[Formerly BS:] Musical snobbery

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 01:05 PM

"Boris who?"

Boris Blank from Switzerland. He's recognized as a pioneer in synthetic pop, rock, Latin music and jazz.

"You were the one who said you didn't recognize some of the current pop stars."

That song I posted is from 1982. Yello (who as far as I know broke up long ago) were like gods to the New Wave groups of the 80s although they were not New Wave themselves. They were recording for Ralph Records, an S.F. underground label, for some years prior to that. I was already a big fan of Yello back then so that by the time the New Wave embraced them they were all latecomers to me.

"As far as I'm concerned, if a zydeco band does not have an accordion but uses a synthesizer instead, it's an ersatz zydeco band."

They are not a zydeco band at all. They are a straight folk band--guitars, mandos, banjos, fiddles, bass--the whole bit. But they did ONE SONG in a zydeco vein. With no hope of finding a zydeco player in their area, they used a synth to imitate and it sounds quite convincing.   and they do it very well onstage.

As for taking work away from a real zydeco player, I'm sure a million of them were dying to get that gig.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 12:36 PM

Boris who?    You were the one who said you didn't recognize some of the current pop stars.    I venture to say more people will recognize Rihanna than Boris.   I recognize her--and don't even ever listen to her.

Sorry, Boris doesn't carry much clout.   The fact he loves sythesizer is not tremendously significant. In the words of my favorite musical analyst, Shania Twain:   "That don't impress me much."

So there may well be other bands which heavily rely on synthesizer.   Fine.   Just please make that plain and I will not be attending their gigs.    There is a wealth of wonderful stuff on YouTube--mostly the older stuff.    But there is also a huge amount of dross--most of which seems to include synthesizers, it seems.


Sure, synthesizers are here to stay.   More's the pity. And they're "useful"--especially in saving money by not hiring the real thing.

"My brother's band..."

QED

As far as I'm concerned, if a zydeco band does not have an accordion but uses a synthesizer instead, it's an ersatz zydeco band. And I'm not alone. Again:   "Ain't Nothin' Like The Real Thing".


By the way, as I said earlier, your reading skills need some work.    I never said said folk bands don't use sythesizers. I said the increasing use of them is a shame.

And as I said, they now plague Irish and pop music.    Perhaps that's just peachy with you. Not with me.

As I noted, I'm a traditionalist. You're not. Different strokes.....

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 12:05 PM

"So, if he had a gig where the sound of a Steinway was desired, do you think he'd have a real Steinway--with somebody who could do justice to it? Give your head a shake."

I have a couple of dozen piano sounds in my synths from Steinways to cool player piano sounds. So what? That's not putting musicians out of work, Ron. You still have to be able to play a piano for these to be of much use. The great thing about such a keyboard is that my band doesn't have to haul a piano around which would frankly be impossible. We'd have to hope the venue had a piano there and that it's reasonably in tune. MOST keyboardists use these portable keyboards because most bands are their own roadies. We just can't haul a piano around, Ron, sorry about that.

If we go in the studio and there is a Steinway there, fine, we'll use it. If the venue has a piano there, fine, we'll use it. But what if they don't? By your standards, we turn around and go home. Well, real working musicians don't do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 16 Feb 13 - 11:48 AM

Boris Blank only plays synths as far as I know although I suspect he might be classically trained but I've never heard him play anything but synths. On the piece below, it's synths and samples. And his band--Yello--also do this live.

Swing - Yello

As for folk bands not using synths, that is so untrue that I'm laughing as I type this. My brother's band uses one to imitate a Zydeco accordion because they don't have or know any accordion players. Plus they'd have to hire one every time they wanted to play the song live which is simply out of the question.

I also interjected synthetic thunderstorms with rain as well as a synthetic stream, chirping birds and a dog barking in the distance for another folk band that I helped record some years ago.

Face it, synths are useful as hell and they are here to stay.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 10:22 PM

DDT--

If you think that every synthesizer player can also play the piano, you are sadly deluded.

However, I suspect that any concert pianist would have no problem playing a synthesizer.    You like synthesizer "music"--for whatever reason. I don't. No problem. Herbie Hancock, etc, are fine---on the piano. I never said they were not.   If they could only play synthesizer, my opinion of them would go way down. Fortunately, that is not the case--I'm sure they were quaking in their boots at the prospect.

Synthesizers in my view have no place in "folk" music--yet they are infesting it more and more--especially Irish music.    When they put synthesizers in bluegrass, I will stop going to sessions or buying it. Fortunately Bill Monroe, Ralph Stanley, etc. are safely on record already. Perhaps you think a synthesizer would give them some pep. I don't. "Newgrass"--who knows what will happen? That's already not my cup of tea.

I'm a traditionalist. You aren't, it seems.   I won't be coming to any of your gigs, you may be relieved to hear.    And please don't bring a synthesizer to mine.

And we'll get on just fine.

And your reading skills seem to be lacking a bit.   All you have to do is read this thread and you realize how real musicians are under pressure from synthesizers. Our own GfS was waxing lyrical on the wonders of a synth/ electric piano which sounds as good to him as a Steinway.   So, if he had a gig where the sound of a Steinway was desired, do you think he'd have a real Steinway--with somebody who could do justice to it? Give your head a shake.

And he is just dreaming, no doubt.    Plenty of others are actually making the calculation.    If you can't see this, your head is in the sand.

And as I've said more than once, it's not just pianos.   Technology has improved--and continues to do so--such that other instruments can be imitated with amazing fidelity--and more range than the actual instrument. Perhaps you're still living in the 70's. That would explain a lot.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 09:13 PM

Ron, you're putting down virtually every keyboard player currently in existence. Wendy Carlos isn't a real musician? Suzanne Ciani (a classically trained pianist whose synth work is heard in literally hundreds of commercials, songs and computer games since the 1970s) isn't a real musician? Herbie Hancock, George Duke, Keiko Matsui, Joe Zawinul,Rick Wakeman, Keith Emerson, Tony Banks, Robin Lumley, Gary Wright, Daryl Dragon, Jon Lord, Kerry Minnear, etc. are not real musicians, eh? Son, you'd better be able to kick serious ass on your axe to make a statement like that.

A synth is just another instrument to make music with. What sets it apart from other electronic instruments is its astonishingly wide musical vocabulary. In the hands of master musician, it is an awesome thing to hear.

"And it's you who are showing ignorance--I'm surprised you are not up on recent developments-- if you don't think that musicians lose work when arrangers choose to use a synthesizer instead--which is progressively easier as the synthesizers develop more and more fidelity and range-in any number of instruments."

Name a single instance when this has happened. You can't replace a trumpet soloist with a synth in a live situation unless you can mimic one extremely well. That in itself would be an awesome achievement. You can play simple lines. Same with string sections. Background tone coloration is one thing but full orchestration requires a full orchestra. You don't just punch a button and all this prerecorded music spills out. Like any instrument, you have to play it. It would take a huge amount of expertise to imitate a Louis Armstrong trumpet solo with a synth. I don't believe it has ever been done or ever will be.

If synths replaced other musicians that easily, there wouldn't be any. You can make a synth sound like an upright bass--I do it quite a lot (even though I also own and play one) and if you're doing a simple bass line, there's nothing wrong with doing it with a synth but if you think you're going play one like Mingus or Nils Pederson, you clearly have no understanding of how a synth works, and if that is the case, why are talking about them as though you do?

"There are more and more occasions in which management can choose to not have a full stage orchestra or band, due to advances in technology.   And they do. I'm amazed you don't realize this."

Because it never happens. They use a synth when they want to use one. But the vast majority of composers will hire an orchestra when they need an orchestra. Even in the studio, it takes an extraordinary effort to simulate a full orchestra on a synth. Just trying to do a cello concerto would take months or grueling work to simulate it perfectly on a synth and it just can't happen in a live situation. The type of electronic editing required makes that impossible in real time. Believe me, Ron, I've been using synths for a very long time. They have their uses but they have their limitations.

If you say they take work away from musicians, then you might as well say the same thing about DJs. There was a time when the musicians' union went on strike because they said playing recorded music on the radio took away work from musicians. They lost the battle. Those stations that used recorded music couldn't afford to pay real musicians anyway. By the time recorded music became the norm, the entire music industry had changed and those musicians found their services in demand elsewhere--like television and movies.

"You need to do a bit more reading--and perhaps see more stage shows."

Quote me anything you've read that says that musicians are losing their livelihoods to synthesizers. As for stage shows, I don't need to see them--I've been in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 07:53 PM

Yes, GfS, i am talking to you. Let's start with your views on drum machines.   So far you've dodged the question.   What a surprise.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 07:51 PM

DDT: If you consider that somebody who plays a synthesizer is a musician then fine.    Sorry, I don't.   Synthesizers are the opposite of real music.    And it's you who are showing ignorance--I'm surprised you are not up on recent developments-- if you don't think that musicians lose work when arrangers choose to use a synthesizer instead--which is progressively easier as the synthesizers develop more and more fidelity and range-in any number of instruments.

There are more and more occasions in which management can choose to not have a full stage orchestra or band, due to advances in technology.   And they do. I'm amazed you don't realize this.

You need to do a bit more reading--and perhaps see more stage shows.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 06:03 PM

Ron, please learn what you are talking about before making certain statements. Synthesizers and MIDI do not take work away from musicians. I don't know where you get that or why you think it would be true. I have worked in MIDI for over 20 years and own two synths which I use extensively. I know what I'm talking about. You sound like some pathetic old hippy who thinks electronic instruments are against man or will replace us all with machines or something. Utterly ridiculous and laughable.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 03:30 PM

Don't get your reeds wet!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 02:44 PM

Dick, I expressed an opinion ("I'd argue that...") which is shared by many people who play and/or enjoy Irish music. Full-set pipes with drones and regs do indeed play harmony but it is relatively spare compared to that supplied by strummers (and, I'd argue, a damn sight more idiomatic). My point was that the tunes themselves contain harmony that works in your mind's ear. I didn't say harmony should be eschewed completely, did I ("IF at all..."). In fact I'm not a purist - I love bands like Patrick Street, De Dannan, the Bothies, Planxty etc. whose harmony playing adds a new (and, to me, valid) dimension to Irish tunes. But when I listen to them I'm listening to bands, not session playing. And I could listen to the pipes all night. As for Carolan, we have no clue as to what harmony might have accompanied his tunes. I don't think we have a single passed-down example. We have the licence to play around with 'em to our hearts' content. But they are not mainstream session tunes in the way that jigs and reels are, and it was the latter that I was addressing.

I'm off to drink beer harmoniously and play tunes, harmoniously or not, right now - see ya later! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:32 PM

Ron Davies: It's also interesting that you have addressed none of my points."

Are you talkin' to me?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: The Sandman
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:27 PM

I'd argue that you don't actually need to embellish Irish tunes with too much harmony, if at all. A bit like Bach's unaccompanied cello suites, which have many passages without even double-stopping, harmony is "suggested" in the mind's ear when you hear the tunes well played. Not that I'm saying that Irish tunes as as good as that, but the argument still applies.
   poppycock, what about o carolans tunes, an important part of the irish tradition, often played on the harp and played with chordal accompaniment which is harmony.
in fact the irish harp and the uilleean pipes both use harmony to a greater or lesser degree.
Steve,you remind me of Le Petomane

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:12 PM

It's also interesting that you have addressed none of my points.

Silence consents.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:10 PM

By the way, do you play classical piano at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 01:09 PM

In a word, yes.   It takes work from a real pianist--and I like real pianos, not electronic imitators.   As do most real pianists.

If you can't see this, you are willfully blind.   Unsurprisingly.

And by the way, what are your views on drum machines?   Just fine by you?

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 11:28 AM

I would think a musician is someone who makes/plays music...........however he/she gets there.
Taste, again, may be a different subject.
I know of a synth/electric piano, that has a 32 bit sample of a Steinway full concert grand....sound so good, you can just about touch the 'wood', and the key action is perfect!.....are those on your list of 'no-no's?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 11:12 AM

One other thing:   Number 6,   I just can't forget about Laura; it's just too painful.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 10:47 AM

Sorry, GfS, I suspect you know a studio in this context is not a place to study. But nice try.

I suspect you also know that studios are equipped with progressively more devices to change the sound 'artists" create, and that these devices are improving in fidelity and range all the time, such that, for instance, in such a studio--perhaps just with a synthesizer--you can create the sound of a clarinet, with excellent fidelity and a range exceeding that of the target instrument. And you can extend a person's vocal range 'on record' beyond the true range.

This is not good for the employment of instrumentalists--nor for music itself.

There is no comparison between earlier primitive techniques such as Spector's Wall of Sound and what studios can do these days, much as you want to lump all progress in sound recording together--gee, I wonder why you want to do this.

And a lot of music does not need the treatment available--which does not stop engineers from adding extraneous bells and whistles, in a bid by companies to win the approval of a jaded public.    Classical music recordings sometimes--not often-- have too much echo, for instance.    And Irish music is certainly strong enough to stand on its own without the "atmospherics" provided in the studio or with electronic "enhancement" devices--as in your Example 2.


Commercial rap is, it turns out, not strong enough without technological assist--which says worlds about its value. Not even to speak about its usual subject matter--which as I've noted, plays into the hands of the NRA.   And any reasonable person--perhaps that excludes you--should not be in favor of this.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 06:48 AM

Irish session musi, f'rinstance, eschews harmony an counterpoint---which makes it agonizingly dull to my ears.

A few things here. First, sessions are a relatively new tradition. The majority of Irish tunes predate the modern penchant for playing them in sessions. They didn't start their lives as "session music". Second, playing tunes in a session is not primarily, or even at all, about providing a satisfying listening experience for an audience (though it's a great bonus if it does, and, in my view, it often does, but that's a personal opinion). Third, you might have experienced some pretty rigid sessions, but I don't think it's generally true to say that sessions eschew harmony. You won't find too many sessions that are melody instruments only playing in unison. As soon as you introduce guitars, mandolins and other stringy jobs, you have harmony (and there are, of course, instruments that can do double-stopping). What you don't get much of in sessions is arrangements (apart from unconscious things such as dropping in and out when you know or don't know the tune). That's the difference 'twixt a session and a band.

I'd argue that you don't actually need to embellish Irish tunes with too much harmony, if at all. A bit like Bach's unaccompanied cello suites, which have many passages without even double-stopping, harmony is "suggested" in the mind's ear when you hear the tunes well played. Not that I'm saying that Irish tunes as as good as that, but the argument still applies.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 15 Feb 13 - 02:49 AM

Ron Davies: "As I noted earlier, somebody who requires a studio to "create" is no musician. That seems to knock out a lot of commercial rap--and a lot of current pop."

Well, actually a 'studio' is primarily a place to 'study'.
Some studios, have electronic devices in them which you can record and play back what you did, to analyze it...speakers, too!

Remember all those radios, CD's, records and tapes you've listen to, through the years??....THOSE pesky electronic devices!!..all started with those damned microphones!

So, if you want to check out what ya' sound like....I'll just bet you've used one or two, in your lifetime, yourself.

Ever use reverb?

Or maybe you've just done campfires....and sidewalks.

....and who's talkin' about trying to be commercial??...shit, learn your axe, practice the shit out of it, emote from the heart... an audience will find you!

GfS

P.S.........but then again, if that audience is THAT particular ..........................................................................................................................................................

(they might be snobs)

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: number 6
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 10:36 PM

Let's face it

we are all snobs

all of us here on the Madcat

we are the upper most of the topper most of snobbery

we are snobs because we know everything about all things

there ... hopefully put a conclusion to this absolutely pompous thread

oh

and one more thing

Hi Ron Davies


biLL    ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 10:21 PM

"forcing you to read and comment"

QED



Perhaps you'd like to take another Prozac before replying.   You seem to need something=- more-- to make you simmer down. Or perhaps you own a factory which makes drum machines.   That would certainly explain your intemperance.

I state my views, you state yours. That's the way it goes. But for some reason, you are easily upset.

As I said:   Pobrecito.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Rich Lew
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 09:32 PM

My point is not that I am suffering, it's that no one takes you seriously, because you're being such a jerk.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 12:54 PM

Pobrecito. Too bad someone is forcing you to read this and comment.   It must be terrible to suffer so.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Rich Lew
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 12:23 PM

Some people can't enjoy anything unless they can shove it in someone else's face. You may not realize it, but the rest of us do.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 12:07 PM

That's right, GfS.   I'm a person of unrefined taste, for whom all the Beethoven, Brahms and Tchaikovsky symphonies, a huge number of the Mozart symphonies, Dvorak's 8th and 9th, most of the Mozart piano concertos, all the Beethoven piano concertos, most Schubert symphonies, Bruch Scottish Fantasy, Bruch violin concerto, most Mendelssohn symphonies, all the Mozart violin concertos, Tallis, Byrd, Josquin, di Lasso-- and a long, long list of other classical pieces-- are old friends.   Maybe you're refined enough to like Webern, Hindemith etc. Good for you. I don't require my music to be intellectually challenging, nor to reflect the chaos and despair of modern life.

I do like it to be made by humans, not machines.

As I noted earlier, somebody who requires a studio to "create" is no musician. That seems to knock out a lot of commercial rap--and a lot of current pop.

Among other things, I think it's too bad that for current Irish music a lot of people seem compelled to create a fake 'ethereal" atmosphere with the aid of a studio or electronic 'enhancements'. And drum machines are an abomination--especially for anybody with a pretense to be doing "folk" music.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 11:20 AM

You got it!..Spot on!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,MikeL2
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 11:15 AM

Hi

In my experience a snob is.....a snob !!! and likely to be snobbish about everything that they like. They think others are inferior.

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Big Al Whittle
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:42 AM

A good decision Jim.

Your comment reminds me of the spat between the literary critics FR Leavis and CS Lewis.

Leavis had this thing about the necessity for great writers to be 'morally earnest'.

Lewis replied, I would rather play cards with a man who simply doesn't cheat - rather than someone who is 'morally earnest' about not cheating.

I think the tradition is like that. Give me the singer who just does it, rather than the one who is forever festooning the world with historical justifications for his folksinging being wonderful, correct and the only right one.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Jim McLean
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 05:16 AM

I was on a long distance bus a number of years ago and a fellow passenger aske what kind of music I liked. I said Folk music. "Oh", he replied. "I prefer serious music". I thought about replying but decided to go to sleep instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Feb 13 - 02:10 AM

No, just musical snobbery. Are you introducing yet another one?

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Rich Lew
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 11:01 PM

At first, I thought this was a thread for discussing musical snobbery. After reading it, I realized it was a thread for expressing musical snobbery. Sorry. My bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 10:36 PM

Ron Davies: "OK, that makes it clear. Please put me firmly in the unrefined taste category."

See, you answered your own question.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 10:34 PM

There's so many gizmos in the studio you can't trust anything you hear anymore. I have an old Roland VS-880 digital recorder and it's already obsolete and yet it's amazing what it can do. I can sing into it, for example, turn a couple of knobs and my voice turns into that of a female--an ugly female to be sure, but a female. If I put it out on a CD, you wouldn't know it wasn't a woman singing.

The following was recorded around 1952 or 3. It's Jimmy Bryant and Speedy West with Cliffie Stone on bass. This was in the days when what they played was what you heard. And---ohhh---what they played:

China Boy

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 09:15 PM

I'm with DDT on this.    "Long Blondes" homage?    The answer to that is a top 60's hit:    "Ain't Nothin' LIke The Real Thing".

Why settle for a pale imitation?   Or in this case, a souped-up imitation.

That's what very often happens in remakes or "homage".    Tell me, does anybody actually prefer Grand Funk Railroad's elephantine version of "Locomotion" to the original?    And so it goes--in almost every case.

There are a few cases in which in my opinion the remake outshone the orginal.    First is "Dedicated to the One I Love".   But I'm just a Mama's and Papas addict. Second is Beach Boys "Barbara Ann."   Again, I just like the Beach Boys--especially in the early, unpretentious years.    Third is Linda Ronstadt's version of "When Will I Be Loved?"   I didn't even realize til recently the Everly Brothers did it first.    And I like gutsy female singers.

But by and large, the version done before the 1970's always trashed anything done in the 70's or after. And to a large extent, it seems to me a main reason is that there has been a progressively stronger fascination with twisting dials in studios--to the detriment of music.   (Synthesizers haven't helped music either--as well as putting real musicians out of business.)

It's a real shame we can't turn the Wayback Machine forward to 2040.    All this electronically enhanced "music", drum machines, synthesizer garbage, etc. will not in fact last. I'd place a large wager on this.

And people, as they always have, will be looking for real music--especially music they can make themselves, or music that speaks to them emotionally, which technopop, soulless as it is, is unlikely to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 05:06 PM

"1) "All forms of music from previous decades" just *weren't* ignored from the 60s onwards. There are numerous examples of songs from the 60s to the present days being either remakes/covers of or based on musical styles from previous decades...one that comes straight to mind is Canned Heat's 1967 "Going Up The Country" which was virtually a remake of Henry Thomas's 1927 "Bulldoze Blues". Kitty, Daisy & Lewis also did a cover version in 2008. Same with "Hesitation Blues", originating in the early 1900s, then made popular in the 20s by Art Gillham, recorded by Rev Gary Davis, Janis Joplin in the late 60s and then many others such as Dave van Ronk, Ralph McTell, Taj Mahal and Steely Dan, to name a fraction. ...there are just thousands of examples."

That's a complete misunderstanding of what I said. I never said people remake, rehash and retread the old music. I said you didn't hear the old music itself. In the 60s, I heard only a handful of songs from the fifties--a few Elvis tunes, "Rockin Robin" and like that. Everything else was recorded in the 60s, original or remake. And you NEVER heard anything earlier than the 50s unless you heard it in an old movie in the days before cable when old movies were all they showed on TV.

"2) And from the above examples it should be obvious that current pop isn't all descended by any means from the 1960s. I could mention The Long Blondes' mid-2000s song "Polly" as a homage to 1950s Doo-Wop, or Boogie-Woogie influences dating back to the 30s in several recent pop songs and recordings."

And whoever heard of it? Not me. Not anybody. Nobody wants to hear someone retread old territory. We want to hear something new by people who aren't musically ignorant. The 60s artists were great that way because they grew up on the 50s artists but didn't sound like them. They created something new and memorable. It wasn't their fault radio ignored the predecessors. That's why Hendrix took Buddy Guy with onstage, he wanted people to know where Jimi Hendrix came from. Today, nobody talks about who Katy Perry's influences were. Why? Because who cares? She's forgettable and won't be remembered 30 years hence. And neither will the stuff you mentioned-whatever it is. If I want to hear doo-wop, I'll listen to the real thing.

"3) You say it won't be remembered in 30 years? Well there's a huge catalogue of pop from the 60s and 70s that's remembered by, influences and is covered by young musicians today, which is already well over your 30 year remembrance limit."

Sure stuff from the 60s is remembered. I just explained why. I'm talking about stuff made today by kids who don't know anything that wasn't made before the 60s. And most never listen to anything made before the 90s. They need to listen to the old stuff to make better new stuff--not to remake old stuff. Didn't we do it right the first time?

"Your dismissal of all today's pop as degenerate and isolationist is far more snobbish IMO than any (AFAICS non-existent) tendency of pop since the 60s to ignore earlier music. There'll be stuff from the 2000s around and remembered in the 2040s just as there's stuff from both the 60s/70s AND from the 30s/40s influencing today's music."

As I said--just see if I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 04:07 PM

Every genre of music seems to have its own aethetic. Irish session musi, f'rinstance, eschews harmony an counterpoint---which makes it agonizingly dull to my ears. Classically trained singers frequently try folk or pop songs---think of Peter Pears singing Benjamin Britten's settings of English folk songs or Dyer-Bennett singing "John Henry" (or, for tht matter, Springsteen crooning "We Shall Overcome".
Contrariwise, someone with a classical or operatic background who's unfsmiliar with field recordings is apt to recoil in horror at the the likes of Almeda Riddle or Sam Larner.
    To appreeciate any style of music, you have to "buy in" to its aesthetic.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 03:20 PM

OK, that makes it clear. Please put me firmly in the unrefined taste category.    Bobby Vee beats the pants off the pretentious twaddle of Example 2.    He's fun to sing, you don't need the absurd list of electronic enhancements which plague Example 2,--and you don't have to take him seriously.

Sorry but my unrefined taste is also squarely with the Brahms, Beethoven and Tchaikovsky symphonies (all of them), Scheherezade,   the Schubert String Quintet, the Bruch Scottish Fantasy, Tallis, Byrd, etc.   Or maybe they make the cut of being refined--who knows?

The ironic thing is that all the personnel involved in Example 2 seem to have lots of skill. Pity they waste it on the Secret Garden or whatever it was called.   But I suppose it sells--and they were paid for their efforts. The music business is rough.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 02:11 PM

Snobs????..Naw, just some people have a more refined taste!!!

Example One

Versus

Example Two

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:28 PM

"getting"    When will I learn to proofread?    It's amazing how much clearer you can see the words after you post.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:26 PM

"The more you need electronic technology, the more you are geting away from music".

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 12:21 PM

"new music".   If commercial rap were music.   Without melody it's a bit lacking--stretching the point, to say the least, to call it music. And it seems reasonable that you should be able to do it without electronic assistance.   2 serious problems for commercial rap " artists".

Not even going into the usual subject matter, which, among other things, plays into the hands of the NRA.   We have enough glorification of weapons in the US without the assistance of commercial rap "artists".


I believe in 'power to the people'.   One of the things 'the people' can do is make music.   The more you need electronic technology the less you are geting away from music. Somebody who needs a studio to "create" anything is no musician.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 13 Feb 13 - 06:26 AM

DDT, IMO you're wrong on several counts:

1) "All forms of music from previous decades" just *weren't* ignored from the 60s onwards. There are numerous examples of songs from the 60s to the present days being either remakes/covers of or based on musical styles from previous decades...one that comes straight to mind is Canned Heat's 1967 "Going Up The Country" which was virtually a remake of Henry Thomas's 1927 "Bulldoze Blues". Kitty, Daisy & Lewis also did a cover version in 2008. Same with "Hesitation Blues", originating in the early 1900s, then made popular in the 20s by Art Gillham, recorded by Rev Gary Davis, Janis Joplin in the late 60s and then many others such as Dave van Ronk, Ralph McTell, Taj Mahal and Steely Dan, to name a fraction. ...there are just thousands of examples.

2) And from the above examples it should be obvious that current pop isn't all descended by any means from the 1960s. I could mention The Long Blondes' mid-2000s song "Polly" as a homage to 1950s Doo-Wop, or Boogie-Woogie influences dating back to the 30s in several recent pop songs and recordings.

3) You say it won't be remembered in 30 years? Well there's a huge catalogue of pop from the 60s and 70s that's remembered by, influences and is covered by young musicians today, which is already well over your 30 year remembrance limit.

Your dismissal of all today's pop as degenerate and isolationist is far more snobbish IMO than any (AFAICS non-existent) tendency of pop since the 60s to ignore earlier music. There'll be stuff from the 2000s around and remembered in the 2040s just as there's stuff from both the 60s/70s AND from the 30s/40s influencing today's music.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 10:56 PM

Traditional jazz doesn't make use of the IV of the scale much. It was used as a passing note. A passing note is a kind of bridge note that is used to string notes in a chord when those notes are played sequentially rather than simultaneously. A ii-V7 of, say, D minor 7 and G7 could be played on the bass or the piano left hand as ascending CDEA (1,2,3,5) of C minor 7 and then descending as GFED (8,7,6,5) of G7. The passing note is #2 or D as it is not part of the C minor 7. Then it turns up again on G7 as #5 of which it is part. It is #6 or E that that is passing in G7. Since a chord is 1,3,5 then the passing notes would be 2,4,6.

In bop, however, the 4 was prominent and not just passing. This drove the traditional jazzers crazy. Emphasizing the IV???? Why, that's the end of jazz! The boppers have killed it!! Even now the traditionals and neoclassicists disparage bop and refuse to play it. That's one kind of snobbery.

There is also a cultural snobbery that permeates pop music, one reason I'm not dying to defend it from attack today and often attack it myself. It is a bastion of snobbery that dates back to the 60s when suddenly all forms of music from the previous decades were simply ignored. When I grew up in the 60s, I rarely heard anything from the 50s, most of which was considered a joke. And nothing from the 40s was ever played despite about 90% of America's songbook being songs from the 30s and 40s. Oldies stations specifically advertised themselves as playing music "from the 60s, 70s and 80s."

Not until the advent of satellite radio was 40s and 50s music resurrected. Today's oldies stations play a bit more 50s to compete with satellite but nothing from the 40s. All pop today is descended from the 60s or later and so has that snobbery built into it. It sees itself as all there is. As a result it is a largely degenerate music just as anything with an isolationist policy degenerates. And that is the reason it will not be remembered in 30 years. It's not worth remembering. Just see if I'm wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Stringsinger
Date: 12 Feb 13 - 02:07 PM

In every era there is a disdain for the "new" music..Jazz was "evil"....rock, "evil" or "mundane" or "doggerel" or whatever.

I was never one to be "folkier than thou" because I recognized that cultural patterns in music are attributable to cultures or sub-cultures that are homogeneous to some degree. It's impossible to be a musical snob when you consider that one form of music evolves from another.

But to a significant point for me, music is not an exclusive club. The musicians who make it so limit their artistic options and deny the social aspects of music as being important.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 09:34 PM

Actually it was African music--we sang in Zulu-- as well as gospel.    Siyahamba and Shoshaloza were two of the African pieces.   And we danced too.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Feb 13 - 06:08 PM

"deeper cultural prejudices".   Whatever you say.

Open mouth. Insert foot.

    Never mind that quite a few black people cannot stand rap--and they tend to be highly educated.    Also never mind that it happens that last night (after a dress rehearsal in the afternoon) I spent rocking out , with lots of gospel music--all memorized-- at an annual celebration of the life of Martin Luther King--with standing ovations interspersed throughout the concert.   And 300 of us, black and white, blew the roof off a sold-out (2,000, I believe) Kennedy Center Concert Hall.   Again.


But, by all means, perhaps the poster would like to tell us more about the emperor's finery.   Did the poster particularly like the doublet and hose?   Or perchance he swooned at the sight of the emperor's robe.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 10 Feb 13 - 03:34 PM

By the way, I am a recording engineer and have also worked a little as a producer. And I went to school to learn how to do it and my teacher was the guy who mastered all of Motown's hits from '64 to '68 after which he went to work for HDH at Hot Wax. His name is Bob Dennis. You can look him up. I was an "A" student.

Yes, they do over compress these days. Compression is normally for keeping soft and loud passages close together so that when the music gets soft, you still hear it and when it gets loud it doesn't blow your speakers. You have about a 23 dB range to work with (I was also trained on the old standard analog systems--SSL and API--and then attended more classes to learn digital recording later on). Over compressing is done so that the signals can be jacked up louder but there is also less dynamic response because the crests and troughs between the loud and soft signals are far too smooth. So everything sounds more homogenized.

And by the way, I was waiting for you to reject my source. I'll keel over and die the day someone puts forth a source for their info and it gets accepted. It will never happen at Mudcat--hasn't yet and it won't here.

Subject: RE: BS: Musical snobbery
From: GUEST,DDT
Date: 10 Feb 13 - 03:21 PM

I'm not an old fart but I agree with them. "They don't make 'em like that anymore" isn't just nostalgia, it's true.