Anyone listen to real music?

[bulletproofhoodies]

i guess only the music you like is "real" music


P.S. Whoever was talkin bout lifes a bitch by nas your the man thats one of my favorite songs AZ's flow is so good
and i deff know what you mean about likin it when you live it im from camden and ive seen plenty of bad shit go down
lifes a bitch and then you die thats why we GET HIGH cuz you never know when you gonna go, im gonna make that shit my sig

 

[WoldofWeedcraft]

In response to what Brick Top said (to spare the quotes) I think any form of art starts from a vision that the artist is trying to portray. In your reference to rap, I think many rap artists do a good job portraying a lifestyle that came from a vision that they have had whether it be fantasy or reality. You make a good point about how their era won't last as long since their lyrically based music tends to reflect their generations. Hip hop/rap has evolved, and many think it is dead. I think as long as the artist is able to connect listeners to his/her vision, the piece of art has served it's purpose regardless of how long it will be appreciated. So if you can connect to the lyrics from a song or if you just like the way they go together, you can appreciate the artist's work and you gain something from that experience.

 

[Brick Top]

I'll spare you with links, but if you like Led Zep or Ted Nugent, check out those songs by TOOL/APC. In my opinion the modern sound is much better, but that just may be my connection being young and all.

Music, like I previously said, is a matter of taste and it is also somewhat generational. One thing I have noticed over my life is that each new generation seems to want or need to believe that their generation if not invented sex drugs and rock and roll it at least perfected it. That is not true though.

Young people rebel against almost anything and that includes music of the past and of their parents generation and that is in both those who write and perform and those who listen. They may very much like the basics of of the music from the past but they have to change it and put their brand on it and it of course it is popular among those of their generation.

But like natural selection only the best of the best survives the test of time regardless of how hot or how in or how cool it once was.

True quality music has a structure to it regardless of what type it is. It may be Country and it may be Rock and it may be Jazz and it many be the Blues or whatever but no matter how many songs are written in each genre only the best of the best survive and if they are period pieces, things that rely on current events and feelings and experiences and mainly lyrics unless they have utterly fantastic music behind them they die out with time. That is how it has always been and that is how it will always be.

At a time in the 70’s Emerson, Lake and Palmer were hotter than the flames of hell. No one sold out large arenas better than they did for a handful of years. I saw then at Soldier Field in Chicago and there were 75,000 people there. They fill arenas of 60,000 to 80,000 people easier than most groups today will fill a 20,00 seat arena but how many Emerson, Lake and Palmer songs do you hear played today? What you will hear the most will be Karn Evil 9 but it will only be part 2 of the 1st impression and not parts 1 or 3.

They were extremely artistic but most of their music was one-dimensional. They relied very heavily on synthesizers and once that craze died so did most of their music.

Why do you hear Jethro Tull’s "Locomotive Breath" way more than Emerson, Lake and Palmer’s "Still You Turn Me On" or "Lucky Man?" Because the music was better constructed to stand the test of time, it was not so one-dimensional so its appeal lives on. Again Emerson, Lake and Palmer were incredibly artistic and amazingly talented but their music was one of an era and eras come and go and what only fits in one era will not be popular in another era.

Why are so many Beatles songs still so loved and sell so well when you almost can’t give away a Quiet Riot CD or a Mötley Crüe CD today? Why did Twisted Sister’s "We're Not Gonna Take It" hit number 21 on the charts and stay there for a long time and made VH1’s top 100 songs of the 80’s but you almost never hear it get any airtime today and who is a fan of Twisted Sister today? What happened to The Sex Pistols and Slade? They drew fans like shit draws flies and now they are trivia questions today.

Their music was one dimensional and it was part gimmick in that it was glam/rock and it was mostly period pieces and those things will never make up for quality music and they will fade out and die in time.

Why was Lou Reed so big and then all but died out? Its because he got away from his roots, he stopped doing what he did best and he tried to become David Bowie. It just didn’t work for him and his later stuff is not worth anything but his early work is still great. He transformed from being a great musician into trying to do what was popular in a period, doing what was seen as hot at the time, what was cool in an era and that stuff did not last because it lacked what is needed to live on while his early quality music lives on.

How many musicians have been bigger than Michael Jackson? Look at his major successes with CD’s like "Thriller." It sold over 100 million copies and he won what was at the time a record 7 Grammy awards for it and who and what is Michael Jackson today? How well do you think his music is still selling considering that he is or was just about broke and had to sell his backyard amusement park and almost lost his home? When was the last time he filled an arena? Now the only seats he can fill are the seats in a court room.

Do you see Paul McCartney in a similar situation? Nope.

Much of the music he wrote/played/made with the Beatles is timeless and it lives on and still draws new followers and as the times changed he adapted and very little of what he ever did was one dimensional and because it was quality music and not some period in time piece or some gimmick it lives on and on and it will continue to do so.

Sure someone who loves Tool may laugh at Ted Nugent’s music but I would bet anything and everything I have that in 20 or 50 years from now you will hear "Stranglehold" played and people will say Tool? Who or what was Tool?

Some people absolutely loved Hole but where is Courtney Love today? Her career dried up faster than Sarah Silverman’s pussy around guys that can’t help her in the business.

Don’t get me wrong because I like Courtney Love. She’s like the girl next door, if you happen to live next to a methadone clinic.

But she’s cool beans and she had talent but she didn’t come close to lasting like the Rolling Stones have, has she?

Will you hear her music in 20 or 50 years right after "Sympathy for the Devil" or "Tumbling Dice" or "Brown Sugar" is played? I’d bet my soul you won’t but you will hear the Rolling Stones. Not as much as today but you will hear them because they mostly wrote quality songs that are timeless.

No matter how hot and popular some type of music is at a point in time there is no reason to believe that anyone in the future will have even the slightest interest in it if it lacks true artistic talent and quality of the actual music itself and many bands and songs and forms of music that lit the world on fire at some point in time are forgotten today and others will be forgotten in the future. Rap is almost certain to be among those that are forgotten.

 

[bulletproofhoodies]

im not rebelling against older generations one of my favorite bans is toots and the maytals a band from 1963 i also love the adicts from 1976 or the varukers from 1978 or x-ray specs from 77 my musical taste has nothin 2 do with spiting my parents

 

[WoldofWeedcraft]

Sure someone who loves Tool may laugh at Ted Nugent’s music but I would bet anything and everything I have that in 20 or 50 years from now you will hear "Stranglehold" played and people will say Tool? Who or what was Tool?

Well yea of course, I wasn't saying that Ted Nugent and Led Zep are crap. I love both of them. But I'm referring to the technology behind the recording that makes the newer artists emulate the old ones better. The way things have become digital, high def, and the dynamic technology that has become available has allowed newer artists to make their music sound better. Of course a lot of it is artificial, I mean I know the history behind the Moog synth and how synths became what they are. It's not that I think older artists suck, they just weren't playing the same type of music. Their guitars didn't sound the same, their vocals weren't nearly recorded the same way.

Just compare:

YouTube - Led-Zeppelin When the Levee Breaks

YouTube - 11. When the levee breaks

I love both of these artists, and they each recorded the same song but with different instruments/technology. I just prefer maynard's vocals and the rythm of a perfect circle. I'm not rebelling, just my preference. It sounds cleaner I guess...I dunno.

 

[Brick Top]

Hip hop/rap has evolved, and many think it is dead. I think as long as the artist is able to connect listeners to his/her vision, the piece of art has served it's purpose regardless of how long it will be appreciated. So if you can connect to the lyrics from a song or if you just like the way they go together, you can appreciate the artist's work and you gain something from that experience.

You made a valid point but at the same time you validated what I have been saying about music withstanding the test of time.

Connecting to a present audience or group or following is something in and of itself and as long as you can evolve to do that you will sell CD’s and draw crowds. But if your music lacks the true requirements to withstand the test of time once you stop performing your music begins to die and in time as your past followers/fans die out so does your music and so does your legacy.

True quality music can and will connect with generation after generation and by its structure and quality it lives on and it does not need to evolve because what exists is on its own enough to draw new followers.

I don’t know how many of you attend many concerts but I go to a bunch of them and I always look at the crowd and When I went to see Ozzy and when I went to see Black Sabbath and they played their old tunes the audience ate them up with a spoon and the audience was not filled with a bunch of old farts. It was largely younger people.

The same goes with Lynyrd Skynyrd concerts. The guys on stage are as old or older than the parents of many of the people in the audience but the crowd absolutely loved them and went wild for the songs that came from the era of the original Lynyrd Skynyrd band.

I mentioned how a few years ago one of my nieces came home for Christmas and told how Led Zeppelin was all the rage at N.C. State. Sure the girls still hit the dance floor and shook their asses to hip hop but in the dorms and in homes when there were parties Led Zeppelin filled the air far more than anything else at the time.

Why is that?

Because what they did and what many other bands did was write things that keep connecting with people, new listeners, even though Led Zeppelin hasn’t written a song or performed a new song or even their own songs for decades.

Why do you think the "Dark Side of the Moon" CD still sells so well when you stop to think about how long it has been since Pink Floyd played and how a couple of them are now dead? Like other great bands of the past they created music that crosses generational barriers and it lives on. It like other music may be old now but it is not locked in the era in which it was created due to it being quality music and not something that relies on lyrics based on current times that will pass like rap will.

Why do you think it is that until just a few years ago Peter Frampton’s "Frampton Comes Alive" was still the number one top selling album/CD and it is still one of the top sellers even though it was originally released in 1976? What did it have that kept it the number one selling album/CD for decades? It wasn’t some gimmick and it wasn’t just lyrics but instead it was because it was quality music that was created long ago but was not locked in that period of time.

If someone creates music that connects with their followers through lyrics and even if they evolve and change their music to keep connecting through lyrics as the times change they will continue to have a following but if the actual music behind the lyrics lacks true quality once they eventually stop performing the evolution of their music then ends, which is what happens at that point, what connected throughout their careers will stop connecting with newer audiences/listeners and then you begin to hear a death rattle in their music when it is played and then not long after that it goes flat line and it is all over.

That is music. That is how it has always been and that is how it will always be.

If someone can create music that does not connect because it is generational or because of current events/current life experiences but instead connects because it is truly quality music it will cross the generational barriers and it will live on and on. As I said it would not always retain as large of an audience or group of followers but look at Bach and Mozart and Beethoven. Why does music from those eras live on and so much music made since is totally unknown to people and is never listened to or played or given a single second of airtime?

True quality survives the test of time and all else regardless of how hot it may be at some point in time dies off, it goes the way of the full service gas station and it is never heard from again.

 

[WoldofWeedcraft]

True quality survives the test of time and all else regardless of how hot it may be at some point in time dies off, it goes the way of the full service gas station and it is never heard from again.

That may be your opinion. I believe true quality can sometimes be undiscovered, and oftentimes be "niched" in places with low popularity. Just because certain bands were able to be popular at a particular time and since the media made it so doesn't mean that they were true quality. Of course quality is a matter of perspective, but I think there's more to it than building a legacy. Sure those older popular artists were successfull in their careers, and they may have been talented but that doesn't mean they were the most talented. Sure Beethoven and Mozart were famous worldwide fortheir classical music, and yes they were extremely talented. I'm not into music just because it's trendy, my appreciation for it goes much further.

 

[Stoney McFried]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quhj6PEboCU&feature=related

 

[Brick Top]

Well yea of course, I wasn't saying that Ted Nugent and Led Zep are crap. I love both of them. But I'm referring to the technology behind the recording that makes the newer artists emulate the old ones better. The way things have become digital, high def, and the dynamic technology that has become available has allowed newer artists to make their music sound better. Of course a lot of it is artificial, I mean I know the history behind the Moog synth and how synths became what they are. It's not that I think older artists suck, they just weren't playing the same type of music. Their guitars didn't sound the same, their vocals weren't nearly recorded the same way.

Just compare:

YouTube - Led-Zeppelin When the Levee Breaks

YouTube - 11. When the levee breaks

I love both of these artists, and they each recorded the same song but with different instruments/technology. I just prefer maynard's vocals and the rythm of a perfect circle. I'm not rebelling, just my preference. It sounds cleaner I guess...I dunno.

I will agree with your statement on the difference in technology but them many old songs have been broken down and digitally re-recorded and can match anything put out today when it comes to technology and the music itself is better.

A crummy 60’s era recording studio could never come close to what a modern one can do when it comes to sound but a better higher technology recorded song that lacks quality is not a better song just because of how advanced its recording technology is.

I have heard old songs that were originally recorded in mono and where the entire band would play at once instead of separate tracks laid down that have been broken down and made digital and separated into different tracks and then re-recorded and they sound fantastic so it is not like a scratchy sounding 1960’s or 1970’s LP is the best many songs of the past will ever sound. It is just a matter of the older songs being good enough and still creating a new following to warrant the time and expense to do that to them.

When it comes to synthesizers they have been in vogue and out of vogue several times over my life. Some people just refuse to accept it as being true music and see it as a gimmick so it is hard for such music to last and to live on. I gave the example of Emerson, Lake and Palmer as such a band that suffered from that. They were extremely talented and astonishingly artistic but what they used to create much of their music in time became frowned upon and it was no longer seen as real music and the result of talent and instead the results of gimmickry and equipment that could do what musicians themselves cannot do. That not only hurt them but it killed them and it will kill again. In time it will pop up again, not the old music but the use of synthesizers and it will again for a time be popular until some music snob critics write enough words saying if you take away their fancy equipment they are nothing and then people start to think that is true and once again it will die out at least for a period of time.

Equipment that alters sound and creates artificial sound can be big at times but it does not last. As utterly fantastic as Jeff Beck was and is while he was one of the very first to make use of the "talk box" and then Joe Walsh used it with great success and then Peter Frampton became ultra famous using it and got rich as heck from it when was the last time any artist had a hit using a "talk box?"

It became seen as a gimmick, a way to somewhat cheat. After Jeff Beck heard Peter Frampton use it Jeff Beck gave it up for good and never used it again.

While at some point in almost every guitarists life/career they experiment with and use things like Wah wah pedals and things but the greatest of the greats normally over the careers get away from things that artificially alter what they do. A few years back in an interview Eric Clapton, one of the all time greats, was talking about how fantastic Jeff Beck is and he said; "he does it all with his fingers." Sure in the past Jeff Beck experimented with different things and used them at times but over time he got away from it and relied totally on his skills and talents and not on equipment. That is the mark of a true artist. They do not need things to enhance what they cannot do on their own so it sounds great. That is what separates the men from the boys, so to speak, when it comes to music.

Musicians like Jeff Beck creates true music while may others create sound and noise.

MarkKnopfler from "Dire Straits" has at times used various things to augment what he did but for the most part he didn’t Heck he doesn’t even use a guitar pick and instead only uses his fingers. How many guitarists can you name that do that? That is called talent my friend and no additional electronic device can ever replace it or make up for it.

I realize that when it comes to things like guitars not all musicians of the past had ones that were as good as some modern custom made ones are. Eddie Van Halen is a fanatic about his guitars and will at times design and oversee their production and then have a number of them made and play them all and pick the best of the best so again you do at least to a degree have a point.

But when you are talking about bands/guitarists that have not reached a level where they can do that and they still rely on what is factory made no one can honestly say a Fender of today matches up with the Fender’s of old. That is just a fact that is irrefutable so in that when bands of the past relied on the old Fender’s they were way ahead of the new upcoming bands who are not in a position like an Eddic Van Halen or Tony Iommi who can go to Fender or Gibson and say this is what I want and I want it made from this type of wood and that type of wood and use different combinations of woods for the body and the neck and I want it in this design and that design and then they test them all and use the very best of them all.

You can go to any guitar shop and buy a Gibson Tony Iommi model SG but it will never play like the ones Tony uses. You can buy a Gibson Les Paul that is the Peter Frampton model or a Fender Stratocaster that is the Eric Clapton model and again they will not play like the ones that Peter or Eric play.

But in the past those companies built very high quality models that could be bought at any guitar shop and they were better than what the average person can buy at a guitar shop and they are sought after and much prized by those who can find one in good condition because the only way to get a better one today is to be a Eddie Van Halen or a Eric Clapton or a Tony Iommi or someone where a guitar manufacturer, major brand name or totally custom builder will build exactly what you want and enough of them for at least some to meet your expectations and requirements and they do not come cheap and many bands that are not major yet cannot afford such things and do not have the name to get manufacturers to do just what they want and when they want it.

Again if you want to talk about modern technology and musical equipment look at the 80’s, especially the early 80’s when electronic drums were all the rage. Where are they now? What big name bands use them? They were considered to be an advancement in drum technology at one time but does Bill Ward play them? Has he ever played them? Nope. Where are the drummers that used to play them? They are in the audience watching Bill Ward pound away on the dinosaur technology set of drums like he always played.

Technology can be a great thing when it comes to certain things but when it comes to others it cannot make up for true talent. Hand Jeff Beck a standard factory made Fender Stratocaster or Gibson Les Paul from the 60’s and give some guitarist from some modern band a high tech custom made guitar and I’d bet everything I have that Jeff will play circles around the other guitarist and sound much better.

Do you think that Jimi Hendrix played some high tech custom made guitar? His Stratocasters were not even left handed models like he was and he took right handed ones and strung them different and the "Whammy Bar" was on top and at times hung down over the strings as he played but he played it and made it sing and scream and how many guitarists of today with their custom made high tech guitars would come close to matching let alone topping Jimi?

All the technology in the world will never replace true talent or make up for a lack of true talent.

 

[natmoon]

My hands ache from playing with my technology.
Does it matter that i play a synthesizer?
I dream of the day when i can plug a machine into my brain and download my brains tunes into my pc and upload them for you all to hear

 

[Brick Top]

That may be your opinion. I believe true quality can sometimes be undiscovered, and oftentimes be "niched" in places with low popularity. Just because certain bands were able to be popular at a particular time and since the media made it so doesn't mean that they were true quality. Of course quality is a matter of perspective, but I think there's more to it than building a legacy. Sure those older popular artists were successfull in their careers, and they may have been talented but that doesn't mean they were the most talented. Sure Beethoven and Mozart were famous worldwide fortheir classical music, and yes they were extremely talented. I'm not into music just because it's trendy, my appreciation for it goes much further.

To a point I will agree that at times talent can go undiscovered. Over the years many greats played with bands where their style was not one where some member or members could really shine. But seldom if ever is the case where someone truly talented did not eventually emerge and their true talents refined and honed and then had a chance to shine.

As for the media possibly making a band famous, well if you were alive in the 60’s and 70’s and of an age where you were old enough to remember Rolling Stone magazine ripped almost every album that Led Zeppelin did and the shredded the song "Layla" but what happened to Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton and his song "Layla?"

You had the biggest name in music writing, the most famous and highly regarded music critics of the time shredding those musicians and they still became among the most famous and best selling artists and they packed every venue they played and they are today considered to be among the very greatest most talented rock musicians of all time so what does that tell you about the media’s influence on fans/listeners/followers.

Music is not like politics where the media can take a fence turtle like President Obama and sell him to the public. Musicians either make it or do not make it based on their talent and their talent alone.

Why do you think that "Queen" was able to create such incredibly amazing music? How do you think they were able to write and perform songs like "Bohemian Rhapsody?" They were not only highly talented but they were college educated and had degrees in music. They studied the greats of the past, they knew all styles and types of music from classical to opera to rock and roll and they combined them and that was what made them famous, not because the media told people they were great.

They were not some garage band who covered other artists songs and then later tried writing a few of their own and worked and worked to attempt to get somewhere but never did. They were highly educated extremely talented true musical artists and it showed in their work and nothing the media did or could have done would either have made them a success or stopped them from being a success. Their music spoke for itself and it did not need the media to sell it to the public and to make them famous and successful.

I’ll tell you a little story that I find to be funny. My ex-neighbor was a bass player and drummer and he had been in several bands in Boston and then after moving here he again hooked up with a band. They were really pretty good even though they played the more modern style of rock music like has come out in the last decade or less.

One day while hanging around over there the other members of the band stopped by and they had come up with something they thought was of major importance for them to have a chance to make it big. They decided that they needed to pump a lot of iron and get covered in tattoos so they would "look cool" on stage. That was their big plan to make it big. They had talent but they thought they had to have this certain image to make it.

Take a look at the old Leslie West, "The Great Fatsby" and tell me a musician needs a bulked up body and to be covered in tattos to make it. These guys, like so many newer bands, believe that looks and image will get them places when all they need to make it is talent and determination.

Consider the "Traveling Wilburys." George Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Bob Dylan, maybe the ugliest collection of musicians ever assembled and anything but cool bulked up tattoo covered musicians and they made some damn good music.

Today many musicians want to try to make it using appearance and image and gimmicks and electronics that alter what they can do into what they cannot do on their own so they sound good and look marketable.

Does anyone here think that was the plan "The Yardbirds" came up with? Is that how the careers of Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page, who were all at one time or another members of "The Yardbirds" began, by trying to look cool and create a marketable image or was it based on their musical artistic talents?

Does anyone here think that one day Ronnie Lane, Ian McLagan, Kenny Jones, Ron Wood and Rod Stewart, better know as "The Faces" said we need to bulk up and cover ourselves in tattoos so we "look cool" on stage? I have to think not.

True musical artists only need their God given gifts, some time to write and some time to practice and then a few places to play and they will make it and they will make it big.

 

[Brick Top]

Just compare:

YouTube - Led-Zeppelin When the Levee Breaks

YouTube - 11. When the levee breaks

I love both of these artists, and they each recorded the same song but with different instruments/technology. I just prefer maynard's vocals and the rythm of a perfect circle. I'm not rebelling, just my preference. It sounds cleaner I guess...I dunno.

I do not mean to knock you or your preference in music but first listening to a youtube version of anything will not being out its full sound but I understand that it is the only way to offer a comparison but when I play "When the Levee Breaks" on my stereo or even on my computer using Windows Media Player it sounds a whole lot better than on youtube.

Again not to knock you or your preference in music but to me and to many others, including many rock musicians, Robert Plant had the all time ultimate rock and roll voice.

Your comparison of versions was not really, at least in my opinion, a valid or accurate comparison since the styles were to dramatically different. It was not really a cover so it was not really comparing apples to apples. It was a different version and that is comparing apples and zebras.

One more time, not to sound like I am knocking you or your musical preference but the version you prefer is like taking sleeping pills to me. If Led Zeppelin were getting back together and playing only one show and it was in say San Francisco or something and I’m way at the other end of the nation here in N.C. if I could get tickets I would gladly drive cross country, with a smile on my face the whole way listening to Zeppelin tunes, to see them but I wouldn’t drive to the end up my street to see the version you prefer performed live if it was a free concert.

It is all a matter of taste and mine is no better than yours and yours is no better than mine. It is just what we each prefer and nothing more and there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect involved.

I love beef wellington and you may hate it and I love lobster and you may hate it and if so that does not mean I have better taste when it comes to food it only means I have different taste when it comes to food and music is no different.

My only point has been not what someone likes when it is new or current or still fairly new music but how it will age, how well it will stand up against the test of time and as I keep saying only the best of the best manage to do that and no matter how well something else may be received/liked at some certain point in time it does not in any way mean it will stand up against the test of time especially if it is time/period based and mainly relies on lyrics that are also time/period/event based.

Do you know how many times The Supremes song "You Keep Me Hanging On" has been covered over the years? The last time I counted it was 19 times. Aretha Franlkin and Rod Stewart among many others have covered it including Alvin and the Chipmunks but which one lives on and which one is considered to be the best? The Supremes.

You can alter perfection and still make it sound good but you cannot improve on perfection.

 

[WoldofWeedcraft]

Dammit Brick Top you must be the type guy that holds the joint for a really long time before passing it. lol just kidding. But I'm gonna +rep you since you put up with my objectivity without an attack. You seem to be very open minded, and you make a lot of excellent points. I understand the link i gave you is comparing apples to zebras, but I'm just trying to share my perspective. The old led zepplin song sounds like it would have been great for riding around in vans passing doobies the size of zepplins. And don't get me wrong, I love those classic bands, but it's not something that's going to remind me of my youth. I just appreciate artists who put meaning into their music, like tool's stuff they actually created (not songs they re-made) has tons of deep meanings relating to philosophy, religion, spirituality, sexuality, censorship. None of their songs are just pointless ramble to give you your "warm inside" feeling to sing a repetitive chorus over and over that has linear lyrics. They are much more dynamic, as were led zepplin, which is why they took the time to honor them by remaking their music.

 

[skippy pb]

I know that everyone has their own taste in music, and I'm gonna try not to offend anyone, but does anyone hear listen to good music anymore? I mean, the music that our lifestyle was started by, not rap and hip hop and whatnot. I can listen to rap when I'm at parties but only as a backdrop, not as music I would listen to in my spare time. What happened to bands like Simon and Garfunkel with their awesome vocals and guitar riffs, The Grateful Dead (even though we don't have a Jerry G.), Bob Dylan, etc. There are a couple new bands I ran across recently that I like, but I just can't stand today's angry metal (I had enough of it in the early 90's) or rap music because smoking pot is supposed to make you mellow, not angry about your bitches and hoes. Anyone else get me? Why can't anyone today enjoy The Allman Brothers, CCR, The Doors, Country Joe and the Fish, Pete Seeger, or Van Morrison. I have found some new guys showing promise though, Devendra Banhart and yesterday I heard this Ed Harcourt guy on the radio that sounded pretty good. Am I just lost in a culture that expands too quickly to keep up with, or do I have a killer taste in music? Well, thats just my little rant.

I like some one that stuff. Classic rock and stuff are were its at. I think your referring to the talented music, not just some guys in a studio using a M-Audio MIDI Keyboard and ProTools.

 

[skippy pb]

Dammit Brick Top you must be the type guy that holds the joint for a really long time before passing it.

Hes sleeping on it. OH NO!!

 

[CrackerJax]

I guess if Hip Hop could come up with songs like "Don't bogart that joint".....I might give it a listen


out.

 

[edux10]

do you guys actually read posts this long?

 

[edux10]

To a point I will agree that at times talent can go undiscovered. Over the years many greats played with bands where their style was not one where some member or members could really shine. But seldom if ever is the case where someone truly talented did not eventually emerge and their true talents refined and honed and then had a chance to shine.

As for the media possibly making a band famous, well if you were alive in the 60’s and 70’s and of an age where you were old enough to remember Rolling Stone magazine ripped almost every album that Led Zeppelin did and the shredded the song "Layla" but what happened to Led Zeppelin and Eric Clapton and his song "Layla?"

You had the biggest name in music writing, the most famous and highly regarded music critics of the time shredding those musicians and they still became among the most famous and best selling artists and they packed every venue they played and they are today considered to be among the very greatest most talented rock musicians of all time so what does that tell you about the media’s influence on fans/listeners/followers.

Music is not like politics where the media can take a fence turtle like President Obama and sell him to the public. Musicians either make it or do not make it based on their talent and their talent alone.

Why do you think that "Queen" was able to create such incredibly amazing music? How do you think they were able to write and perform songs like "Bohemian Rhapsody?" They were not only highly talented but they were college educated and had degrees in music. They studied the greats of the past, they knew all styles and types of music from classical to opera to rock and roll and they combined them and that was what made them famous, not because the media told people they were great.

They were not some garage band who covered other artists songs and then later tried writing a few of their own and worked and worked to attempt to get somewhere but never did. They were highly educated extremely talented true musical artists and it showed in their work and nothing the media did or could have done would either have made them a success or stopped them from being a success. Their music spoke for itself and it did not need the media to sell it to the public and to make them famous and successful.

I’ll tell you a little story that I find to be funny. My ex-neighbor was a bass player and drummer and he had been in several bands in Boston and then after moving here he again hooked up with a band. They were really pretty good even though they played the more modern style of rock music like has come out in the last decade or less.

One day while hanging around over there the other members of the band stopped by and they had come up with something they thought was of major importance for them to have a chance to make it big. They decided that they needed to pump a lot of iron and get covered in tattoos so they would "look cool" on stage. That was their big plan to make it big. They had talent but they thought they had to have this certain image to make it.

Take a look at the old Leslie West, "The Great Fatsby" and tell me a musician needs a bulked up body and to be covered in tattos to make it. These guys, like so many newer bands, believe that looks and image will get them places when all they need to make it is talent and determination.

Consider the "Traveling Wilburys." George Harrison, Jeff Lynne, Roy Orbison, Tom Petty and Bob Dylan, maybe the ugliest collection of musicians ever assembled and anything but cool bulked up tattoo covered musicians and they made some damn good music.

Today many musicians want to try to make it using appearance and image and gimmicks and electronics that alter what they can do into what they cannot do on their own so they sound good and look marketable.

Does anyone here think that was the plan "The Yardbirds" came up with? Is that how the careers of Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton and Jimmy Page, who were all at one time or another members of "The Yardbirds" began, by trying to look cool and create a marketable image or was it based on their musical artistic talents?

Does anyone here think that one day Ronnie Lane, Ian McLagan, Kenny Jones, Ron Wood and Rod Stewart, better know as "The Faces" said we need to bulk up and cover ourselves in tattoos so we "look cool" on stage? I have to think not.

True musical artists only need their God given gifts, some time to write and some time to practice and then a few places to play and they will make it and they will make it big.

I do not mean to knock you or your preference in music but first listening to a youtube version of anything will not being out its full sound but I understand that it is the only way to offer a comparison but when I play "When the Levee Breaks" on my stereo or even on my computer using Windows Media Player it sounds a whole lot better than on youtube.

Again not to knock you or your preference in music but to me and to many others, including many rock musicians, Robert Plant had the all time ultimate rock and roll voice.

Your comparison of versions was not really, at least in my opinion, a valid or accurate comparison since the styles were to dramatically different. It was not really a cover so it was not really comparing apples to apples. It was a different version and that is comparing apples and zebras.

One more time, not to sound like I am knocking you or your musical preference but the version you prefer is like taking sleeping pills to me. If Led Zeppelin were getting back together and playing only one show and it was in say San Francisco or something and I’m way at the other end of the nation here in N.C. if I could get tickets I would gladly drive cross country, with a smile on my face the whole way listening to Zeppelin tunes, to see them but I wouldn’t drive to the end up my street to see the version you prefer performed live if it was a free concert.

It is all a matter of taste and mine is no better than yours and yours is no better than mine. It is just what we each prefer and nothing more and there is no right or wrong, correct or incorrect involved.

I love beef wellington and you may hate it and I love lobster and you may hate it and if so that does not mean I have better taste when it comes to food it only means I have different taste when it comes to food and music is no different.

My only point has been not what someone likes when it is new or current or still fairly new music but how it will age, how well it will stand up against the test of time and as I keep saying only the best of the best manage to do that and no matter how well something else may be received/liked at some certain point in time it does not in any way mean it will stand up against the test of time especially if it is time/period based and mainly relies on lyrics that are also time/period/event based.

Do you know how many times The Supremes song "You Keep Me Hanging On" has been covered over the years? The last time I counted it was 19 times. Aretha Franlkin and Rod Stewart among many others have covered it including Alvin and the Chipmunks but which one lives on and which one is considered to be the best? The Supremes.

You can alter perfection and still make it sound good but you cannot improve on perfection.

???????????

 

[CrackerJax]

Out of respect to the effort made by the person posting.... I read every line.



out.

 

[Brick Top]

Dammit Brick Top you must be the type guy that holds the joint for a really long time before passing it. lol just kidding.

My smoking days go back to the late 60’s and back then, and later like into the 70’s or so, you took one hit and then passed it on. There was no puff, puff pass back then. It was take a toke and pass it to the left. While I have gotten used to the ‘new rules’ when with older friends of my generation we still hit it once and pass it on, that is just natural to us and it still seems odd when I am hanging with a puff, puff pass crowd especially when it is passed to the right.

I’m old and I’m old school and while maybe you can teach an old dog new tricks he won’t really enjoy doing them like he did the old ones and that’s me.

But if you haven’t noticed yet I am the kind of guy who if you ask me what time it is I will tell you how to build a watch. I don’t see any reason to say something with 50 words if you can say the same thing with 500 words. I think that is partially natural for me plus I spent my life in sales and in sales the last thing you want is air in the conversation so you just keep things flowing. You have to be born with the gift of gab and I most definitely was.

But I'm gonna +rep you since you put up with my objectivity without an attack. You seem to be very open minded, and you make a lot of excellent points. I understand the link i gave you is comparing apples to zebras, but I'm just trying to share my perspective. The old led zepplin song sounds like it would have been great for riding around in vans passing doobies the size of zepplins. And don't get me wrong, I love those classic bands, but it's not something that's going to remind me of my youth. I just appreciate artists who put meaning into their music, like tool's stuff they actually created (not songs they re-made) has tons of deep meanings relating to philosophy, religion, spirituality, sexuality, censorship. None of their songs are just pointless ramble to give you your "warm inside" feeling to sing a repetitive chorus over and over that has linear lyrics. They are much more dynamic, as were led zepplin, which is why they took the time to honor them by remaking their music.

There is validity to what you say. The part about how the old tunes do not remind you of your youth is very common and something that is important to many.

Recently my brother in law, who is older than I am, said he heard a song that he was positive was an Eagles song and he said a line of lyrics took him back in time. The line was; "In sixty-five I was seventeen and running up one-o-one." Well I thought a moment and said that’s not the Eagles, it’s Jackson Browne’s "Running on Empty" which at first he doubted but later I showed him the lyrics online but again it took him back to his youth because in sixty-five he was seventeen and that meant something to him that I wouldn’t mean to many other people.

I admit that there are some older songs that are not really all that great that I still really like just because they take me back to a time and or a place or some event that I really enjoyed so for that alone I like them but I know that for reasons like that unless someone else has an experience to look back on that is connected to the song that song might be totally unappealing to them now even if they liked it in the past.

Some songs even from great and really famous bands just don’t age well. I used to be a big fan of Deep Purple and loved "Rat Bat Blue" and now I listen to it and ask myself how in the world did I ever think that was a great song? But then I hear "Highway Star" and the guitar solo that is rated as one of the top 20 or 25 guitar solos of all time by a number of sites that rate guitar solos and I still love it. Same band but different material and some not only aged well but like a fine wine got better with age and others turned to vinegar. That’s just how things work.

I don’t really have any problem with any type of music. It is not like I cannot listen to it and see some degree of artistic content. I am lucky enough to be an old guy but only old chronologically or mathematically but not in how I think or act or when it comes to maturity. I spent 15 years with a woman and she used to very often say that I was the world’s oldest adolescent. Sometimes she said it as a joke but other times it was anything but a joke.

But because of that I have been able to mix with a much younger crowd. When my nieces all hit about 16 years old we began to party together. It would be me and there would be the three of them and a bunch of their friends and all their friends called me uncle because they all knew me since they were really little kids but I was not like their uncles or their parents. I fit in with them, I got high with them and we drank Irish Car Bombs and played asshole and stuff. Now they are all out of college and all three married but for all these years if they have some wing ding planned they invite their old uncle and I mix with them all and have a great time with them all and I have even been lucky enough to bed a few of their friends so I may be old when it comes to calendar years my brain keeps telling me that pretty soon I’ll turn 21.

But hanging with them has exposed me to a lot of music that I would most likely not have chosen to listen to on my own and while I have to be honest and say that I do not believe that when it is compared to many older bands and songs that on a pure artistic level it does not stack up I can still understand its appeal. It is modern and a part of their present life and the girls can sure shake their asses to it better than they ever could to "30 Days in the Hole" so its damn good for that.

But I honestly do not believe that in my case my beliefs about what will live on is based in my just preferring the music of my generation. I truly believe it is based in pure artistic value and I most definitely admit that there are far more songs of my era/generation that are totally forgotten about already than live on. But those that have lived on did so because of their pure artistic value and that will never die. They will not always have as large of a following as in the past but there will always be a number of people who hear it and love it and who will then turn on others to it.

Like I previously said long after B. B. King is dust people will be listening to "The Thrill is Gone" and "Caldonia" and absolutely love it. It is a case of audible genius and that lives on and on.

I can see and hear and feel an appeal to many newer songs and different types of songs but there is just something lacking that I have to believe I am not the only one noticing and that is sheer artistic talent and if I am right and it is lacking no matter how hot the sound is today it will cool off and then become cold and it will then be nothing more than a piece of history. It will be the "Macarena."

I don’t know if you have ever seen it or heard it but if not check out the video in the following link. It is Ten Years After playing "I’m Going Home" at Woodstock. Being a youtube video the sound is not high-def or anything but at the time Alvin Lee was so wasted that to me it was amazing that he could stand up and play let alone do what he did. If you've seen the flick "Woodstock" you might have noticed that he had to be led off the stage after their performance. The only time I ever saw a performer more wasted was Stevie Ray Vaughn. He didn’t come out to play when it was his time for about 45 minutes or more and then a guy brought out a chair and set it on stage and then two guys held him up and walked him to the chair and sat him down in it. He was in his stocking feet and he looked like he couldn’t even hold a guitar let alone play it but he proceeded to wail! Alvin Lee was close to that at Woodstock and he and Ten Years After gave what to me was the best performance of all that were shown on the movie "Woodstock" Check it out if you are not familiar with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHw9b4BBV9Y

I think that Alvin Lee may be the most or at least one of the most underrated guitarists of all time. He had Hendrix in his face all the time and while I think he was FANTASTIC it was hard to get attention with Hendrix around.