Why does modern music sound so different

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,.gargoyle
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 04:25 PM

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 04:31 PM

Cheers, PFR! I'm a big fan on the VOX delay lab. Looking out for a new something or other just now - will check it out...

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 05:29 PM

"Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Ed - PM
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 03:17 PM

Mozart wrote good music , when he wrote it was not his SOLE intention to make money

So you knew Mozart, Dick? Conversed with him regarding his motivations? And he told you this?

Pathetic."
Pathetic? well if you believe that he wrote solely for the purpose of making money, please prove it, of course you cannot, neither can I prove it, BUT I have an opinion, and my opinion is that comparing Mozart with modern commercialised music of boy bands is like comparing chalk and cheese, firstly we are talking of different centuries, different artistic situations, Mozart had patrons, but he was not attempting to sell millions of cds etc to a vast consumer market, Mozart was also a talented composer, todays boybands in my opinion are talentless produced rehashers of hook lines riffs of overused chord progressions.
let me give you an example of another Classical composer J S BACH, a German composer and musician of the Baroque period. He enriched established German styles through his skill in counterpoint, harmonic and motivic organisation, and the adaptation of rhythms, forms, and textures from abroad, particularly from Italy and France.Bach's abilities as an organist were respected throughout Europe during his lifetime, although he was not widely recognised as a great composer until a revival of interest and performances of his music in the first half of the 19th century. He is now generally regarded as one of the greatest composers of all time.
Bach did not Compose his innovative music solely for commercial purposes, yes innovative.. he did not wish to be able to use equal temperament purely for commercial purposes.
now I will return to Mozart.
Mozart showed prodigious ability from his earliest childhood. Already competent on keyboard and violin, he composed from the age of five and performed before European royalty. At 17, he was engaged as a court musician in Salzburg, but grew restless and travelled in search of a better position, always composing abundantly. While visiting Vienna in 1781, he was dismissed from his Salzburg position. He chose to stay in the capital, where he achieved fame but little financial security.
he acheived little financial security, furthermore if you think he was attempting to be commercial at the age of five, I am afraid that it is you that is pathetic.
Mozart and Bach composed great music because they were talented, not because their sole aim was to be commercially successful, bands such as the spice girls and the monkees and westlife, which are bands that were formed with the sole reason of making lots of money and being commercially successful have produced rehashed bland, samey music that cannot be compared artistically to Mozart or Bach, why ? the reason is because they are commercial groups put together with the sole reason of being money making machines,this is reflected in their bland samey music.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 05:43 PM

IF anyone thinks Mozart aged five, in the year 1724 was composing for purely commercial purposes, then they are truly pathetic , noone needs to have a conversation with Mozart to understand that.
Mozart's first composition was Andante in C, which he wrote at age four or five, Mozart's earliest composition attempts begin with piano sonatas and other piano pieces, as this is the instrument on which his musical education took place. Almost everything that he wrote for piano was intended to be played by himself (or by his sister, also a proficient piano player)
SO NO SUGGESTION HERE.ED.T. that these were composed for commercial purposes is there?

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 05:44 PM

I suspect different music serves different purposes. So, is it not reasonable that an evaluation would factor in the class of music and the intended purpose? Does rating disco, or dance music with the sane criteria as classical make much sense?

what is the purpose of music? 

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 06:54 PM

1957 scat-singing the "UAH-UAH-UAH" sound-now wasn't that truly different, way back?

Bad Boy 

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 15 - 08:35 PM

Er, Dick, Mozart was born in 1756. :-) I would also point out that your post of 03.17pm contained two sections of copy and paste, mixed in with your own, far less literate, contribution. It would have been nicer of you to have acknowledged this than to have us thinking that you'd penned the two sections yourself. Your later post about Mozart's earliest works is also full of inaccuracies, not the least of which is that reference to 1724. Sometimes, a bit of scholarship can help in debates.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 03:03 AM

my point is not made invalid, mozart aged 5 did not compose for the sole purpose of money what post of 3 .17?if you are re efrring to my post of 5.29, then if there are any inaccuraccies that is the fault of wiki,none of which invalidates my points
nothing that you have posted invalidates my main points. which is this Bach did not compose his great music solely for commercial purposes neither did mozart. they achieved renown through talent.
compare this to modern bands such as monkees, westlife, spice girls, these are manufactured groups put together solely for commercial purposes, their music is written to a formula, it is bland and samey and compares UNFAVOURABLY to the innovative music of Bach.and to the composotions of Mozart, modern boy and girl bands such as the ones i have mentioned are not put together because they are musically talented, the monkees were as far as i know the first band put together on this basis, compare their musical.compositions and music to the Beatles, THE BEATLES WERE A GROUP WHO WERE NOT MANUFACTURED PURELY FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES.The music of the Beatles is variable but some is good, what is the difference.. they had a bit of talent and could play a bit.
The principle that a band can be manufactured, produced and regardless of talent hyped and using songwriters whose only motive is making money will always produce commercial music lacking in innovation which will be bland and samey.
Steve Shaw, your attempts to score minor points about dates[ a late night tired posting] does not alter the fact that mozart composed his first composotion aged five and did not do it solely for commercial purposes.
Steve, in a debate sometimes it is advisable not to spend your time attempting to score points, and wasting time about acknowledgment of cut and paste, it merely shows that you are concerned with form not content.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 03:07 AM

Every Generation's parents have no doubt asked the same question.
The art is to try and understand Why does modern music sound so different and then musicle barriers will be brought closer and if we listen to young ones music they will listen to ours.
Grandad9

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Thompson
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 03:16 AM

It's an interesting question.

When I first heard Wheels of the World, recordings of Irish musicians who worked in America in the early years of the 20th century, I was astonished.

It was clearly Irish music, but utterly different to anything I'd grown up with: the cadence, the speed, the tone was quite different - it had a headlong rush that was astonishing. It might have been music by emigrants who'd spent a few generations on another planet.

The same with listening to klezmer from the 1900s, compared to modern klezmer, and to Romanian gipsy music from the 1900s, compared to modern Romanian gipsy music.

I concluded that different times simply have different musical understandings. The past is a foreign country; they do do things differently there.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 04:41 AM

I do listen to young musicians, from all countries and i am often impressed.
I would not classify the spice girls, the monkees, or any boy bands, as musicians they may attempt to play musical instruments, they may on occassion be competent, but they are producers of hyped commercial manufactured sound.
here in Ireland people still write songs about local events , these songs are not written with the SOLE purpose of making money for the writer.
now, let us take 3 score and ten, originally written to raise money for the survivors, the original is inferior to the current version which has been folk processed, now let us take the stephen foster song gentle annie, the australian folk processed version is suprio lyric wise although it still uses fosters fine tune.
Stephen Foster, was a commercial song writer, but he had talent, and the commercial situation150 years ago was different to how it is now, furthermore he derw uponroots that he was reasonably closely associated with.
for the benefit of SteveShaw the extract from wiki,please read carefully mr Scholar Steve Shaw.Early life and education

Foster attended private academies in Allegheny, Athens, and Towanda, Pennsylvania. He received an education in English grammar, diction, the classics, penmanship, Latin, Greek, and mathematics. In 1839, his elder brother William was serving his apprenticeship as an engineer at nearby Towanda and thought Stephen would benefit from being under his supervision. The site of the Camptown Races is 30 miles from Athens and 15 miles from Towanda. Stephen attended Athens Academy from 1839 to 1841. He wrote his first composition, Tioga Waltz, while attending Athens Academy and performed it during the 1841 commencement exercises; he was 14. It was not published during the composer's lifetime, but it is included in the collection of published works by Morrison Foster. In 1842, Athens Academy was destroyed in a fire.[citation needed]

Foster's education included a brief period at Jefferson College in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania, (now Washington & Jefferson College).[1][nb 1] His tuition was paid, but he had little spending money.[1] Sources conflict on whether he left willingly or was dismissed,[3] but, either way, he left Canonsburg to visit Pittsburgh with another student and did not return.[1]

During his teenage years, Foster was influenced greatly by two men. Henry Kleber (1816–1897), one of Stephen's few formal music instructors, was a classically trained musician who emigrated from Darmstadt, Germany, to Pittsburgh and opened a music store. Dan Rice was an entertainer, a clown, and blackface singer, making his living in traveling circuses. Although respectful of the more civilized parlor songs of the day, Rice and his friends would often sit at a piano, writing and singing minstrel songs through the night. Eventually, Foster learned to blend the two genres to write some of his best-known work.[citation needed]

In 1846, Foster moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, and became a bookkeeper with his brother's steamship company. While he was in Cincinnati, Foster penned his first successful songs—among them "Oh! Susanna," which became an anthem of the California Gold Rush—in 1848–1849. In 1849, he published Foster's Ethiopian Melodies, which included the successful song "Nelly Was a Lady", made famous by the Christy Minstrels. A plaque marks the site of Foster's residence in Cincinnati, where the Guilford School building is now located.

Then he returned to Pennsylvania and signed a contract with the Christy Minstrels. It was during this period that Foster would write most of his best-known songs: "Camptown Races" (1850), "Nelly Bly" (1850), "Old Folks at Home" (known also as "Swanee River", 1851), "My Old Kentucky Home" (1853), "Old Dog Tray" (1853), and "Jeanie With the Light Brown Hair" (1854), written for his wife Jane Denny McDowell.

Many of Foster's songs were of the blackface minstrel show tradition popular at the time. Foster sought, in his own words, to, "build up taste ... among refined people by making words suitable to their taste, instead of the trashy and really offensive words which belong to some songs of that order." Many of his songs had Southern themes, yet Foster never lived in the South and visited it only once in 1852, by riverboat voyage on his honeymoon on his brother Dunning's steamboat the Millinger, which took him down the Mississippi to New Orleans.

Foster attempted to make a living as a professional songwriter and may be considered innovative in this respect, since this field did not yet exist in the modern sense. Due in part to the limited scope of music copyright and composer royalties at the time, Foster realized very little of the profits his works generated for sheet music printers. Multiple publishers often printed their own competing editions of Foster's tunes, paying Foster nothing. He received $100 ($2,653 in 2012 dollars) for "Oh, Susanna" and barely made anything for his many other, popular songs.[citation needed]

Foster moved to New York City in 1860. About a year later, his wife and daughter left him and returned to Pittsburgh. Beginning in 1862, his fortunes decreased, and as they did, so did the quality of his new songs. Early in 1863, he began working with George Cooper, whose lyrics were often humorous and designed to appeal to musical theater audiences. The Civil War created a flurry of newly written music with patriotic war themes, but this did not benefit Foster. During this time he composed a series of Sunday School hymns.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 05:03 AM

All fine information but when did he meet Allen?

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM

My posts on this topic, Dick, are full of relevant content. I happen to know a good deal about Mozart as it happens and when I see a post full of errors it tends to make me wonder what else I can trust that comes from you. As you were clearly consulting wiki about Bach and Mozart, surely it isn't asking too much of you to at least try to be accurate. Apropos of your opinions, I find your takes on the Beatles, boy and girl bands and the classical composers to be far too broad-brush and ill-considered, and too full of capital letters, to be worthy of further debate.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 06:40 AM

Steve,my take on the Beatles?What is broad brush about that?
I happen to know a lot about Bach and Mozart as well, but use pasting from wiki encylcopaedia for speed and convenience, none of which alters the fact that Mozarts compositions aged 5 were not composed solely for commercial gain., neither was the innovative music OF J S Bach, Bach was arguably one of the greatest composers and most innovative but his compositions were not recognised as such until after his death, he did not compose for the sole purpose of commercial gain, what do you say to that Steve Scholar Shaw?
having seen many of your posts I ignore a lot of what you say as well, many of your posts reflect a lack of an open mind,Touche ,
I trust nothing that comes from you other than posts about the harmonica, good night.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 06:59 AM

Fine, Dick. It's just that your opinions of modern pop music remind me of those "no wonder the country's going to the dogs" letters you get in the Daily Mail. Not that I ever read it except totally by accident, you understand.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 07:03 AM

Mozarts compositions aged 5 were not composed solely for commercial gain.,

Amazing at it may sound, Dick, but the various members of The Spice Girls, Monkees, Sex Pistols, Boyzone (etc.) weren't doing music for commercial gain when they were 5 either. Precocious, or otherwise, all musicians must learn their craft & pay their dues before taking their place in their given Tradition, in which commercial gain, or paying the bills, is part of the reality that shapes the musical landscape. In this respect there's no difference between Westlife and the Watersons.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 07:18 AM

Bach was a professional musician. His living, the maintenance of himself and his many dependents, depended on producing the music to deadline for his employers and sponsors; in particular the Elector of Brandenburg. What is that, Dick, for crying out loud, but writing for money (or 'commercial gain', if that is how you prefer to express it)? He was writing as a day-job, with little thought of fame or the regard of posterity, and doing so to the best of his ability as a good workman does.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Will Fly
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 07:20 AM

Just as an afterthought - what was Papa Mozart doing from when little Wolfgang was about 6 years old? Why, travelling all over Europe from wealthy patron to wealthy patron, displaying his son as a child prodigy. Leopold had virtually stopped composing and was living off the proceeds.

Not that it matters in the end - the music is all that counts.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 07:43 AM

I don't give a Flyin' F**k what the motivations of a composer/writer/performer are - it's music, if it sounds good to my ears, it's good. And, as I said elsewhere, I can find something to appreciate and enjoy in most music.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 08:28 AM

I'm quite into Bach right now - at least bits of it. This past year I seem to have amassed various recordings of The Art of the Fugue & The Musical Offering both old & new for contrast / comparison. In realms of so-called Early Music a few years, I find, makes all the difference as new generations of musicians find something entirely new to say with any given piece of music. The art of renewal!

I also have John Elliot Gardiner's Music in the Castle of Heaven lined up for my next big read, though I keep getting distracted by Carl Sagan.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 08:42 AM

MGM you ARE missing the point, modern boy bands compose music as part of the consumer society, their sole aim is producing commercial music that will sell loads, Bach earned his living as an organist quite similiar to me earning my living as a singer, neither Myself or BACH produced our music for the SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING LOADS OF MONEY.
Bachs innovation with equal temperament was not motivated by the desire to make vast inroads commercially, it was part of his creative artistic raison detre.
Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 06:59 AM

Fine, Dick. It's just that your opinions of modern pop music remind me of those "no wonder the country's going to the dogs" letters you get in the Daily Mail. Not that I ever read it except totally by accident, you understand.
the answer from a defeated debater, a deliberate misunderstanding of my point, I STATED THAT I DO LISTEN TO YOUNG MUSICIANS, so this attempt to smear me as some kind of backward reactionary is wide of the mark, I do not wish to listen to young or old musicians producing sounds that are motivated purely in the hope of making loads of money, why? because it is reflected in the music,commercialism leads to pandering to record companies whose motive is selling loads , result samey bland lack of experimentation, lack of excitement, do what the record company say ,the record company markets it with one object and that object is not musical merit it is loads of money.
to compare BACH to the spice girls or westlife, because Bach was a professional musician, is quite frankly ridiculous, they lived centuries apart in different circumstances, furthermore BACHS INNOVATION WAS NOT HAMPERED BY RECORD COMPANIES TELLING HIM WHAT TO PLAY.Bach had MUCH GREATER ARTISTIC CONTROL OVER HIS MUSIC AND YOU ALL KNOW IT.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 08:55 AM

You tell us that it's ridiculous to compare Bach with the Spice Girls and Westlife, but you don't mind comparing him with yourself: Bach earned his living as an organist quite similiar to me earning my living as a singer, neither Myself or BACH produced our music for the SOLE PURPOSE OF MAKING LOADS OF MONEY.

I look forward to your first set of cantatas and your "48", Dick. I know you won't be doing them for money so I promise to chuck 50p in your hat...

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 09:00 AM

BIX BEIDERBECKE, great jazz musician, had to earn his living playing commercial music with the paul whiteman orchestra , but in his spare time in his own bands, produced brilliant jazz, that was innovative at the time, there was no room for innovation in whitemans commercial band, whiteman did not allow bix to have his artistic head, and so it goes on example after example of commercialisation stopping innovation, same thing with glenn millers band, and i haveclose of this experience my uncle nat peck played in glenn millers band and has publicly said that the music got jazzier[less commercial after millers death], miller was working to some extent to a commercial formula., not as exaggerated as the spice girls or westlife but stil putting constraint upon musicians, the musicians had littl;e artistic control

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Will Fly
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 09:38 AM

Whiteman treated Beiderbecke extremely well, given the erratic nature of his lifestyle caused by alcoholism, keeping his seat open in the band while Bix was away. He gave lots of opportunities for his star musicians - Beiderbecke, Joe Venuti, Eddie Lang, Bing Crosby, Harry Barris, Frankie Trumbauer to play solos within the environment of what was, after all, a commercial dance band.

I was lucky enough, in the mid-'70s, to see and hear cornettist and journalist Dick Sudhalter's recreation of the Whiteman Orchestra on two occasions - the first at the Roundhouse in Chalk Farm, and the second at the Fairfield Hall in Croydon. Dick got hold of the original Whiteman arrangements, hired the cream of the UKs jazz musicians and presented the music complete with appropriate solo spots and small group performances. There were great moments, with plenty of opportunities, within the arrangements, for improvisation.

Which would actually have suited Bix as, according to biographers, his sight-reading was not particularly good.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 10:05 AM

Excellent post, Will. Sudhalter also co-authored a bio of Bix,"Bix: Man and Legend". A very good read.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 10:19 AM

How does doing an unaccompanied gig fit into this, when a club has a 'solo singer only' policy, taken by a performer who normally would use accompaniment? Artistic constraint to get the fee or artistic liberty and enjoyment?

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 11:28 AM

GSS/Dick - so what's your edumacated opinion on quotation marks then...

do they still have any purpose in the modern world of wiki and cut'n'paste...???

yours truly, confused reader from South West England....😕

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Will Fly
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 12:53 PM

Excellent post, Will. Sudhalter also co-authored a bio of Bix,"Bix: Man and Legend". A very good read.

Yes, I must get around to reading this one day. I keep remembering it, then forgetting about it!

What struck me the most about hearing the live Sudhalter orchestra was how incredibly full and warm the sound was - when for years I'd been listening to scratchy, slightly fluffy recordings of the Whiteman band, which was all that was available, of course. The sound in the Fairfield Hall was particularly "huge" - and hearing the original orchestra in the true Whiteman period must have been a wonderful experience.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 12:59 PM

for fuck sake , i never said whiteman treated him badly, I said that he   produced his best playing most innovative away from whiteman , but earned his living commercially with whiteman.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 01:10 PM

People seem to like what they like regardless the motivation that pushed the writer to create the piece.

Each to her own said the ol' lady when she kissed the cow.

Just to lighten the mood, here's a cut from Super Junior (aka SJ and SuJu). Sapphire Blue

BTW, I like this cut. Not so much the rest I've heard.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,#
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 01:25 PM

Took me a few seconds there to check that this thread is in the music section. Almost starting to read like the BS section in spots.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 01:31 PM

Nah, we're ok, honest!

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 01:44 PM

right then...

late yesterday afternoon
[Saturday - if any cultural historians are researching this thread centuries ahead in the future]
the sun was streaming in through the front room window
and mrs punkfolkrocker was sat on the sofa singing along and waiving her arms in the air
to The Bay City Rollers greatest hits..

Now that's the happiest she's been all week after the stress of work
and knowing most of her sunday at home will have to be devoted to tying up reports and plans for Monday..

Today, 5 CDs of 100 1970's disco chartbusters
is helping maintain a buoyant mood while she types along...

I suppose I could suggest she tries Mozart or Bach instead...?????

Then again I want her to stay in a good mood for this evening.....😜

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Ed T
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 02:03 PM

I can visualize a Vonnegut inspired future with "purist" music police, forcing folks to listen to music they dont enjoy.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 10:52 PM

I agree that SOME pop artistes are in it for the sole purpose of making money. Mostly these are bands or artistes that have been created by the "Cowell machine" or similar.

However, that doesn't mean that ALL popular music was written purely for the purpose of making money, nor that many of the artistes making pop music haven't "earned their stripes" through an apprenticeship playing small venues, pubs and clubs.

What I was objecting to up-thread, and still am, is the trashing of whole categories or genres by blanket comments such as "it's all noise" or "it's all just crap produced for commercial purposes". That's simply narrow-minded bigotry.

I've seen many young bands, songwriters and singers developing....some go a more "folky" route, some into rap or hip-hop, some into indie-rock and some into commercial pop. These people almost all have at their root a common love of music and are absolutely not thinking solely (or in many cases at all) about "making loads of money". Most, even some very talented ones, don't "make it" commercially at all. Some have limited local success, some develop a bit of a nationwide (or even international) cult following, and a very tiny minority actually make it commercially.

To give a pertinent example. One band I've seen develop over the last 5 year or so is Elijah Wolf's "Gravity Drive"....basically himself and his wife Ava plus a couple of supporting musicians. Elijah writes catchy "art-poppy" songs and tunes....not because he thinks they'll sell, but because that's "what comes out of my head". He's a tireless worker, running open mic sessions in several towns in Devon and Dorset, and just has an immense love of music in many forms. He encourages people with initially low self-confidence to perform, he helps other people to refine their songs. Plays local paying gigs with the band whenever he can.

He's had a couple of songs picked up as "background" music on a soap opera, and the band finally self-recorded and released their own album late last year. He's been advised to go solo for a "better chance of commercial success" as individual singer-songwriters are "in" at present, but won't (and I do actually prefer his solo acoustic versions of many of his songs, personally). But the band's his thing.

After 5 years of hard work, the band's getting regular airplay on Radio 2 and 6 Music. Janice Long plays them a lot, as does Tom Robinson, and they've just done a live session with "Whispering Bob Harris". They MAY be on the brink of a modest commercial success.

But even if they become huge, the thing that drives Elijah and Ava isn't the prospect of making money, but their sheer joy in and love of making music and performing live. What they do might be quite "poppy" and it might not be to your taste, but to just lump them in a whole category as "being in it purely to make loads of money" is hugely bigoted IMO, and doing a great disservice to the many people operating in the pop genre who *are* doing it for love of music (albeit of a type of music you personally might dislike).

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 11:15 PM

A couple of versions of Elijah's "Cherry Ripe". Poppy? Sure. Not to everyone's taste? Fine. Written out of a love of music rather than for commercial "success"? Absolutely.

Gravity Drive Cherry Ripe Band Version


Cherry Ripe Elijah Solo Version

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker
Date: 19 Apr 15 - 11:38 PM

Rob - excellent post...

But in all reality you are probably addressing deaf ears.
Sadly, once such people's minds are made up - they are usually lost beyond hope to all reason.....

Though frustrating as it is, it is also highly comical
watching opinionated folks who are obviously clueless on a complex subject,
obliviously posturing and preaching on about it
as though they are great learned authorities...😜

Harmless bores and nutters, unless they attain positions of influence
where they can adversely affect the work of those whose creativity they scorn...

[I'd be surprised if a fair few here haven't at some time been held back or denied opportunities
because of the petty spite and jealousies
of prejudiced snobbish decision makers in the music, arts and culture business... ???]

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 01:28 AM

"MGM you ARE missing the point,"

No I am not Dick, you are.

"Bach had MUCH GREATER ARTISTIC CONTROL OVER HIS MUSIC"

No he didn't: he composed what the Elector of Brandenburg required.

You are thoroughly confused, Dick. But let it pass; I can't be fashed to knock my ☹ against this particular brick wall any more.

Best regards

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 01:41 AM

... or Leopold, Prince of Anhalt-Köthen, or whoever was his employer at the time. He made his living in the service of a succession of prominent and noble personages, and composed what they wanted for their sacramental or ceremonial purposes.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Musket
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 03:03 AM

That's the beauty of music. It is an abstraction. Sure, it can be a vehicle for social comment but as a subject in itself can go from the creative to the sheer nostalgic.

I happily differentiate without meaning to. Radio 2 can easily provide a backdrop to my day, subconsciously drifting into my ears. Pleasant and non offensive yet doesn't stir me. That's not what background music is about.

I can listen intently to a bloody good guitarist in any genre but need to be listening as in "don't expect me to acknowledge anything going on around me." or at least not first time around.

I am not sure where this thread is going? It seems at times to have become a "I don't like something and I want to be offended." As some on here know, always happy to oblige on that score but it would be a little silly. I am sure we can all appreciate without liking? I love hearing musicians get their head around an old trad ballad and arrange it for a wider audience. Yet would I be as happy listening to a scratchy old recording of an old man singing it flat as a fart purely because of the provenance? Well no. But that doesn't stop me appreciating the small but real contribution the old lad made.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 03:59 AM

that's your lack of appreciation of traditional music showing Musket. the old lad wasn't singing flat as a fart he was singing in a modal scale. he was in fact more musically sophisticated than the likes of us - i think this is the main thrust of Bert Lloyds folksong in England.

nice to see Bix getting a mention. i wasn't keen on the Sudhalter book.
it gave a sort of apple pie and cookies gloss to Bix's early life.

i think Bix had to suffer more than most musicians - right from the off. Artie Shaw says some interesting stuff on the Bix website about the guy.

the books i liked were Remembering Bix, and Jean |Pierre Lion's book Bix:the definitive biography. Also we called it Music by Eddie Condon - all of which produce vivid images of the man.

Having said that Shaw blames Condon's hard drinking gang for being jealous of Bix's talent, and trying to bring him down to their level with the booze. It might have seemed like that - but I think Condon's appreciation of Bix was very sincere. Interestingly - they never seem to have recorded together. Eddy Laing being Bix's guitarist of choice I guess.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 04:43 AM

I love hearing musicians get their head around an old trad ballad and arrange it for a wider audience. Yet would I be as happy listening to a scratchy old recording of an old man singing it flat as a fart purely because of the provenance? Well no. But that doesn't stop me appreciating the small but real contribution the old lad made.

This seems to be the received wisdom of the revival. I find it a little sad - and not a little patronising. Personally, as far as so-called Folk Music is concerned, there is no greater joy than listening scratchy old field recordings of the old singers singing the old songs & ballads. They are real in a way well-meaning revivalists doing it for a 'wider audience' can never be.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: The Sandman
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 04:44 AM

this comment rather illustrates Jim Carrolls comment, an attempt to give an impression that old singers sing flat,Musket I have heard some young pop singers that cannot sing this is rather like the attempted smear by Steve Shaw, that I do not listen to young singers. I do I WEOULE RSCOMMEND BELLA HARDY AND LUCY WARD
I LIKE MANY FORMS OF MUSIC... jazz classical roots, wIZZ jONES if IT IS musical, but not if they are rehashing commercially manufactured formula music, age has nothing to do with musical talent, the spice girls are untalented now and will be untalented when they are 83

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 04:58 AM

I haven't said you don't listen to young singers. Stop attempting to smear me by attempting to tell me that I attempted to smear you when I attempted no such smear. I think that many good points are being raised in this thread, but, I must say, without attempting to smear you, that very few are coming from you.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 05:26 AM

The fact that the talents of the Spice Girls were not such as to appeal to Dick's tastes does not IMO make them 'untalented' tout simple.

Regarding 'traditional' singing techniques:- I recall a conversation between my late wife Valerie, who was not that much into folk tho appreciated my interest, & Nic Jones (who was a neighbour in Cambs at the time & we would regularly visit one another's homes), about those whom Valerie would sometimes dismissively refer to as 'the old boys': elderly traditional singers whose records I had received from Leader, Topic, &c, for review. "They are not meant to be 'entertainment'," Nic said; "but they are very important in any proper scholarly study of folksong". Valerie, who was a scholar and author herself in the literary field, immediately admitted that she saw his point.

≈M≈

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 05:46 AM

The members of the Spice Girls clearly had the talent for singing in a way that appealed to a large section of the population, and for possessing the flair that enabled them to present a performance that many people found agreeable. I imagine that their particular singing and dancing talents were honed to fit that mould, but, undeniably, they did have some talent for singing, though not perhaps of the Callas variety. They are not up my alley by a long chalk, but all power to their elbows, say I. Come to think of it, Callas wasn't up my alley either.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 05:59 AM

"This seems to be the received wisdom of the revival. I find it a little sad - and not a little patronising"
Patronising - certainly (though I suppose "flat as a fart "is an improvement on Muskie's usual, "tit-trousers" ageist offensiveness, and if it reflects today's revival, then it confirms all my misgivings - it had no part in the revival I was ever active in.
Will Fly said earlier that he didn't believe "any other art form has a right to be heard over any other"
I've been giving this some thought and I find myself totally at odds with the opinion.
We've spent the last thirty-odd years talking to and interviewing our source singers on the part their songs played in their lives (not folkie romanticism, as you've written it off as in the past Jack - actual statements, all archived and accessible).
The inescapable conclusion that we've arrived at is that the singers identified with the songs as being "ours", and have spoken at length on how they see them, identify with their content and considered them an important part of their lives and their history.
The songs were not received passively, but were part and parcel of what was happening around them during the course of their lives - this one street town in the West of Ireland has produced well over a hundred anonymously-made songs made during the lifetimes of our singers, on local and national events, drownings, shipwrecks, murders, tragedies, political struggle........ - as one ninety-odd+ year-old put it to us last year, "If a man farted in church, somebody made a song about it"
That, as far as I am concerned, makes these songs unique and deserving of attention.
Given that the songs we recorded came from Irish land-labourers and small farmers, East Anglian artisans and fishermen and from Travellers - tinsmiths and horse -dealers, land workers, skilled craftsmen...... people who, by and large, are considered as having no creative culture of their own, and their songs have been either totally ignored or treated with contempt by those who control out#r culture, maybe it's time for a bit of positive discrimination.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 06:04 AM

Harry Cox, Sam Larner, Davie Stewart, Willie Scott, John MacDonald, Phil Tanner, Joseph Taylor, Mrs Pearl Brewer of Arkensas - this list is endless. On one hand, for sure, we can treat them as ethnographic samples for scholarly research, but on the other we can delight in the genius that sets every song a-sparkling in its natural non-scholarly and very human habitat, howe'er so grubby and feral. After all, they were singing for entertainment - and entertain they jolly well do. The old songs are, I think, best served by these wild voices.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: GUEST,Blandiver (Astray)
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 06:09 AM

Cross-post there, Jim. I concur, heartily.

Subject: RE: Why does modern music sound so different
From: Musket
Date: 20 Apr 15 - 06:36 AM

Dunno Al. I know what modal means and I know when something sounds flat. Most of the time my guitars are in what could be classed as modal tuning, but that helps disguise my slightly flat voice, not emphasise it....

If singing slightly flat was top entertainment, (music is entertainment full stop) then it would be me driving Rolls Royces into swimming pools being chased by stoned groupies, not you..

I used to drive Tom and Bertha Brown round the clubs and festivals, telling everyone I was Tom's roadie and Bertha 's groupie. Got to know all his old mates, Fred Jordan, Bert Lloyd, MacColl etc. I can listen to them nostalgically but would I have Walter Pardon on the HiFi when friends are round? Doubt it. What I used to call tit trouser music (Fred Jordan wore the title with pride and thought it hilarious) is sheer joy to some, whilst our cleaner has everything Madonna has ever recorded and goes to see her every tour.

Music is subjective. What Jim likes is shite if you happen to wear a Slipknot tour T shirt and Motorhead are too loud if you wear a fairisle sweater. I'm sure my granddaughter has no time for any music unless Peppa Pig or The Gruffolo feature in it somewhere.

Of course, anyone who says they have no time for music they haven't even heard must be a little odd to say the least, never mind their clear demonstration of being mentally limited when discussing music...

It's all dots when you analyse it.