as coming to the U.S. from England. Of course he was American---everyone knows that. That's not the point, the point being that he was part of the 2nd British Invasion, which brought a new style of Rock to the U.S. from England. That 2nd wave included Cream, Led Zeppelin, Hendrix himself, and others. The style of Rock they were playing was Blues based, heavy on improvisation and technical proficiency. |
Wow Tom, may I cry uncle?! You are obviously in possession of more knowledge about Jimi than I. I wasn't aware that Jimi was playing with Hammond, but John sure had good taste in guitarists, didn't he? He had engaged both Robbie Robertson (of The Hawks, of course. Bob Dylan stole Robbie and the rest of The Hawks away from John---they were his touring, uh, band) and Mike Bloomfield to play for him in '65 and '66, two of the best guitarists around. In my defense, let me point out that I didn't say Jimi was British (in fact, I specifically stated he wasn't), only that he was perceived as being part of the 1967 second wave of the British Invasion, perceived as such for the reasons mentioned above. He and The Experience also LOOKED British, didn't they? Contrast their ruffled shirts, crushed velvet trousers, and feather boas with the look of American Bands in the late 60's---dirty hippies! The only performers on the stage at Woodstock who looked like they considered themselves to be in "Show Business" were The Experience and maybe Janis Joplin. Everyone else looked like a farmer, except the members of The Band, who looked like they just came off the set of a western movie. I didn't see Hendrix live again after '68, but even then he seemed tired, or at least bored. Only the previous year he had been on absolute fire (no pun intended!---my High School Teen Combo performed his song "Fire" in '67-8). Contracts back then could be brutal, requiring at least an album a year. In the late 90's I worked with Emitt Rhodes, and he told us about being sued by Dunhill Records for breach of contract when he didn't deliver his second album on time. They withheld all future royalties in retaliation, and he never received another royalty check until after his song "Lullaby" was used in the film The Royal Tenenbaums, when an attorney/musician sued on his behalf. He signed his deal without legal representation, which was also common back then. |
Oh, and add The Who to Jimi and Janis---they were pretty flash at Woodstock. |
No offence taken, Tom. Au contraire'---I appreciate your knowledge! That fact about Bloomfield is interesting, isn't it? I read an interview with Mike wherein he described arriving at the session intending to play guitar, but upon hearing Robertson, move to piano without being asked to. They both played in a similar blues style, and were two of the first white 60's guitarist to get good tone (though they played very different sounding guitars---Bloomfield a Gibson Les Paul, Robertson a Fender Telecaster), before most of the British players got hip, one exception being John Mayall's guitarists, Clapton and Peter Green. In '66 Jimmy Page, when taking over as lead guitarist (from Beck) in The Yardbirds, was still playing a Telecaster, and had horrid, thin tone. As did Keith Richards. Musicians/singers/songwriters getting screwed financially is a very old, common occurrence. Chuck Berry was one of the few original Rock n' Rollers to possess business acumen, most others being very naïve and overly-trusting, even The Beatles (whose terrible songwriting publishing deal robbed them of many millions of dollars. Brain Epstein did NOT know what he was doing). In the early 2000's, Emitt Rhodes actually had to move into his studio (a huge converted garage located behind his house in Hawthorne California), and rent out the house to pay the mortgage. |
Exactly, onhwy61! Sophisticated music listeners said the same about Elvis and the other Rock n' Rollers in the 50's (Frank Sinatra calling them "cretins"). It appears each generation feels the same way about the one that follows. I don't find that surprising, nor correct or incorrect. Pop music reflects the culture of it's time, and this time belongs, as it always does, to the young. |
Just this past Sunday, the last story on 60 Minutes was a segment on a Broadway Musical that tells the story of Alexander Hamilton set to Rap/Hiphop. I understand completely if that sounds silly to you, but I'm here to tell you I dug it. Written by and starring a first generation Puerto Rican immigrant, it has had both Obama and Cheney as audience members! |
Right nonoise, Mostel and Wilder were much better in the movie (a favorite of mine) than the two guys were in the Broadway show, imo. The show I referred to above is entitled "Hamilton", and the writer and main-character performer is Lin-Manuel Miranda, born in NYC to first generation Puerto Rican immigrants, both who came across as very intelligent and articulate in the 60 Minutes segment (he's a musician, she a teacher, I believe). Lin-Manuel showed signs of musical talent at an early age, so his parents put him in a school for gifted children, where he found his thing---musicals. He went on to college and got a degree, and had one play (which won some awards---his first play!) under his belt when on a vacation read a biography of Alexander Hamilton by American history authority Ron Chernow. Lin thought it would make a great play, so sat down and wrote one---story, music, and lyrics. And it's great! I like Rap and Hip Hop no more than most of you other older white guys (I don't even know what constitutes and differentiates Rap from Hip Hop!), but I loved what I heard in the 60 Minutes footage from the Broadway stage. A soundtrack recording was mentioned, so I'm going to check it out. Join me! |
I saw a short segment on Rachel Maddows show recently (I think it was), wherein an activist was promoting the idea that non-racist is not the same as anti-racist. |
