|
24 Apr 01 - 11:00 AM (#448111) Subject: NON-Folk music question From: John Hardly I didn't want to hijack the Brother/Moron thread but in a related way I'm wondering... I probably have a naive (meaning truly uninitiated) view of the music biz. What I want to know is; It's October of 2000 but imagine that Stephen Stills is in his living room in (Where is he from?) and he just finished penning "Suite Judy Blue Eyes". Meanwhile, at approximately the same time John Fogarty has just come in from his garage studio, ink still drying with the words "...down on the corner...". In today's market does anyone but a lucky few thousand coffeehouse attendees ever hear either one. Would Fogarty be forced into the "Country" market? Was the music ONLY for its time and do we listen to it still out of nostalgia or was it objectively good music? Is there, or even can there be, the equivalent musician in today's MARKET compared to the market of thirty or forty years ago? (In other words is the music of today created FOR a market more, less, or the same as (Than) back then?). Were these guys (Stills, Fogarty, Taylor, Sebastion, etc.) just in the right place at the right time. If they were just starting out now would they be writing differently or, if accepted, would their music influence change in today's market as it did back then?
I know the questions are essentially unanswerable but I'd like to hear your thoughts. I think they might be interesting given the mix of pro and non-pro, young and old we have here on this site. John |
|
24 Apr 01 - 11:13 AM (#448126) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: KitKat I do believe that some material stands the test of time and some doesn't. Often it's more to do with the arrangment than the material ('concept albums excepted!). There are artists I didn't really listen to when they were in vogue (like Peter Gabriel) that I now really like - and other stuff I hated than and still do - generally (IMHO) drug-induced self-indulgent crap like the Faust Tapes. KitKat |
|
24 Apr 01 - 11:14 AM (#448127) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: Charley Noble John – It's the most fun for us to sing to the choir, but it's also a blast to do successful outreach. If you don't know the job's impossible, you may even succeed. We can only identify the right time and place after it's happened. Although, it's also true that with experience we can at least pick and choose what may be more successful, or less frustrating. |
|
24 Apr 01 - 12:46 PM (#448233) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: GUEST,Russ "Was the music ONLY for its time and do we listen to it still out of nostalgia or was it objectively good music?" As a boomer speaking about boomer music, I can only say that it is too early to tell. The important questions are not whether boomers still listen to the music of their youth and why. The important questions are: Are our children listening to it? Will our children still be listening to it in 10 years or so? What will our grandchildren think of our music? As for today's popular music establishment/juggernaut, I am still trying to decide if things are truly significantly different than they were 40 years ago. On the one hand no one can deny the stranglehold the establishment has on the various distribution channels, but that has always been the case. Also, the establishment has problems with music that does not fit neatly into whatever categories are currently being used. But again, that's an old problem. What I have seen more than once in my lifetime is music sneaking in the backdoor and creating a market where none previously existed. It becomes a force to be reckoned with no matter how the establishment initially treated it. Rock 'n' roll is a perfect example. Then there's the "folk scare." Can anyone but the people who lived there imagine a world in which Bob Dylan was a force to be reckoned with? How 'bout punk rock?. Finally, we have Ralph Stanley on the charts. I don't want to sound like a Pollyanna, but more than once I have seen worthwhile powerful stereotype-shattering music force the music establishment to come to it. Can that continue to happen? Beats me! |
|
24 Apr 01 - 01:16 PM (#448268) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: mousethief Well, when my teenagers eschew the current radio offerings and collect Queen and Pink Floyd CD's from 25-30 years ago, it makes me wonder. |
|
26 Nov 17 - 05:00 PM (#3890557) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: GUEST,pauperback Google and Amazon seems to be the new forces to be reckoned with: for example Kane Brown Of course Mudcat has a few forces to be reckoned with, also. ( - : |
|
27 Nov 17 - 02:34 PM (#3890740) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: GUEST,Guest My son was born in 1966 (blimey he's 51)at a time when the Beatles were ceasing to be. I have a copy of Sergeant Pepper (vinyl & CD) and the Number Ones CD which I bought in Hong Kong airport. My son has copies of everything that the Beatles ever recorded commercially and a few bootlegs. Must ask my grandson for his thoughts. |
|
27 Nov 17 - 02:37 PM (#3890742) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: GUEST,keberoxu Oddly, what comes to mind from the original post is this "country" question. The original poster made no mention of the group, the Eagles; yet one of their better-known albums actually won an award (forget if it was Grammy or something different) in the Country category. That would be the album with the song "Lying Eyes." |
|
28 Nov 17 - 07:45 PM (#3891039) Subject: RE: NON-Folk music question From: GUEST,Guest My son introduced me to t'Eagles as we call them in t'north and Meatloaf. They probably get more plays in the car but still my main love is traditional unaccompanied singing - but you have to listen to that so I do it at home. |