Oh, and add The Who to Jimi and Janis---they were pretty flash at Woodstock.
213 responses Add your response
bdp24, I wasn’t mad at you, like I said, I am still mad about how Jimi was treated and I have to vent from time to time. I believe Noel Redding was still suing for back royalties when he died, wasn’t he? The music business certainly has more than its share of scumbags. Jimi also had trouble till the end of his life from a contract he signed while he was still an unknown with a small time studio owner here in the States. Everybody knows about Jimi’s Electric Ladyland studio in NY, but Jimi was just paying for it, Michael Jeffery was going to end up being the owner. Jimi was easy prey for these jackals. The ability to spot real talent certainly does run in the Hammond family. Michael Bloomfield was definitely one of the greats. It’s hard to believe, but on John Hammond’s So Many Roads album Bloomfield is listed as playing piano (?) with Robbie Robertson on guitar. That has to be the only time that Bloomfield took a back seat to anyone. Nobody knew how to dress like Jimi. He would dress so outlandishly, but always looked great. I’ll admit that the Brits generally had better fashion sense than the American bands. I just wish that John Hammond Sr. had signed him to Columbia before he went to England. I think Hammond Sr. would have steered him to better management. We wouldn’t have the Experience albums but maybe something even better. So, sorry if my posts were a little aggressive, you definitely better me on direct experience. I never saw Jimi live. |
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. |
| Post removed |
Disco was a fad, rap/hip-hop is here to stay. Orchestral music, opera, jazz...they ain't dead, either. Weird Al Yankovic is still around, too, and I've never found him amusing in the least BUT...some people still do. I'm sitting here ripping music into my music server, culling recordings that make me think, "what was I thinking?" Here goes Public Enemy immediately after Paul Simon... (I don't have that many "P" artists, hmmmm) |
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. |
If you ask the roots themselves they have the completely opposite opinion. The are the intelligent side of hip hop.I can see that. My comments about the Roots pertain to their influences and musicianship. But Rappers today don't need or have any musical ability and wouldn't even know the names of the music legends that came before them. I guess the Roots would label themselves a Hip-Hop group. Sometimes the rapping is very musical as in the following clip; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojC0mg2hJCc sometimes it is just bad Rap with a very good musical accompaniment. |
When I was growing up it was typical for comedians and comic writers to make fun of the beatniks. One tried-and-true method was to do a parody of the beat poet accompanied by a bongo player. I ask all of you: is such a performance (the real thing, not the parody) "music" or is it "performance art?" For me, it’s definitely the latter. I didn’t consider it a musical performance when my age was in the single digits and did not at any age, so it has nothing to do with being an "old fart." I can’t think of anything closer to rap than the beat poet with bongos, can you? It is performance art--it is not music of any kind, much less rock and roll. However, if it’s music to you that should be all that matters to you, your opinion is as good as mine or anyone else’s. Till someone makes a better case than I’ve seen or heard (and no one on this thread has addressed it yet, just pointing fingers and calling names) I’ll continue to believe as I do. Please, show me where I’m wrong on this. |
@taters good job. Lol. Yup probably a little too much for you to understand. I should expect that from someone who just doesn't like it and paints with the broad brush. I get it enjoy your rock and roll. Honestly, certain kinds of music is not made for certain people. Not made for you. Guess why some of these artists perform all over the world. Yup the the 30 year fad continues on without you. Lol. Long live Rock and Roll. Oh I'm sorry I meant Hip Hop. Lol. |
Yup. See how trump leads this race to run our country. This is what the world has come too. Thug this thug that. Arguments that are clearly "dumbed down" lol. Musical genre painted with a broad brush. I could say heavy metal or Rock is for the dopers. Or blues and country is for the drinkers. But I won't do that. Yup I see a hip hop band for if not for them being on jimmy Fallon you wouldn't even know who they were. Then say they are not a hip hop band. Hysterical! Lol. Y'all win on this one. Lol. |
onhwy61, I don’t think there’s a single, absolute definition of either that we can all agree on. Some academics define music as "the art of sound." I find that broad. In school I heard a lot of post WWII classical compositions that I found to be bad and some which I would not call "music" because they lacked the presence of intelligent or organized elements of melody, harmony and/or rhythm. I think a man sitting at a drum kit or a pair of tablas is totally capable of creating music without melody or harmony--but it’s incumbent upon him to do something interesting. A guy sitting at a drum kit and playing a polka accompaniment with no melody, to me, is not making music. He’s giving you one piece of a puzzle that could be music if successfully fitted together. Whereas Roy Haynes or Tony Williams could play a drum solo which would amaze and delight with its imagination, taste and technical prowess. There’s also the question of emphasis--in a poetry recitation or a rap performance the emphasis is on the spoken voice. Any music present is secondary to the voice, more so than if the person were singing and had an accompaniment based on some notion of harmonic interaction with the changing pitches of the voice. If David Byrne were to rap "Psycho Killer" with only the recorded electronic drum track behind him it might be great "performance art," but it’s hardly musical--just boring, repetitive rhythms with a boring, droning voice speaking. When he sings a melody and has a guitar playing chords behind him on the same piece it is music, to me. When the Red Hot Chili Peppers have a pure rap vocal over a funky music bed that’s a hybrid of music and rap IMO. And I do like that one tune ("give it away, give away, give it away now..."). I think its success lies in the fact that the the music is very good and the rap is very good (and they go together well in this case). I can’t think of another example of a pure rap that grabs me like that. For those who think "everything we do is music," including all speech, industrial sounds, squeaking doors, barking dogs, etc., that’s all well and good, but then the word has no special meaning--it then is synonymous with "sound," so why even have the word "music" at all? Just say "sound." Thanks for your time. Let’s do "rock and roll" a bit later, if you don’t mind. |
@tostadosunidos well spoken. You make some great points. Great. I love jazz the most. I listen everyday. It's absolutely stunning the way some of them can play. To each his own. We all have our preferences. I love the original ROOTS crew as they originally called themselves. They are a great band of musicians. They can do it all well. To everyone else. Enjoy your kind of or music. Lol. Don't talk just listen. @taters Rock on! Lol. |
| Post removed |
Tostadosunidos, thanks for the well written and reasoned response. It gives great insight into your previous statements. You make the point that music has to be interesting, which I can see as necessary for music to be likable, but not for it (the sounds) to be music. The question then becomes "interesting to who?" Based upon record sales and 30+ years of staying power rap/hip hop is clearly interesting to a large part of the populace. I just think it would be more intellectually honest for you to avoid statements where you declare "rap is not music" and simply say you don't find it interesting. I too don't find most rap (or modern pop music) that interesting, but I do recognize it as music. |
onhwy61, what I was saying is that in my opinion rap is not music. I said several times that it is in the ear of the beholder and that there is no absolute definition. There are, apparently, people who think "Variations on a Door and a Sigh" is interesting and that it is music. Or some of the works of John Cage. There are those who think Andy Warhol's soup cans are brilliant art. I don't. The fact that someone will pay 100 million for a Warhol piece doesn't convince me that it's art. The fact that rap has sold well for 30 years doesn't convince me that it's music. "I trust my ears" is appropriate in this case. The beatnik with bongos is not music to my ears and neither is the man with the electronic drum. Performance art, yes; music, no. Again, in my opinion. YMMV. |
Hey, ps, how about you quit taking cheap shops and actually address the points that have been made? Show us some rap songs that are musical (I know a few are out there--I've heard some Snoop Dogg and Kanye tracks that have interesting things going in the background). Make a case. Don't just call us old and out of touch. I've been hearing rap since it hit the airwaves and am certainly entitled to an opinion. Most of it sounds to me like rope-jumping rhymes with an ultra-simplistic percussion track. Stick your neck out, show us where we're wrong. Otherwise you're standing by the side of the road throwing rocks at cars and then running for cover. |
PS's comments are totally appropriate in light of what others have posted in this thread. Tostadosunidos, if music is organized patterns of rhythm, harmony and melody (well a minimum of two out of three), is it at least a possibility that you simply might not have the knowledge to understand how the musicians are using these elements? With all due respect, while you are engaging in a discourse you seem to have closed your mind on the subject. Still interested in how you define rock and roll. BTW, didn't western civilization start to decline during the heavy metal years? |
I'm quite surprised that no one has mentioned Gil Scott-Heron, as he was clearly a very powerful, early influence on the genre. And if you think that rap is all about "thugs", or that rap artists aren't musicians, then you haven't listened to Scott-Heron. For those who are interested, try "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and "In the Bottle". |
" it is now just real crap / by thugs .....with one step in and out of prison '' It NEVER was any good and 30 years from now ...no 5 years from now, do you think that you will be listening to any of the, for a lack of any better words ; songs that are being played now ???? I think not - can't say that about ' Miles Davis, Frank Sinatra , Louis Armstrong, Ray Charles, The Allman Brothers, The Band, The Beatles ...that list goes on. I am amazed that crap is still around |
The common denominator that ties the vast majority of the harsh critics – like garebear above – is that they lump all rap artists together. That alone underscores that their opinions stem from ignorance. Don’t misunderstand: everyone is of course free to express their opinions, and it is perfectly reasonable to dislike the genre. But dismissing it with a disdainful wave of the hand is simply ignorant. |