|
17 Jul 04 - 06:57 AM (#1227556) Subject: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: harvey andrews Last night on "Newsnight Review" BBC TV, four critics gave their assesment of S+G's concert in the UK. Two of them were of the generation that grew up on S+G the other two were under 30 I think.It was very interesting to hear what they said. The older two talked about lyrics plus nostalgia of course, and enjoyed the concert. The younger two made no comment on content, but only talked about presentation and participation. They called the audience "polite", bemoaning a lack of energy and the fact that they were listening quietly and seemed happy to just be there rather than being part of the show and noisy. One also complained that Art "did nothing" except stand and sing! It was fascinating to see what these two different generations wanted from the concert. The older two represented a generation happy to just listen and appreciate the craft of songwriting and singing alone, the younger two appeared to demand something visual and participatory with content coming a bad third. Interesting differences I thought. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 07:00 AM (#1227558) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: harvey andrews Oh, and perhaps one of the reasons for the much bemoaned lack of young people coming to "folk" gigs, even to see young performers. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 07:09 AM (#1227561) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: The Borchester Echo Art "did nothing" except stand and sing When did he ever do anything else? |
|
17 Jul 04 - 07:33 AM (#1227565) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: GUEST,Henryp Looking forward to your new light show and special effects, Harvey! |
|
17 Jul 04 - 07:56 AM (#1227572) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: harvey andrews I'm actually thinking of forming "The standing still whilst singing and playing at the same time" society.It'll be a whole new concept of performance. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 08:13 AM (#1227579) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: The Borchester Echo So stepdancing's out of the question then... |
|
17 Jul 04 - 08:16 AM (#1227581) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: DonMeixner With a voice like Art's why would he do anything else but stand still and sing? |
|
17 Jul 04 - 08:20 AM (#1227582) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Mooh So, what about recognition for those who SIT still whilst singing and playing? Mooh. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 09:19 AM (#1227597) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: GUEST Too right Don. I got my wife tickets to see Art in concert last year as she's a fan but I could take it or leave it. Until I heard the guy sing and wow, what a voice. I was stunned by the quality, clarity and tone of his voice. Not a note wrong all night, power, sublty, the lot. I can reccomend anyone to go and see him live. If young people aren't impressed by that, then it really is their loss. Shame. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 09:28 AM (#1227602) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: saulgoldie From what I have heard of the current music, musicality is not necessarily required. No surprise that large numbers of the young would not appreciate Garfunkel's voice. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 09:54 AM (#1227608) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Maryrrf I don't think, with younger people, a concert is ever really just a concert. They expect a show with theatric, dancers, sound and light etc... Considering many of the current crop of popular touring artists (not counting folk, obviously - what few of them there are) if you took away the theatrics they wouldn't stand a chance because they wouldn't make it as singers or musicians. Case in point...Madonna. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 10:50 AM (#1227629) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Jeri It depends which young people you talk to. Pop music today usually includes a lot of theatrics, but not necessarily. Music with insightful lyrics and beautiful music, or just damned good songs, have always been somewhat separate from 'flash' music. (I am NOT going to use the 'F' word! It's not the genre, it's the presentation.) There is music around today which is about the music, not the show. There were also people around 'back in the day' who wanted theatrics. I seem to recall a friend talking about convincing another friend to go see Simon & Garfunkel back in the 70's. I heard the review - something like: "The music was ok, I guess, but they just stood there. I saw the Rolling Stones last month, and now THAT was a show! Nobody, but NOBODY is better than Mick Jagger!" Does this sound familiar to anybody? There's going to be a problem when anyone who just doesn't like a certain type of thing, whether it's music, a movie, a book, etc., winds up reviewing it. There are kids around who would have liked it. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 11:50 AM (#1227659) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: The Borchester Echo Why ever make it an "either/or" thing? There's music just for listening to and music that's part of a multimedia experience and that's scarcely a new concept. In the youth of many of those posting (and mine too, as it goes), there were song/dance/light/film performances - remember UFO, Incredible String Band, Exploding Galaxy?...I used to go to that one night then Paul Simon or Harvey Andrews the next. I'm not especially brain damaged as a result. Not that it all started with Joe Boyd. Tschaikovsky's 1812? Handel's Royal Fireworks? Appalachian step/frail/singing? Mediaeval mystery and mumming plays? Morris, clog and molly...? And Madonna is a trained and experienced dancer. You may not like her act but it's impossible to deny the effort and skill of the choreography that goes into it. The Stones put on a performance of total excitement, high energy and great songs while in total contrast, Dylan comes on, plays and sings and rarely even acknowledges the audience. Are the many thousands the world over who continue to flock to both sorts of concert indiscriminate or schizophrenic? I don't think so. Like me, they love music so long as it's good. This forum is always very keen to give Jim Moray a kicking. Why? Because of his versatility? This is someone who can perform on his own with an acoustic guitar in a small room or on a mainstage or theatre with electric guitar and piano, as a traditional duo with his sister, as a trio/quartet or whatever combination with or without multimedia effects as a "nu-folk/techno" or whatever pseudo label you choose to give it in venues across (so far) three continents. Art Garfunkel, however, just stands and sings. Granted, extremely well (so long as you can keep all those rabbits out of your mind). It's not a criticism, just a statement of fact. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 02:10 PM (#1227747) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Jerry Rasmussen Da Beats Da thing. Paul & Artie don't got THE BEAT. And where are all the scantily clad babes clutching their crotches? You call that entertainment? I heard Paul eight or nine years ago when he had most of the musicians from Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints with him, AND Ladysmith Black Mombazo. When he invited Artie up, it was a surprise to everyone, as he wasn't listed as one of the performers. I really enjoyed the short set he did with Artie, but it's a different kind of music, without a lot of energy. Shifting gears from Ladysmith Black Mombazo dancing on stage in rhythm, singing, to Artie standing next to the piano with his hands in his pockets took some doing on my part, and I LOVED it. I give Paul a lot of credit that he can go from pensive ans wistful to rocking. Artie is more of a one trick pony... wonderful pony that he is. Jerry |
|
17 Jul 04 - 02:16 PM (#1227751) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: harvey andrews What I was trying to draw attention to I suppose was the inevitability of the two young critics being negative in their response. I really hoped otherwise but basically told my wife what I was sure they were going to say before they said it, and I was right. These people really shouldn't be getting these TV opportunities if all they can do is parrot the "fashionable" mantra of the day. It's too easy and it's lazy. A good critic should have a sense of history and no baggage of "cool".When you're watching two 62 year olds you should know where they came from, what they've achieved, and approach them with respect for what they have to offer. The "let's knock them 'cause they're old and they don't do what we do" school of criticism is far too prevalent in modernmedia.It's the same no- think that dresses us all in Arran sweaters and sticks our fingers in our ears. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 02:48 PM (#1227767) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: freightdawg Harvey, you are very insightful and accurate, but it's not just in music. Just to take modern music as an example though, you have a generation that has grown up with nothing but MTV and its clones. When I grew up (I was born in 19mumble,mumble) all we had was radio, and the occasional concert. Music was written and recorded more to be heard than experienced. Concerts were different, but still I think the music was the focus, not the theatrics. Now, with MTV and its clones, you come up with a great set of theatrics and the lyrics are secondary, if not tertiary. Younger afficiandos expect to have a tremendous visual experience, and the aural experience is just not as important (in my opinion, others would disagree I'm sure.) By the way, I would say the same thing about country music as well. Long gone are the days Johnny Cash or Loretta Lynn could hold court just standing in front of a microphone. Now its all about body baring black leather and guitar-smashing morons running all over the stage. But, think of movies as well. Compare the first "Star Wars" to the last chapter. The latest has all the greatest computer driven light shows and whiz bang details, and the story was dreadful. Go back even further. Just think what Alfred Hitchcock could do with just shadows and camera angle compared to this generation's blood and gore and 8,000 gigawatt pyrotechnic show. We have just come to expect flash and glitter, and substance and true artistry seems to have taken a back seat. There are still a lot of old pros out there, and it is so refreshing to see and hear them perform. (By the way, we had an Eagles concert here in Alb. not too long ago with a review in the local paper that mirrored the review you mentioned almost word for word. The reviewer (a young woman) panned the whole evening because of the "lackluster" performance of the Eagles. I later talked to someone who actually attended. He said the crowd (aging baby boomers) went absolutely nuts the whole night. Go figure.) Freightdawg |
|
17 Jul 04 - 03:04 PM (#1227777) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Ed. I'm sorry, but all I'm getting here, is a "when I was a lad..." as if that means that the past was better. This has been happening for hundreds of years. Every generation thinks that they know best, and the previous generation mutters... |
|
17 Jul 04 - 03:33 PM (#1227795) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Mark Cohen Well, Ed, it may have been happening for hundreds of years, but when I was growing up it wasn't like that at all. Aloha, Mark |
|
17 Jul 04 - 03:35 PM (#1227799) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Ed. Of course it wasn't Mark. I think that you may be missing my point (not that I made it particularly well) |
|
17 Jul 04 - 04:07 PM (#1227813) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: harvey andrews Frieghtdog says it right! And Ed, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not saying anything is better or worse, I'm merely saying that critics should not approach it with the reverse attitude to the one you think you're getting.I expect from most people the attitude you say has been with us for a hundred years, but not from paid critics of artistic endeavour.I think we should all expect more from them, particularly a knowledge of time and place and context. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 04:53 PM (#1227833) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: YOR I'll have to test my teenage son with Simon & Garfunkel. I'm guessing it will go over about as well as James Taylor did a few months back-NOT! He's pretty open with his music tastes, but some of the old stuff like Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, Karla Bonoff, Blood Sweat & Tears and Jethro Tull he just can't listen to. He has hit my CD collection pretty hard over the last few years. He likes The Beatles, The Who, Pink Floyd, Eric Clapton, and The Eagles. I hit his collection every once in a while for a select few. Enjoy, Roy |
|
17 Jul 04 - 05:01 PM (#1227836) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Benjamin Harvey, I'm a guy under 30 and I must say that I absolutly love Simon and Garfunkel, there duo stuff as well both of their solo stuff. One thing I don't think those younger critics understand is the art of performance. They are both exceptional performers, even without the dancers and theaterics. A good example would be there Concert in Central Park album. In my oppinion, that's the best version of Bridge Over Troubled Water. Even with a great voice like Art has, you can't think that it would be easy to get up in front of 50 thousand people in Central Park of all places and deliver the song like that. The same thing happens with Sports critics. To this day I come a cross criticisms of how John MacEnroe was too much of a weiner written by a guy who has never played the sport and looks like he hasn't made it off his couch in a decade or so. He clearly doesn't understand the competition MacEnroe faced, or what that might bring out of you. It's the same thing here. I don't think it's that these critics are young, but they probably don't spend much time in front of an audience (especially of that size) and they just don't understand what's going on. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 05:09 PM (#1227841) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Big Al Whittle I was just thinking. Isn't it nice that a great artist like Harvey Andrews wants to share his thoughts with us. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 05:50 PM (#1227859) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Scabby Douglas I was at the Manchester Arena Simon and Garfunkel concert on Wednesday evening. I suspect that if the people who were critiquing the concert had been at that event, rather than (as I assume) the Hyde Park London gig, that they would have had a different vire not only of the audience, but also of Simon and Garfunkel. If you want to read what a reviewer of that concert thought, look here : Manchester Online and what the rest of the audience thought have a look here.: reader comments Here's what I said there: "With over-the-odds tickets from Ebay, we drove down in the afternoon from Glasgow. I had misgivings that this would be a perfunctory rehash of old and tired material, delivered in an off-hand way. Not only should I not have worried, I could not have been further from the truth. I've read the phrase "soundtrack of their lives" before, but it was never more apt than last night. The arena was packed with people of a "certain age", and we had a blast. But the songs were fresh, with revisited arrangements, and the subtle re-phrasing that comes when a performer has known and delivered a song for may years. It was not music-by-numbers. "Old Friends", it said. Well, they are certainly getting on a bit, and I don't know if they are friends now, or not. But they made me like their music all over again. They made me remember what I liked about them when I was growing up, and washed away the dullness of ear that comes with the years of listening to the same original versions. I hope to hell they have recorded some of this tour... The best concert I've ever been too? Yes, I'd go along with that. At any rate if I ever go to a better one, I'll be sure to come back and tell you... Steven Clark, Glasgow 15/07/2004 at 16:32" I don't know what the Hyde Park concert was like. But it could not have been better than Manchester... |
|
17 Jul 04 - 05:53 PM (#1227860) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: Scabby Douglas sorry - I'd love to claim that "vire" is a Glasgow dialect word, but it's only a typo- should have been "view" |
|
17 Jul 04 - 08:15 PM (#1227915) Subject: RE: Simon and garfunkel;generation gap From: GUEST,Art Thieme Art Garfunkel's doing of "Barbara Allen" is one of the most beautiful I've ever heard---even though one of the orchestral instruments plays a devastatingly BAD note near the end of the song. I suspect they left it on that album because otherwise it was a perfect take. That "Barbara Allen" is bested only by the rendition recorded by Jo Stafford with her husband, Paul Weston's lush orchestrations. Still, a sparse and very straightforward version of the song done a-capella and recorded by the folksong collector Helene Stratman Thomas in Wisconsin is my absolute favorite performance of the song. (I do wish I could recall the woman's name.) BACK TO THE TOPIC AT HAND and the comments in this thread: How in God's name can CONTENT ever be of less importance than in-yo-face screaming and noise that keeps real content and, indeed, the story within the song, from being brought forth clearly and succinctly with metaphoric strength and intellect?? The answer is that it cannot. This is the difference between Roosevelt and Bush. It is the reason that THE BEAT GENERATION produced book after book, insightful poem after poem, valuable literary thought after valuable thought-----while the Hippy thing led to numbness and the Woodstock generation romping in the mud and merde of a New York cow pasture. The generation gaps all along the timeline represent the dumbing down steps on a ladder that brought us from then to now. And there is very little any of us can do about it. Not bad. Not good. Just is. And rather sad. Art Thieme (who probably should know better than to post at the end of the day.) |
|
17 Jul 04 - 10:32 PM (#1227962) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Nerd One thing I find amusing is that the old fogies above (meaning no disrespect) refer to "content" when they mean lyrics and melody. In fact, dancers, in-your-face-screaming, pyrotechnics, multimedia and the lot ARE content. You may happen to think they're crap, but they're still content, and they're part of what people pay to go to concerts for. I happen to be in my mid 30s, so I may be at the age where one is most likely to be a a Simon and Garfunkel fan, and at the same time recognize that the other stuff counts as content too. But surely people considerably older than me have gone to concerts for "content" that wasn't pure music. The Who were busting up guitars on stage back when Simon and Garfunkel were young, and Chubby Checker encouraged his audiences to "Do the Twist" before that. People went to see Elvis for the pelvis. I do like the pure music, by the way, and it results in an interesting fact: most of the time, I'd rather listen to a CD, even in folk music. At concerts, there's too much distraction, be it smoke, noise, uncomfortable seats, etc. In addition, the music is usually not as good, due usually to poorer sound than in a studio. Finally, most concerts cost as much as a CD or more, and the CD lasts for years. So in the end, for me the main reason to go to a concert IS the visual part. I happen to be happy if the only dancing is Martin Simpson's fingers on a fretboard, but it's still the visual stuff that gets me into a venue. By the way, I don't necessarily agree with what Harvey said about "those whippersnappers shouldn't be allowed to criticize S & G unless they have a sense of history, perspective, etc. etc." Or rather, I think it would be nice in an ideal world but it doesn't sound like THIS world. Since when has TV cared about that stuff? The kids' function is to say whether they liked the concert. The reason that a TV station employs them (as opposed to The Times or Folk Roots or whatever) is that their views are seen as likely to correspond with that of a segment of the program's audience. In other words, the under 30s who are watching TV as their source for music criticism are likely to appreciate and agree with these kids. It is actually quite rare (at least in the US; I'll admit I only get to watch drama and comedy from the UK, not news) for a TV-based critic to be of any use to me. Few of them have any sense of history or perspective, and they all say the latest crapfest action movie is "PERFECT! A NON STOP SUMMER THRILL RIDE!!!" For that reason, for criticism of music or films, I read. (I will say that there are SOME thoughtful film critics on US TV, including Roger Ebert. But I'd rather read his reviews than watch him on the tube.) I hope there are a lot of under 30s who are smarter than the TV program's "target audience," and go read reviews of music in newspapers and music magazines. In pop music, I think Mojo is generally an excellent magazine, and unlikely to pick a 25 year old wanker to review Simon and Garfunkel. |
|
17 Jul 04 - 10:53 PM (#1227972) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Mark Cohen Ed: that was supposed to be a joke. Guess I was too subtle for my own good! You made your point very well, and I agree completely. Aloha, Mark |
|
17 Jul 04 - 11:19 PM (#1227979) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Ethereal Purple "some of the old stuff like Taylor, Joni Mitchell, Joan Baez, Neil Young, Jackson Browne, Dan Fogelberg, Karla Bonoff, Blood Sweat & Tears and Jethro Tull he just can't listen to" So strange... I'm 17... and most of those artists are my absolute favourites! Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell and James Taylor are definitely RIGHT on top, along with simon & garfunkel... and so many other 'old' artists. I have a LOT of friends who really enjoy simon and garfunkel... and a few who like baez and the like. So, there are still some of us :). Thing is, though, I don't like a lot of the newer stuff. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 12:22 AM (#1227999) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: iamjohnne Back in nineteen sixty-something a boy I dated literally sold his blood to take me to see Simon and Garfunkle. I was mesmerized then and prolly would be now if I saw them in person.I can appreciate and enjoy many different types of song styling. but I defy anyone to find anyone who sings better than Art GArfunle |
|
18 Jul 04 - 01:14 AM (#1228016) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: GUEST,Art Thieme Nerd, Good points. I do understand. I meant it when I said it was too late for me to post coherently. The kind of fatigue that goes with being double your age, and from other various infirmities, is like hitting a wall--and I ought to've known better than to try to sound profound given these realities. And I appreciate that you meant no disrespect. Art |
|
18 Jul 04 - 02:05 AM (#1228033) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Matt_R I'm a 25-year-old wanker who enjoys S&G. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 02:22 AM (#1228034) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Nerd Art, I still mean no disrespect! You and Harvey are definitely people I hold in high esteem. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 02:50 AM (#1228040) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: open mike I heard Art and Paul on Morning Edition (or All Things Considered?) one of the NPR in depth shows...it was great to hear the inter views and i was gld to see they were performing, touring and recording again! I think i heard them on the show that is hosted by Neil Simon, they were joking as to whether they were related. They introduced a new song on the radio. If you go to that web site you can see pictures... |
|
18 Jul 04 - 06:24 AM (#1228085) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Richard Bridge I think it's horses for courses. The best metal band, despite strong tunes and lyrics, would not deliver effectively without a good dollop of stage posing. But it's not what what S+G are for! However, one of the best metal singers I know surreptitiously leads a double life (he's well under 30) doing morris dancing and folk singing (a huge fan of a local 65 year old woman unaccompanied singer, but she is really rather special) and has just borrowed my spare-est mandolin and dammit was getting music out of it in about 5 minutes! In that persona the stage posing is not where it's at. What the start of the thread indicates is that a reviewer needs to understand the genre - compare Japanese No plays, or Haiku, or sean-nos singers. The reviewer complained of was no better than the caricature's "I may not know much about art but I know what I like" ignoramus. What might she have made of Schoenberg? |
|
18 Jul 04 - 07:03 AM (#1228096) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: jack halyard I sang "Poem on the underground wall" at one of our Tuesday night pub sessions about a month ago. I was powerfully re-impressed with Paul Simon as a writer. I've not heard many to compare with them as harmony singers. If they just stand and sing, I'll just stand and watch. Jack Halyard. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 07:45 AM (#1228110) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: harvey andrews To continue the discussion with nerd as to "Content". I agree that this is an area of serious generation gap. If I can use the analogy of cigarettes. They are a vehicle for the delivery of nicotine. The nicotine is in the tobacco, which is wrapped in a paper tube and then sold in a pack. To us "old fogeys" as you call us..(there we go again, lazy labelling, I'll just go and get me arran sweater!).. a song is a vehicle for the the delivery of ideas and imagery contained in words and wrapped in music. When you quite rightly say that pyrotechnics, lights, dancing, visuals etc are what people now go for it seems to me that the pack is now the object of desire and not the cigarettes it contains. It's the same as people who collect books for the dustwrappers. It gives them pleasure and harms no one, but it's just not really what books are for. Still, films used to be about plot and character. "Change and decay all around I see" Oh dear, what's an old fogey look like? |
|
18 Jul 04 - 08:27 AM (#1228115) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Ross My sister was a big fan in the late 60's and early 70's and it was a requirement to buy her the latest album for a Christmas present I must admit I thought that the two of them had a more equal status in playing, writing and singing I was a bit stunned when reading the notes on the back of the 'Bridge over' album, how much was credited to Paul Simon I went to a gig that night to see Stackridge and nobody would believe me I'm surprised that Paul Simon didn't cut Art's hair How strange, that he got jealous of Art's acting career |
|
18 Jul 04 - 09:33 AM (#1228144) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Jerry Rasmussen Hey, Harv: Music is for all kinds of experiences... even songs. Songs aren't just about lyrics. Or messages. Folk songs are about words, stories and messages. But, not even all folk music... sometimes lyrics are just silly or fun... which I know you know. But music is also for dancing, and I'm not just talking about contra dancing or morris dancing. For people who like to dance to music, the words aren't the primary interest... it's the sound and the rhythm. Nobody listened to Wooly Bully or Louie, Louie to hear the words, or get the message. These days, the beat drives everything, and having three left feet, it doesn't get me up on the dance floor. That's true not only in pop music and country, but in gospel. Everything now seems to be mass choirs and multiple synthesizers, drums and guitars. I don't like that kind of gospel. The key word in that last sentence is "I." Why can't everybody be like me? Dang! For me, there's room for all kinds of music, including music I don't like that does nothing for me. That makes room for folk music, which the general public finds uninteresting, and jazz which is just about as unpopular as folk music. Loving folk music and jazz, which have such a limited appeal to the general public wasn't enough for me. I've fallen in love with old black gospel quartet music, which is equally limited in appeal. Maybe it's something about us folkies. Last year, my quartet opened for the Dixie Hummingbirds... a fine, nationally know black gospel group celebrating their 74th Anniversary! It was well publicized in the black community and churches and the promoter rented a large auditorium. The concert drew about 50 people. A lousy, loud rap group would have filled the place. So be it. Music speaks to people. Folk music speaks to a little circle of friends. Rap and hip hop speaks to millions. At least people are getting up off their duffs and dancing now... certainly there are at least as many people on the floor dancing as there were in the 40's with the big bands. If folkies bemoan the lack of appreciation for folk music, lighten up. You could be a poet. :-) Jerry |
|
18 Jul 04 - 11:15 AM (#1228172) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: harvey andrews I can't disagree Jerry, I am just addressing the issue of "song" as Mudcat generally knows it. However, I'm still doing my doctorate on the hidden meanings of "woe-oo, woe-oo, yea, yea" |
|
18 Jul 04 - 11:22 AM (#1228175) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Once Famous I've enjoyed reading this thread. It's very hard and scary to imagine the world of music 25-30 years from now. I want to be positive and say that things then will go retro and music and thought again will be synonomous. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 01:38 PM (#1228246) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Jerry Rasmussen Dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, dip, nume, nume, nume, nume, nume, nume, get a job.. Your original post is still right on, though, Harvey. Using the same reasoning, I guess us folkies shouldn't be judging hip hop artists except in the context of that form of musical expression... :-) Good thread.. Jerry |
|
18 Jul 04 - 01:47 PM (#1228258) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: burntstump The two so called critics who knocked S & G must have had their heads up their buts, no wonder they talked so much crap! |
|
18 Jul 04 - 02:37 PM (#1228292) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Strollin' Johnny Harvey, "Woe Woe Yea Yea" means drapes and DA's, brothel creepers, drains, girls in tight sweaters, ponytails, the Waltzers at the fair, hotdogs and candyfloss, going for a haircut and daring to ask the barber for a packet of three but not daring to use them, and most of all, wonderful wonderful good-time music by Buddy, Jerry Lee, Elvis, Gene, The Bopper, The Platters et many al, which my dad heaped scorn on but which has stood the test of time - just like S&G. Maybe the judgment on quality is something that can't be made when the music's new, maybe like good wine it needs time to mature and develop body and nose? And maybe good taste develops as we ourselves grow older? Just my thoughts (albeit not as eloquently put as yours!). Johnny :0) |
|
18 Jul 04 - 02:38 PM (#1228294) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Nerd Yes, Harvey, i was just kidding with the "Old Fogey" thing. I don't really think of anyone that way! I would agree with your cigarette analogy. The fact is, if nicotine is the "content," the main difference between brands IS the packs. That would suggest that people buy the brand they buy because of the pack and its artwork/graphics/slogans etc. And so they do. This is well recognized within industry, and is not really a "generation gap" issue when it comes to consumer goods, except perhaps between 110 year olds and 100 year olds, because industry recognized this in the 1910s, when a currently 100 year old person was only about 6. (By the way, there are now many people who collect such things as potato crisp bags and soft drink bottles. They have conventions along with the equally loony people who collect equally ephemeral things like song broadsides.) As far as music is concerned, the packaging did begin later. But as I said, Elvis, the Beatles, Chubby Checker, etc., were as revered for what went along with the music as for the music itself. As Jerry says, no one ever listened to Louie Louie primarily for the lyrics or the music. Beyond that, there were always genres such as the Music Hall and eventually musical theatre itself, where it was not always true that "a song is a vehicle for the the delivery of ideas and imagery contained in words and wrapped in music." Sometimes the point WAS audience participation, or a wacky dance routine in the middle of a song, or ethnic humor in the accent/behavior/clothing of the performer, or a pie in the face, or even a line of leggy chorus girls. I think your attitude to what a song "is" is primarily applicable to the singer/songwriter genre, whether we mean by that folk or rock (Leon Rosselson or Bruce Springsteen). It has generally been less applicable to many other styles, such as music hall, heavy metal, punk (where "attitude" takes the place of stage drama) and a lot of what is now known as "Classic Rock." I'm not sure this is purely a generation gap, although it may have generational overtones. I think it's as much of a "genre gap" as anything. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 03:04 PM (#1228317) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: harvey andrews I suppose I always hear the lyrics first. it started with Buddy Holly for me; Drunk man, street car Foot slip,(drum rim shot) There you are..... Well I'm looking for someone to love.. probably the most succinct piece of lyric writing in popular music. It's a film, a book, a play... "Strollin", my friend, as you know Sonny Curtis wrote "More than I can say". I worked with him once and when I got back to the dressing room he asked me who'd written a song I sang. "I did, Sonny" "Fine song man." he said. It's never got better than that! I got into songwriting through the tradition as I heard it, ie the telling of stories with music, and that's still what I listen for, although it's harder to find these days in the welter of "me" writers who don't have much of a story to tell. it's interesting. looking back, that I was the first person in the world to record a Paul Simon song except Paul. It was "Most peculiar man" a direct piece of storytelling, and not one of his more "poetic" lyrics. Then I heard Harry Chapin....but that's another story |
|
18 Jul 04 - 03:25 PM (#1228323) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: GUEST,Art Thieme I will sing you a song it will be a sad one, Of trials and troubles and how they begun, I left my dear kindred, my friends and my home To cross the wide beech creeks and the mountains to roam. -----------Alex Moore ( first verse of the song "Sioux Indians" on an early L. of C. recording) Just an example of what I mean when I say "content". Art Thieme |
|
18 Jul 04 - 04:21 PM (#1228358) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: harvey andrews I think that's what we all agree on Art! |
|
18 Jul 04 - 04:27 PM (#1228362) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: beardedbruce Art, great song- just got the rest off DT... 8-{E |
|
18 Jul 04 - 05:12 PM (#1228414) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Nerd Agreed, great song. And it doesn't need anything but a voice, though I've heard it sung with an accordion! |
|
18 Jul 04 - 06:24 PM (#1228457) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Celtaddict When I was in middle school (junior high it was called then) and listened to people like Peter, Paul and Mary, The Dave Clark Five, Chad and Jeremy, or Peter and Gordon, my dad, who would have been in his mid-late forties, and who introduced me to loads of big band, classical, Broadway show, and jazz players, came home and said, "I just ordered a record I think you will like by a duet called, of all things, Simon and Garfunkel." The were wonderful and I was hooked, as was he. When my daughter, now in her twenties, was in her early teens, she discovered them for herself, and was thrilled, and when she started telling me about them and playing her new CDs, she was astonished that I knew all the lyrics to every song. Enjoyment of a particular genre of music is, I think, more about what we have learned and what we have shared, and the gap in appreciation of a specific type may well be less about generation than about social circle. When all my daughter's friends were listening to Top 40 on the radio, she did too, but she also heard traditional, classic, reggae, "oldies" (a term that always sounds a little silly applied to the music of the 60s and 70s, to people who love music from earlier centuries) and an eclectic variety as well. Most of the music she enjoys is older than she is. She did realize that when she heard a Top 40 group live it was a big show, major social event, costly, and shared with thousands, almost none of whom would ever meet the musicians personally, and when she went to hear a traditional singer, she was likely to get a seat at the front table and hear from the stage, "Hi, how's the softball team, what would you like to hear?" Her CD case is now full of Simon & Garfunkel, OutKast, Bob Marley, Gordon Bok, Buddy Holly, Pink Floyd, Blues Traveler, Tommy Makem, and the Philadelphia Philharmonic. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 06:27 PM (#1228461) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Celtaddict We just heard Simon and Garfunkel in concert too. It was absolutely wonderful. They have never needed to do anything more than stand there and sing. Incredible. And as already observed, thirty years of singing the same songs have not made the songs routine; the performances have acquired a rich and subtle patina. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 06:34 PM (#1228472) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: harvey andrews That's about as eclectic a set of records as I had at 14! "Round, like a circle in a spiral....." I think we all agree on fundamentals. All I ask is; challenge sloppy stereotyping and lazy criticism wherever you find it. The critics that started me on this thread were on "Newsnight" on BBC2. They'd just reviewed films...Spiderman and Thunderbirds! I ask you!!! Those of you who remember the days of Joan Bakewell know what "dumbing down" means.Think on't and weep! Thanks all for your postings. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 06:55 PM (#1228479) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Celtaddict Absolutely! A reviewer should know the genre being reviewed. I would not seek out Roger Ebert's evaluation of a pottery show, nor would I wish to watch a basketball game with commentary by a brass quartet. Perhaps we should all be contacting the channels or papers whose reviews we encounter, suggesting that more interest and more balanced evaluation could be obtained by having reviewers of different backgrounds, who did not necessarily agree, and who recognized the diversity of their patrons. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 07:01 PM (#1228483) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Celtaddict All of which reminds me of hearing Brian McNeill telling a story one time and describing a BBC interviewer, who had "all the usual prerequisites for a BBC interviewer: lots of hair, lots of teeth..." But there is both "quality" (whatever that is; I think it has to do with what endures) and enjoyment to be found in all genres, though some may be more likely to stand the test of time more than others. Music or any other cultural attribute that has already stood the test of time will naturally seem to have quality, and that which has been shared and enjoyed by many generations is likely to continue to endure. Is this not more or less why we read real literature to our children, hang actual art work on their walls instead of cartoon cutouts, take them to good restaurants instead of fast food places? |
|
18 Jul 04 - 07:04 PM (#1228487) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Celtaddict This thread and the Songs from Shakespeare thread are coalescing to a certain degree. |
|
18 Jul 04 - 09:24 PM (#1228605) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: GUEST,Art Thieme If we can figure a way for it to see the light of day, "SIOUX INDIANS" will be on my new CD (from old tapes) that Dennis Cook is trying to make presentable right now as we speak. It was recorded at a benefit concert we did for Michael Cooney in Chicago after he was grivously injured in a road accident several years ago. He is doing great right now (July 18, 2004). The tapes of that whole concert ought to be issued. It was me and Cindy Mangsen and Steve Goodman and a fellow named Pete Seeger. Pete had a terrible cold but still (of course) pretty much pulled it off with Stevie Goodman leading songs and picking up the ball and running with it like the champ he always was. The benefit was held at a large folk venue called Stages Music Hall that was run then by Ed Holstein. This was on Clark Street -- pretty much right across from Wrigley Field--where the Cubs play---and where some of Stevie's ashes were secretly scattered at the base of the left-center field wall---among the ivy roots. The concert was November 4th, 1979. --- I didn't know it at the time, but I do think that night was some kind of highpoint for me. Hindsight can be enlightening--and quite nice. Art Thieme |
|
18 Jul 04 - 11:53 PM (#1228683) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Nerd Weirdly, I dreamt about having a long conversation with Pete Seeger last night. I think it was because of posting to this thread and getting replies from Art and Harvey...only a short step from that to a chinwag with Pete! Harvey, the detail that the same reviewers had just reviewed films does, of course, make their fitness to review the concert far more suspect. Maybe they don't know anything about music at all! |
|
19 Jul 04 - 12:09 AM (#1228691) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: MAG "Is this not more or less why we read real literature to our children, hang actual art work on their walls instead of cartoon cutouts, take them to good restaurants instead of fast food places? " I only wish. I see the select few on the job (library) who seek out real literature and read it to their kids. When the majority of parents do read to their kids, it tends to be the tripe on the rack at chain stores. sorry, that's a real hot button for me. Kids who get good literature grow up knowing how to think, and we know where that leads, don't we??? Sorry I missed that concert, Art; I was trying to finish up Library school AND serving in the organizing drive at that time. |
|
19 Jul 04 - 12:36 AM (#1228699) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Celtaddict "Is this not more or less why we read real literature to our children, hang actual art work on their walls instead of cartoon cutouts, take them to good restaurants instead of fast food places?" The painful observation that the "we" may be a smaller group than ideal does not change the point, except perhaps to strengthen it! |
|
19 Jul 04 - 08:01 AM (#1228865) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: ScottAndrews As someone who makes his living as both a film and music critic I have to stand up for people who multi task and review both, but I can't disagree with my dad when he lambasts those two critics who patently didn't have the first clue of the cutural context of what it was they were reviewing. It always drives me nuts to see lazy critics getting away with spouting the kind of rent-a-view rubbish that gives my profession a bad name. But they probably knew the producer, hence they get the gig. Case in point. A while back I was given the job of interviewing Robert Palmer, this was just before he died. Now I don't much care for his music but I didn't want to go in ignorant so I spent a whole day reading background material and composing a list of questions that were all about his music, because the one thing I've learnt from interviewing people over the last year or so is that musicians get asked about touring and release schedules and videos and all the paraphernalia, but the one thing they get asked about least often is music. And it it, naturally, the one thing they REALLY want to to talk about. So the interview went really well and I got a lovely message from his manager later to tell me how much he'd enjoyed being interviewed by someone who knew what he was talking about - all the other interviewers that day had asked him over and over again about the 'Addicted to Love' video and not much else. I learnt an important lesson that day: being a critic is all about two things - research and respect. Oh, and being opinionated, of course! Now it seems clear that the critics who discussed S&G on Newsnight had given their back catalogue no more than the most cursory glance, so why should their opinions matter to me, or to anyone? Which is why I should be on Newsnight not them ;-) As for the decline of music and film in general, well, dad knows I don't entirely buy that. Adaptation or Northfork prove that independent American cinema is the healthiest it's ever been, and don't get me started on how good The Divine Comedy and Fountains of Wayne are for I shall just rant on and on and bore everyone to tears. I think there's still loads of good stuff out there, it's just that it takes a bit more finding than it used to. The cream is still in the churn, it just doesn't rise to the top as easily as it once did. The only way to get the best out of the fractured, over saturated media world we live in nowadays is to be extremely pro-active in your search for whatever it is you personally define as quality. It's out there, but you've got to root about for it coz much of the media designed to draw your attention to new music and film is created by lazy journos who rarely look beyond the latest press release they're spoonfed by the publicity company. I signed up to the newly legal Napster and I just found, by surfing other people's favourites list, Uncle Tupelo. I'm four tracks into their last album and I'm wondering how I never heard this before coz it's great. Proactive, the only way to be. |
|
19 Jul 04 - 08:22 AM (#1228877) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Jerry Rasmussen Hey, Scott: I just turned 69 and I'm a great Fountains Of Wayne fan, and also like Uncle Tupelo. You're right. You have to search for good music and good movies (I also have Northfork on DVD.) With critics, whether they're movie or music or book critics, you have to get to know their tastes, their strengths and weaknesses. Even a renowned movie critic like Roger Ebert is a sucker for movies that tap into his childhood. He seems very objective and analytical on 95% of his reviews, but when it comes to movies about comic book characters he doesn't seem to be able to give a detached review. Oh yeah, I still like Simon and Garfunkel, although I like Paul Simon's body of work better on the whole.. even most of the music from Capeman, which bombed on broadway. Jerry |
|
19 Jul 04 - 08:33 AM (#1228885) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: JJ Maybe one day Paul will let them release the original cast recording of THE CAPEMAN. It's in the can, I understand, but he's keeping it locked there because the wounds are still too fresh, even now. |
|
19 Jul 04 - 02:31 PM (#1229129) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: Nerd Thanks, Scott and Jerry, Scott, I wasn't saying it was impossible to be good at both film and music reviews; I know other people who also do both. I was just suggesting that they were more likely to be scrubs at reviewing music if it was only a sideline to reviewing films. You sound like you SHOULD be on the BBC instead of them :-) Jerry, your observations about Ebert are spot on! I've noticed that myself. But once you are used to it, you can read his reviews and adjust for the "Ebert Factor." |
|
19 Jul 04 - 03:15 PM (#1229159) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: MAG You mean, like the 4 stars he (Ebert) gave the Gibson snuff movie?? MAG, ducking for cover ... |
|
19 Jul 04 - 06:18 PM (#1229298) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: The Stage Manager "…….demand something visual and participatory with content coming a bad third….." Andrews, I'm beginning to wonder if old fartdom hasn't finally crept up on you! I won't repeat here what I once heard a middle aged school music teacher say about some of your early songs… I seem to remember though that "Not a fit subject" came into it somewhere. Surely it's the job of youngsters to get seriously up the noses of their parent's generation, and create their own music and means of expression. I don't seem to remember Elvis Presley and the Rolling Stones being universally admired for their artistry, unlike your good self of course. I have this dream that one day, during a power cut, some spotty oik is going to stand up a sing his song unaccompanied. A couple of hundred other spotty oiks will then all say "Woooo that was amazing…He sung without the lights…" Singing and playing while standing still will suddenly be the epitome of cool, performers will talk enthusiastically 'really communicating with the audience', somebody will moan that music has no production standards any more, promoters and managers will suddenly realise they can save shed loads of money. Of course we'll all have to listen to the words, good or bad, because there'll be bugger all else to distract us from the song.....then we'll all go round the block once more. … Meanwhile, we can be sure, somewhere in the upstairs room of a pub a bunch of balding old grey hairs will be singing mournfully about English Ale, moaning about the state of contemporary song writing, and protesting that they've been singing that way for years anbyway. Then all will be well with the world, because for one thing, we will all be spared the spectacle of 60 year old blokes (and gals) getting up on stage and behaving like they were twenty once again. SM |
|
19 Jul 04 - 06:50 PM (#1229327) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: GUEST,Art Thieme I just picked up a prev-viewed copy of The Singing Detective. After one look last night I found it possibly very good. But I need to watch it several more times to get the nuances and plot details. Robt. Downey jr. seemed to make his slightly(?) over the top peformance mesmerizing. The way the old pop hits music was used was just great. It really lightened up the illness of Downey in a inventive manner.----And Mel Gibson as the shrink fooled me the entire way through. I didn't know it was Mel. I'm hoping for a comment on this film by some in this thread---that's why I didn't start a new thread. I wanted you people to see it. Art Thieme |
|
19 Jul 04 - 07:05 PM (#1229350) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: The Borchester Echo Dennis Potter's original brilliant The Singing Detective screenplay was for a six-part television series. I'd be interested to know whether it's actually possible to follow the complicated plot when boiled down to feature film length. Though I suspect that what Art is hinting at is that this remake is yet another instance of how content doesn't really matter nowadays... |
|
19 Jul 04 - 07:10 PM (#1229353) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: ScottAndrews re: Singing 'Tec. Haven't seen the US film version, but the original UK TV version is such a masterpiece I'm reluctant to watch the remake. However, the film IS from a script by the same writer, Dennis Potter, and he expressly stated that he wanted it remade as a film set in the US so I'll probably give it a try. I dunno if you've seen the original or not, but it's out on DVD in the US and UK and I can't recommend it highly enough, it's a seminal piece of TV and the best thing Potter ever wrote - you may have guessed I'm a huge Potter fan. When I do see the film I may end up being accused of fogeyism myself tho, and start ranting about how it's not as good as the original version I saw when I was a lad :-) Grief, a fogey at 32. The pace of life is just so much FASTER these days isn't it! |
|
20 Jul 04 - 03:52 AM (#1229640) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: harvey andrews spared the spectacle of 60 year old blokes (and gals) getting up on stage and behaving like they were twenty once again. Well. provided they do it with taste and skill and make use of their subsequent experience, I have no objection to that. |
|
20 Jul 04 - 09:29 AM (#1229776) Subject: RE: Simon and Garfunkel; generation gap From: GUEST,Larry K I love S & G but there is a difference between CD's and concerts. Some groups like S & G are much better in CD. Some groups I would never buy their CD, but enjoy them in concert. I go to about 20 coffeehouse and 4-5 folk festivals a year. I also get free tickets to about 40-50 rock concerts a year and go to 10-15. In the past few years, I have changed my mind about performing. I loved the "Discomania" show with Village People and KC and the Sunshine Band even though I would never buy or listen to any of their music. It was hugely fun and entertaining. Conversely, I go to many singer songwriters who sit in a chair and sing non descript songs. Most of them don't draw me in. I think part of the "performance" involves doing more than just "standing there and singing" At most folk concerts you get the story behind the song and learn a little about the performer. (that never happens at a rock concert) Getting the group to sing or clap or participate is another part of performing. Cape Breton fiddle players are very "showy" in performance and many step dance. Other groups like the Arrogrant Worms or Barachois add theatrics and odd props. There are many things you can do. Art uses humor very effectively "folklore, jolklore, and corn" on his business card. I think folkies should learn from MTV and the Rolling Stones. Put more performance into a concert. I don't think it has to take away from the music. |