 sj |
||
|
||
If the majority like it - it's mediocre!
|
|
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: dick greenhaus Date: 07 Apr 07 - 02:03 PM meallica is another group which has little or nothing to do with folk music. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Stringsinger Date: 07 Apr 07 - 04:21 PM Mediocrity is in the eye of the beholder. The majority liked Stevie Wonder, Bing Crosby, Burl Ives, Sinatra, Rosemary Clooney, Fred Astaire, Danny Kaye, The Beatles and the Stones, Benny Goodman, Bob Wills and the Texas Playboys, Glenn Miller, Richard Burton, Henry Fonda, Heifitz, Menuhin, Casals, Segovia, Louis Armstrong, Tony Bennett, Fanny Brice, Judy Garland, ..........more if you need it. I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that the above mentioned were mediocre. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Tunesmith Date: 07 Apr 07 - 04:34 PM Of course, one could ask what constitutes a majority? Take The Stones for example, I bet if we took a poll of cd buyers - in the Western world - from 13 to 90, the majority would not be fans of The Stones AND would only rate their music average at best! And when you consider how many people don't buy cds, then the majority of the public obviously think that there's not much out there worth buying! Which must prove someting - but I'm not sure what! |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Rasener Date: 07 Apr 07 - 04:46 PM Ok How many of those would be fans of od folk singers - a lot less me thinks, and that is not being derogitory. Whats your point Tunesmith? |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Amos Date: 07 Apr 07 - 05:32 PM Tunesmith: The answer to your original question is "no"; they are independent variables. A |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 07 Apr 07 - 07:23 PM I don't really think Mozart and the Beatles are mediocre. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: AWG Date: 07 Apr 07 - 10:30 PM You know, Brittney Spears is only popular these days in the tabloids. Nooooooooobody actually buys her CD's anymore. (yet, until she tours again, which will be soon). Where was I?... Oh yeah, The subject of this thread is somewhat 'interesting' but kind of an connundrum (unless you are calling the majority of people 'mediocre', that is). I do agree with Tunesmith, the Rolling Stones are somewhat mediocre,(musically), most people love them for their 'nostalgic' value. Or curiosity of 70+ year old men rocking the world year after year. Who knows, but there are far more talented rock bands out there (IMO) Thanks for listening. P.S. Frank, you were doing great until you mentioned the Stones. (and Tony Bennett) C Ya. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: GUEST,Scoville Date: 07 Apr 07 - 11:53 PM Most popular music is -not complex -has repetitive notes and/or lyric -has some "familiarity" eg: evolutionary not revolutionary Quick! Of what other genre does this remind us? |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: SINSULL Date: 08 Apr 07 - 09:28 AM Strange discussion for a bunch of folkies. Aren't we collectors of what the majority saw fit to pass down? |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Don(Wyziwyg)T Date: 08 Apr 07 - 10:27 AM Good points Scoville and Sinsull. Amos has it right. Independent variables. I ask again:- By whose standards, and using what criteria?... because, if all you are really saying is "I don't like it", that defines YOU, and NOT the music. Don T. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Lonesome EJ Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:32 PM For the most part, the answer is yes. I find my taste in music, literature, film, food, beer, art etc, runs counter to popular taste. I think a unique approach is something I appreciate. Sometimes, I tend to abandon my favorites once they have "sold out" and become part of the majority taste, so I think there may be an element of elitism there. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Stringsinger Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:43 PM AWG, Tony Bennett is one of the best popular and jazz music singers in the business. So says Frank Sinatra who stated that Tony Mick Jagger is no ordinary performer. He is dynamic whether you like the Stones' brand of music or not. They brought the blues to a pop consciousness and created an opening for Muddy Waters and B.B. King in the pop limelight. They had a unique style of presenting this music and I marveled at how rhythmically powerful some of their songs were. I got lots of "satisfaction". Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: AWG Date: 08 Apr 07 - 01:49 PM Touche ! |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Rasener Date: 08 Apr 07 - 02:23 PM >>because, if all you are really saying is "I don't like it", that defines YOU, and NOT the music. Don T. << I agree Don. I saw Tony Bennett live about 35 years ago and to be honest i thought he was boring. He just stood there and sang with what to me was no stagecraft. But having said that, I was one of the few who felt like that, I think. He just wasn't my style even though he was a very good singer. 40 years ago, I saw Tom Jones with his band live, and he to me was brilliant. He engaged the audience and had the women frothing at the mouth. Neither of them are mediocre, they are excellent, but like eveything else, you either like them or you don't. Both have massive followings. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: frogprince Date: 08 Apr 07 - 04:41 PM When it comes to music and the mass media, a lot of the problem is that if it ain't mediocre, there is precious little chance it ever will get air time. A wild and overstated generalization, probably; but what the taste and formula-driven decisions of the handful of jerks who control most American radio has done to the music spectrum is just about criminal. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: GUEST,Guest, guest, guest Date: 08 Apr 07 - 05:55 PM Why do we get bored with a piece of music. Many reasons, I imagine. Not challenging enough, or, maybe, too challenging. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Stringsinger Date: 08 Apr 07 - 07:11 PM The popular music field has gone the way of most corporatism these days. The playlists are narrower and commercial radio pretty much is recycled stink. The talent on the air waves is not out there and the sadistic pony-through-the-hoops of American Idol is vapid, devoid of content and reflective of pure money-making greed. There are some contestants that show promise but they have no where to go in this country which is geared to short-term profits and no contextual cultural background or history in artistic expression. In short, today's artists haven't done their homework. Has Brittany Spears ever heard Billie Holiday? Many young people today think that the Fifties were the apex of early talented music but in fact, the Twenties, Thirties and Forties produced some of the best talent this country has ever seen which includes performers, songwriters and musicians. There is a history and a backlog of performers that today's artists would do well to study. This benchmark is absent today. But the record industry wants everything to be "today" which means it will be over in less than Warhol's fifteen minutes. It's not about talent, or art, it's about making money. Art is like the newest teen style of clothing. Cultures from other lands are being gutted here in the States. You can't sell it so it can't be good is the prevailing notion. Immigrants to the States are losing their cultural roots. (I am amazed at the amount of Jewish people that don't know their own history. Yiddish is becoming a dying language. There are people trying to keep it alive such as Hank Zapotnik and the Klezmer revivals). Mostly places like Mudcat represents a small minority compared to the vast wasteland where live music is expendable like TV. People talk through concerts and think they can turn it off and on like the TV set or a podcast. The net effect is that the US is culturally malnourished. US can't be a great country that way. Today's art tends to be repetitive, recycled promo packages and it all sounds and looks alike, bland, puerile and trendy without substance. So the idea that mediocrity abounds in the public art forum today makes sense. Where are the innovative composers like Gershwin? Where are the new Broadway shows that have the artistry...most are recycled. Where are the great singers and instrumentalists these days? Many are coming from Europe and Asia. Not here in the States. The theater is not happening much either. Where are the real inspiring playwrights such as Miller, Williams, Odets, Genet, etc.? Is Barat and 300 the best Hollywood has to offer? So there's good reason to say that in today's market, mediocrity reigns. Art is reflective of the society from which it stems and corporatism, militarism and political cowardice has taken its toll on the art scene in the US today. The solution is community. Mudcat is part of the solution. Cultural awareness (folk music) and respect for the creative process which entails honoring that which is historic and culture-based for inspiration and not being satisfied with the transient song or the empty applause for the latest fad. We need to take back our country and our art. They are profoundly connected. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: John Hardly Date: 08 Apr 07 - 07:22 PM The internet and digital technology has sure done more than its share of leveling that playing field -- making LOTS of music "folk". Never before has the world been more capable of hearing and sharing the music of "nobodies". Nobody to screen it and tell us what we're supposed to like and not like either. And unlike the folkscare of the '60's -- since there ain't NO way for anyone to profit largely from it, it's not likely to create the same paradox of "folk fame" that made so much of the 60s folkscare such a silly endeavor (and makes for so much sad and freakish nostalgia about that era) . |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Rasener Date: 09 Apr 07 - 02:02 AM Stringsinger You have hit it on the head. You talk about what you like and everytyhing else is mediocre. My daughters wouldn't listen to what you like and would class you as a boring old fart with outdated ideas of what is good. No offence meant becuase thats what they think about me LOL I was just the same back in the 1960's with my parents. Life doesn't change, except I always said that I wouldn't be as blinkered as my father about modern music and I am not. In the UK Radio 1 is the main pop music programme and I would say that 50% of my listening to radio is with Radio 1 and I listen with my daughters. I also watch the same music programmes that they do. I enjoy what they like, but they don't like what I would listen to. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: The Shambles Date: 09 Apr 07 - 05:30 AM If you move away from music and look at those that the majority choose to vote for and elect to political office - you will see the premise that the majority prefer the mediocre (or worse) is well demonstrated. I am amazed at the willingness of so many people to trust those they should be suspicious of but to be suspicious of those they could probably trust. However, the ones we can probably trust tend to make us uncomfortable as they rather expect us to think and decide for ourselves. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Scoville Date: 09 Apr 07 - 11:30 AM Mediocrity has always reigned, now, 50 years ago, 100 years ago. That's why pasty white boys did gutless covers of real R&B songs that outsold the originals: They were safe. Ever heard the Everly Brothers' cover of "Lucille"? It's painful. And the Everlys weren't even the worst. That's why there were white women singing cleaned-up "blues lite" when blues first became popular. While I agree that the majority of American pop culture today is throw-away, at best, I'm not sure I'm convinced that it's a "new" problem. Time does a great job of sifting out the quality from a whole lot of mediocrity. The recordings/writings/artwork that survive, survived because they were great. In their time, I can assure you they were surrounded by dreck. Granted, there is more material overall now--we're a bigger country, bigger population, bigger industry, bigger everything--so we feel like it's harder to find, and the good stuff may be a smaller percentage overall since production has increased exponentially, but there are still good artists out there. Even in America. Meanwhile, since I handle printed material all day long, I'll tell you that there is a Hell of a lot of music, drama, literature, artwork, etc. that was utter crap 150 years ago and that we have, consequently, forgotten. Most of this was based on themes recycled from earlier stuff, just as it is today. There were fewer toilet jokes and more freakish ethnic stereotypes but it wasn't any more intellectually challenging than it is now. And what I've seen I'm sure is only a representative sample of a much bigger load of drivel. That's why it's called "ephemera". (No, I haven't seen Borat. There are other, better, and more interesting movies out there on which I could spend my $8. Some of those are even American, too.) And for goodness' sakes don't gauge everything by the tastes of teenagers. Most people become more interesting as they get older, anyway. My brother was into Metallica and Rammstein when he was a teenager but has since seen the light and switched to folk, bluegrass, Classical, independent rock and country, and various Cuban genres (having been to Cuba on an archaeology project). Commercial radio is the skin on the top. The worst of the worst. Just because you catch me listening to Randy Travis once in awhile doesn't mean I don't also like Son House, Hobart Smith, or Jean Ritchie. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Grab Date: 10 Apr 07 - 06:45 AM In short, today's artists haven't done their homework. Depends on which "artists" we're talking about. All the "Pop Idol" dross, sure, they haven't. But there are other artists out there who surely have. Mika, for example. The first time I heard "Grace Kelly", I thought it was a previously-unreleased Queen song. Or an unsigned band I heard on Radio 2 on Saturday, called the New York Fun. The band had obviously had a heavy Dire Straits influence, especially the guitarist who gave one of the best solos I've heard since the Alchemy version of "Sultans of Swing". For earlier influences, you've got Amy Winehouse making jazz singing work for a new generation. Or Gnarls Barkley with old-school soul and blues. And for composers, I happened to hear Karl Jenkins' Requiem on Classic FM on Sunday. That was written in 2005, and it's a lovely bit of music. There *are* good artists out there. They may be in the minority, but it was always thus. Remember that for every Beatles and Stones record, there would be dozens of Ronettes and Frankie Vallis and Del Shannons! Graham. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 10 Apr 07 - 08:45 AM I've never rated The Stones. They emerged shortly after - and benefitted greatly - from The Beatle success. It was more of a bad boy image thing that got them attention. Mick Jagger- now there's a mediocre singer if ever there was one, and he must be the worst singer in a popular rock band ever!. He's style is highly derivative; he has no range; and no interesting tonal quality to his voice. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:04 AM .. and there it is again.. in order to illustrate any theories of aesthetic value,. there always exists the problematic desire to attempt to illustrate arguements with arbitrary examples of 'good' and 'bad' cultural products... me.. i'd always prefere to enjoy listening to Del Shannon rather than most records by the Stones.. ..so who's to say "Runaway" aint a more progressive and innovative recording than say.. "I wanna be your man"..!!!??? tuff innit !!!!! |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 10 Apr 07 - 09:37 AM My last posting is not a simply a personal opinion - it is fact! Jagger has a vocal style that relies very heavily on black American blues singers - right down to trying to mimick the accents! He has no range! Or at least he hasn't demonstrated that he has! The tonal quality criticism could be said to be a personal choice thing - but, based on what is generally accepted as great rock singing, Jagger's voice just doesn't qualify. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: Stringsinger Date: 10 Apr 07 - 11:44 AM It looks like what's mediocre is a matter of opinion. I think there is some value in any music that reaches a large audience although a lot depends on how much the hype influences the listener. I don't think that Mick Jagger has much of a voice either. Neither does Louis Armstrong. But what the two did with their voices counts for something. I am not a great Stones, Beatles, or Dylan fan but I can appreciate what they have done. And I wouldn't call them mediocre. The majority (now that's a can of worms) were Alexander Hamilton's "Beast" and should in his opinion never allowed to participate in what is vaguely known in the US today as "democracy". So the "Beast" is ostensibly the arbiter of popular taste. When we place a restrictive view on the majority or the "Beast" we have lost our way in a society. We may not really really know what the majority considers to be good. Opinion polls are always misleading and skewed. We may not like the tastes of current popular music but I see it in two ways. One, a denial of the other alternative cultural music Mudcatters support, and a kind of a hype that tends to influence audiences who want to be "au courrant". I think we can argue as to what constitutes good singing, musicianship (obviously IMHO Louis Armstrong was infinitely superior to Mick Jagger) but the bottom line is this, do we really care what the majority thinks? And if so why? One good reason is that it brings into focus why we like what we do. And it also is a reflection of what has become of our society. There are a lot of the names of artists mentioned on this thread with whom I am not familiar. This has to do more with of art as having business priorities today. The names mentioned are not on the media or PBS. Our society has become restrictive in what news, entertainment, and views it needs to be healthy. Art has become a popular trend such as the wearing of new clothes. It has no longevity and roots now. It is often presented in stuffy mausoleum/museums and has little currency to the way we live today. So the premise of mediocrity is relative to the social environment. Today's popular music on the media suggests a deterioration of our society nationally. Why? Because it has suddenly become MacDonald's hamburgers. It is disposable and ephemeral. Underground, there may be a well-spring of new artistic talent that goes unnoticed. Some good talent may reach the majority and we should all be happy and support that when it occurs. In this, the majority may come to like something that is not mediocre and substantive. I suggest for sure Louis Armstrong. Maybe Dylan. Maybe Springsteen. Maybe the Dixie Chicks. But sometimes the Beast will fool you and pick something really worth while...like incidents of true democracy. When that happens, lets rejoice. Frank Hamilton |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: GUEST,Tunesmith Date: 10 Apr 07 - 03:33 PM The main difference between Mick Jagger and Louis Armstrong ( apart from the fact that Louis was a genuine genius) is that Louis is himself when he sings. On the other hand, vocally Mick is a strange kind of London Town/Muddy Waters hybrid which, for me, doesn't work. |
|
Subject: RE: If the majority like it - it's mediocre! From: M.Ted Date: 10 Apr 07 - 04:25 PM It takes a certain sort of talent to speak to the mass market. What used to be called "the great unwashed"--and figuring out what they'll like is an even rarer talent. Those of you that think the music they listen to, watch, and buy is "crap" show that you can't hear what they hear, and don't understand what they like. Those of you who think that the American Idol folks don't do their homework are very wrong. They follow what the market likes very carefully. If "the market" liked what Frank likes, I can promise you "American Idol" would be his favorite show. In fact, they'd have Frank sitting there instead of Simon. In spite of what they'd have you think, the entertainment industry follows, rather than dictates, taste. |
| Share Thread: |