In article
ojunk (JWelsh3374) writes:
[snip]
Throw this into the pot.... alot of younger musicians (younger than
me...48...anyway) don't dig the Beatles AT ALL. The Beatles, to them, were
golden moldies when they were born. They wax fondly about Eddie Van Halen and
Boston...not the fabs.

So.....in their eyes...the Beatles sucked!




searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

I have daily contact with college music students and I am continually amazed at
the hip-hop-oriented kids who revere the Beatles. At least around here, the
Beatles are still important to young musicians and I have yet to hear anyone
wax philosophic on Eddie van Halen.

And in a general sense, why should artists have to remain on top commercially
to remain relevent? A lot of the most interesting music, at least to me, is on
tracks that don't get airplay or notoriety. Lots of great music never gets
wide distribution, so does that render it unimportant? I guess I take issue
with your criteria for importance in musical creation. It is ultimately left
to future generations to determine what remains important and we're pretty
myopic in making that evaluation ourselves.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

Oh, ome more thing... if you can listen to Cash's version of "Hurt" and not
be positively blown away, you are a different man than I. I don't know what
"important" means.


It did blow me away. But one song is not what I was talking about, bro.
Again...I'm not looking for a fight...just conversation.



searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

YOU MISS THE POINT again and again. Please read closely.

I didn't say ANYONE should "sustain brilliance" their entire career.


I GET YER POINT! My point is ...FANS WON'T LET THEM!

I said, an artist should be CREATIVE their whole career and not give up and
become an nostalgia act.

I totally agree. But again, the fans want to hear the hits. Forever.


You cannot deny that ALL of them have tried new creative
endeavors that may or may not have been successful, may or may not have been
"important.

No. But the artists listed have never sustained an entire career in the public
eye, based on sales, trends, etc.

I'd prefer trying something creative and failing miserably to the kind of
mindless uncreative "product" pap that Stewart has put out the last couple
of years. Just my opinion.

As soon as we all hear your forty years of work I cannot judge how creative,
important or good it is or by what standard you are judging anyone.

My only point is that...in my opinion.... it is IMPOSSIBLE to be BRILLIANT or
IMPORTANT or POPULAR for an entire career.


My too sense....






searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

Sorry, you're wrong again. I'm not a "Fan"... I only own a few of his
records. The point is, he didn't end up on the nostalgia circuit, though he
certainly could have.


Well...check his tour records for 1975-1990. Pretty much playing the hits.


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
...

My only point is that...in my opinion.... it is IMPOSSIBLE to be
BRILLIANT or
IMPORTANT or POPULAR for an entire career.

I didn't notice if any threw Sinatra into your icon shooting gallery.

dtk

"Tommy B" wrote in message
link.net...
Oh I think art is important, but not IMPORTANT!
Save that one for ending hunger,disease, & war.
Art is an accidental by product of commerce in Pop Music, it happens but
that's not the point.

Wrong. Art has to do with creative spirit, and it can exist with commerce.
Likewise, commerce can exist without Art. Art inspires, comments, satirizes,
amuses and more.

Art is not necessarily something pretty or commercial. Art is not defined by
what you want listen to, hang on your wall, etc. The job of art is not to
make people happy (although some art does).

Don't confuse art and creativity with Pop music. Pop music is an industry,
like the steel industry. Some artists work in pop music, but not many pop
musicians qualify as artists, or even as creative.

"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
...

Just opinions, folks. Not wanting a shooting war...just making
conversation.


You keep saying that, I feel like the target of the conversation keeps
moving. Chart success does not equate creativity. Again my quote:

Artists don't "peak." They have phases, but great creative people keep
creating good, or at least INTERESTING stuff, until they stop, usually
because of death.

We are talking about artists here, people who make music (or art) because
they have to, not because it makes good business sense. The Beatles became
popular playing pop tunes and RB standards, but in spite of their popularity
they began pushing the envelope with every album. They said stuff that
****ed people off. They recorded stuff that ****ed people off. They did
"weird ****" that lots of folks didn't understand, or even better,
misinterpreted. But when they recorded the White Album, do you think any of
those guys were thinking "wow, this is going to be a big hit?" Nope, they
were doing what they wanted to do, what they heard in their heads, what they
wanted to say.

I'm not a Beatles fan, but I respect that they stuck their balls out every
time they went into the studio, taking a chance on turning off all those
fans. There are a number of other musicians that have continued to do that,
record company be damned.

By the way, thanks for keeping this thread from becoming a flamefest.

Let's look at my list again and review your comments. First, my list:

Peter Gabriel
Prince
Randy Newman
Lyle Lovett
David Sylvian
Johnny Cash
Elvis Costello

You wrote:
" No. But the artists listed have never sustained an entire career in the
public
eye, based on sales, trends, etc.

and:

As soon as we all hear your forty years of work I cannot judge how
creative,
important or good it is or by what standard you are judging anyone.

and finally:

My only point is that...in my opinion.... it is IMPOSSIBLE to be BRILLIANT
or
IMPORTANT or POPULAR for an entire career.

Let's take the last point first. I don't know what "important" means when
it comes to music, so I can't address that.

As far as popular, it IS somewhat EASY to be popular your whole career.
Look at Mariah Carey. Even when she has a dud, she's still selling tons of
records. So it IS easy to be popular for an entire career, at least so far.
Same thing with Michael Jackson. Even his last record sold well
comparatively speaking. Same with Celine Dion. Make boring pap, radio will
play it, you can sustain a pop career. Fine, as long as I don't have to
listen to it!

As far as "brilliant" goes... if brilliant means never releasing a clunker
record, you are right. But that was never my contention.

The issue I had (and it WAS my issue we're discussing) was that Rod Stewart
had stopped being CREATIVE a long time ago... he'd stopped using his talent,
he stopped being an artist.

ALL of the musicians I list above are STILL being creative, like them or
not. They ALL still have flashes of brilliance, in my opinion. Peter
Gabriel, Elvis Costello, and Lyle Lovett still sell a LOT of records too, so
they are still commercially viable in spite of their creative exploration.
It CAN be done.

It appears that Mr. Stewart, for all his god given talent, has lost his
inspiration... that's the sad part. It's sad for me to see once creative
individuals on the nostalgia circuit. On the other hand, if he's having fun
creating "product," more power to him. That doesn't mean I still can't be
disappointed.

As far as forty years of my work... well, I just turned 40, so I have a
while to go! Whether or not I consider myself Stewart's creative equal or
not, it's really not the issue. I have a day job to support my music, so I
will never have the opportunity to create the body of work he has. I would
hope, though, I will always be creative... because the moment I stop being
creative is the moment I drop music and spend all my time flyfishing.

That's what I said, or tried. Without commercial success, the Beatles would
have never been allowed to spend the time to create what they did. I'm only
refering to Pop Music
Art is a subjective value judgement as in, "I don't know what Art is, but I
know what I like!"
OR is it in expanding the "art form" as in Ludwigs last string quartets or
the Beatles & Dylan's pop songs?

Tom


"MikeK" wrote in message
...

"Tommy B" wrote in message
link.net...
Oh I think art is important, but not IMPORTANT!
Save that one for ending hunger,disease, & war.
Art is an accidental by product of commerce in Pop Music, it happens but
that's not the point.

Wrong. Art has to do with creative spirit, and it can exist with commerce.
Likewise, commerce can exist without Art. Art inspires, comments,
satirizes,
amuses and more.

Art is not necessarily something pretty or commercial. Art is not defined
by
what you want listen to, hang on your wall, etc. The job of art is not to
make people happy (although some art does).

Don't confuse art and creativity with Pop music. Pop music is an industry,
like the steel industry. Some artists work in pop music, but not many pop
musicians qualify as artists, or even as creative.

Really? If that's important, then look at the list again:

Peter Gabriel
Prince
Randy Newman
Lyle Lovett
David Sylvian
Johnny Cash
Elvis Costello

Who among those do not fit your criteria? All have been creative and
daring... I don't know what "farting around" means though, so you may have
an out.

"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
...
Define "important."

We weren't talking about whether the artist's work continued to define a
generation,w e were talking aboutartists being CREATIVE, DARING and not
farting around a lot.


You defined my "important"!

ojunk (JWelsh3374) wrote in message ...
The Beatles quit because they wanted to. They would have been on top
as long as they gave a darn.....that's how good they were.


That is such a 'fan' statement.... and, no, they would not.

I'm guessing there are many bands who wouldn't mind the sales the
Beatles maintain 30 something years after they last recorded.

ojunk (JWelsh3374) wrote in message ...

Fact is...even all four fabs had said at one time or another "we can't sustain
this kind of brilliance" on every record. Nor can you possibly tell me they
would have stayed "IMPORTANT" had they stayed together.


People throw this term around as if it means something.

What defines "importance"? Sales? Is Britney Spears "important"?

The Beatles will, in a way that actually counts, remain important to
pop music as long as there is pop music. There are few if any acts
today who can claim the same.

The issue I had (and it WAS my issue we're discussing) was that Rod Stewart
had stopped being CREATIVE a long time ago... he'd stopped using his talent,
he stopped being an artist.


I dig. And my question was "how long are these people supposed to be
brilliant?".

big sigh

All I really was pointing out was the fact that all of us, myself included,
expect our favorites, or, in some cases IMAGINE our favorites, can be brilliant
for a lifetime.

My only real point was that nobody can. Not wanting an argument...just my
opinion.

See...now people think I hate the Beatles, or at the very least don't remember
them.





searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

I'm guessing there are many bands who wouldn't mind the sales the
Beatles maintain 30 something years after they last recorded.


Jump in amywhere, Doc.


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

That's what I said, or tried. Without commercial success, the Beatles would
have never been allowed to spend the time to create what they did.


TA-DA! We have a winner!


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

You keep saying that, I feel like the target of the conversation keeps
moving. Chart success does not equate creativity. Again my quote:

Artists don't "peak." They have phases, but great creative people keep
creating good, or at least INTERESTING stuff, until they stop, usually
because of death.


I dig but all I was saying is how much brilliance are supposed to expect from
any given artist?

But when they recorded the White Album, do you think any of
those guys were thinking "wow, this is going to be a big hit?"


No. They were thinking "wow" we hate each other and we have to do a record".
Lol....


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

Jump in amywhere, Doc.


Uhhhh...ANYwhere, that is.





searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

Tracy Wintermute wrote in message . ..

Now, compare and contrast the ages of Mr. Stewart and Mr. Newton.

I'm not sure of the age comparison, but Mr. Newton seems to have the
better plastic surgeon.

RP

Nobody can be brilliant for a lifetime... or very few, anyway. That said,
Stewart stopped TRYING, and that is the problem.

I don't criticize those who try and fail. The criticism is for those who
have the gift but don't use it... THAT is the shame.

As far as the Beatles go... true, if it weren't for their success, nobody
would have listened to their experiments. I would counter, though, that
they would still have experimented in obscurity, it would have manifested
itself differently for sure. Those who are creative are creative with or
without an audience.

"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
I dig. And my question was "how long are these people supposed to be
brilliant?".

big sigh

All I really was pointing out was the fact that all of us, myself
included,
expect our favorites, or, in some cases IMAGINE our favorites, can be
brilliant
for a lifetime.

My only real point was that nobody can. Not wanting an argument...just my
opinion.

See...now people think I hate the Beatles, or at the very least don't
remember
them.

In article , EggHd
wrote:

Interesting to note that both The Stones and The Who outlasted The Beatles and
made (arguably) made some of their best work into the '70's.


The Stones and The Who were both a lot more products of the mainstream
music industry than the Beatles who were an ultimate wild card that
burst from out of nowhere without having any clue about what they were
doing.

--
Bob Olhsson Audio Mastery, Nashville TN 615.385.8051
Mastering, Audio for Picture, Mix Evaluation and Quality Control
http://www.hyperback.com/olhsson.html
Over 40 years making people sound better than they ever imagined!

I would counter, though, thatthey would still have experimented in
obscurity. POOP!
May I quote John Lennon "To the toppermost of the poppermost" These guys
were all about "making it"
It wasn't about "art" at that point in time, it was about success.
Tom



"Mark" wrote in message
. ..
Nobody can be brilliant for a lifetime... or very few, anyway. That said,
Stewart stopped TRYING, and that is the problem.

I don't criticize those who try and fail. The criticism is for those who
have the gift but don't use it... THAT is the shame.

As far as the Beatles go... true, if it weren't for their success, nobody
would have listened to their experiments. I would counter, though, that
they would still have experimented in obscurity, it would have manifested
itself differently for sure. Those who are creative are creative with or
without an audience.

"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
I dig. And my question was "how long are these people supposed to be
brilliant?".

big sigh

All I really was pointing out was the fact that all of us, myself
included,
expect our favorites, or, in some cases IMAGINE our favorites, can be
brilliant
for a lifetime.

My only real point was that nobody can. Not wanting an argument...just
my
opinion.

See...now people think I hate the Beatles, or at the very least don't
remember
them.

Ooh, what did I win, what did I win.......
Oh I hope it's a home recording studio...............
Tom

"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
...
That's what I said, or tried. Without commercial success, the Beatles
would
have never been allowed to spend the time to create what they did.


TA-DA! We have a winner!


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

Tommy B wrote:
Ooh, what did I win, what did I win.......
Oh I hope it's a home recording studio...............


Congratulations. You have won the opportunity to sit in and watch the
Beatles next recording session! Um, oops, maybe in the next life

I did get to record at Abby Road once. That was a thrill.
Tom

"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


Tommy B wrote:
Ooh, what did I win, what did I win.......
Oh I hope it's a home recording studio...............


Congratulations. You have won the opportunity to sit in and watch the
Beatles next recording session! Um, oops, maybe in the next life

I did get to record at Abby Road once. That was a thrill.


Didn't you also meet George Harrison and get to actually touch some fab gear?

Aerovons, right? Cool stuff, Maynard!!!!


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

Yeah, but it seems that it's the public that defines "important", not the
artist. An artist with a shoe up his ass may feel important, but unless he
conveys that emotion to those that listen, his importance may well just be
self-indulgence. Personally, I think some of Sting's work is somewhat
self-indulgent and really doesn't play well as far as the listening public.
But again, it's not the artist, and it's certainly not just one of his
listeners that makes his music important.

And, if one wants to really go deeply into the subject, it's usually the
young people who feel like their music is important because it holds some
emotional connection with them, some right of passage, some amount of their
angst. Trying to convey angst at 45 is pretty hard to do because we all
already know what the **** it is and it's not so damned pretty when you've
lived it.

The question to ask, in reference to an earlier sidethread, is not whether
the Beatles are still able to convey that to a new crowd, but rather whether
Paul McCartney is still able to convey it to an old crowd. Who the ****
waits around with baited breath for Paul's next album? Even Madonna can't
keep re-inventing herself forever, and if there's one of us out there that
hasn't worried about where the money is coming from to make the rent, or buy
the food or get the car out of repo, well, then maybe it's that someone that
can write a tune to convey it. The rest of us will simply have to relay our
experiences the best way we can and hope that others will find something of
value in the way we do it.

We're no longer important if we're no longer pretty. Ask Rod. He can tell
you. Long live a man who, in his late 50s/early 60s can still attract a
young woman. More power to him, but it wasn't his music.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"JWelsh3374" wrote in message
...
Define "important."

We weren't talking about whether the artist's work continued to define a
generation,w e were talking aboutartists being CREATIVE, DARING and not
farting around a lot.


You defined my "important"!


searching for peace, love and quality footwear
guido

http://www.guidotoons.com
http://www.theloniousmoog.com
http://www.luckymanclark.com

Roger W. Norman wrote:

Long live a man who, in his late 50s/early 60s can still attract a
young woman. More power to him, but it wasn't his music.

Some guy in his 90's attracted Anna Nicole Smith. Of course he didn't
live long g

Ah, you mistake the attraction. Obviously it was his MONEY, not him. And
maybe it's not Rod but Rod's money. Or, just maybe, the girl got his name
mixed up with his anatomy. Besides, look at that whore Anna Nicole. Who,
other than someone who want's a woman without any redeeming values but her
body, really cares? The old man was obviously off his rocker and had
misplaced his stash of Wheaties and oysters. They both deserved each other.
The problem is that his family didn't necessarily deserve the repercussions
of his dead life crisis.

When I go out I hope I have better class than that.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


Roger W. Norman wrote:

Long live a man who, in his late 50s/early 60s can still attract a
young woman. More power to him, but it wasn't his music.

Some guy in his 90's attracted Anna Nicole Smith. Of course he didn't
live long g

"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message

We're no longer important if we're no longer pretty. Ask Rod. He can
tell
you. Long live a man who, in his late 50s/early 60s can still attract a
young woman. More power to him, but it wasn't his music.



Well , he attracted fellow kiwi Rachael Hunter, who had a couple of kids to
him.. But she got peed off with his aimless lifestyle and dumped him.
Evidently the main thing in his life wa going upstairs to play with his
trainset ....

geoff

That girl puts the ass in class better than most.
Tom


"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message
...
Ah, you mistake the attraction. Obviously it was his MONEY, not him. And
maybe it's not Rod but Rod's money. Or, just maybe, the girl got his name
mixed up with his anatomy. Besides, look at that whore Anna Nicole. Who,
other than someone who want's a woman without any redeeming values but her
body, really cares? The old man was obviously off his rocker and had
misplaced his stash of Wheaties and oysters. They both deserved each
other.
The problem is that his family didn't necessarily deserve the
repercussions
of his dead life crisis.

When I go out I hope I have better class than that.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio
Purchase your copy of the Fifth of RAP CD set at www.recaudiopro.net.
See how far $20 really goes.




"Rob Adelman" wrote in message
...


Roger W. Norman wrote:

Long live a man who, in his late 50s/early 60s can still attract a
young woman. More power to him, but it wasn't his music.

Some guy in his 90's attracted Anna Nicole Smith. Of course he didn't
live long g

ojunk (JWelsh3374) wrote in message ...
Artists don't "peak." They have phases, but great creative people keep
creating good, or at least INTERESTING stuff, until they stop, usually
because of death.

OK. Name one.


John Fahey.

jd-10 wrote:

Pick from this list:


Stones


Inconsistent, still capable of brilliance.


Snipped


Wow, some pretty strong opinions there. By any chance, would your name
be Delbert?

jd-10 wrote:

Nope. But it makes me laugh that y'all ignore so much good stuff and
mostly harp on the mediocre.

But you seem to forget that what is "good stuff" is so subjective.

The Beatles were not great players but sure wrote some GREAT songs! The Band
was GREAT!!! live 2.
Delbert sure plays a mean harp.
How far down south do you live?

Tom



"jd-10" wrote in message
s.com...
In article ,
ojunk (JWelsh3374) wrote:

Pick from this list:

Stones

Inconsistent, still capable of brilliance.

Beatles

Most overrated band in the history of popular music

Who

Without Ox and Moon, dead as a doornail, but ceased to be musically
relevant in the mid-70s. I love their stuff through Who's Next. After
that, they were hit and miss, I think PT kept his best stuff for his
solo records.

Kinks

Utterly great, but mostly invisible for at least 10 years.

Beach Boys

Oldies band. What have they done for us lately?

Rod Stewart

Musical lightweight as a solo artist, monster with Jeff Beck Beck and
with the Faces. Sadly, he's not terribly relevant.

Fleetwood Mac

Original was stunning. Incarnation since late '70s is an abominaton.

The Band

Far too under-rated by the masses. How sad that in this day and age,
they could not even have gotten a record deal (not that a record deal
these days is anything to get excited about).

Grateful Dead

Second most over-rated outfit in the history of popular music. An
abomination whose absence would make the world a better place.

CSN&Y

Never worth a bullet. Not one song I can even tolerate.

I picked some big artists...name ONE of them that has done ANYTHING
important
since 1976-8 or so other than continue to tour and play their hits.

Two words: Delbert McClinton. Maybe not so "big time" but he's always
been around, on the road, making folks feel good. A monster's monster.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be brilliant, important,prolific and cutting edge
for an
entire career. IM****INGPOSSIBLE

Maybe not prolific but the best since the early '60s: Delbert McClinton

It cannot be done. Only a "fan" will tell you otherwise.

Delbert has been on the road for 40+ years and he's better then he's
ever been. Do the teenyboppers, angst-filled goths, dirty-ratty
grungeheads or spandex-clad metalheads get it?

Hell no, they're not smart enouogh.

For that matter, do the denizens of RAP get it? Hell I donno but I never
read anything about him here, so I'd have to assume no.

There are a LOT of artists out there who get no radio play, who make
most (though not all) of YOUR list look like rank amateurs. Some have
been around a while, others are fairly new. But they're all great and I
think they'll be relevant to those who get it a lot longer them most of
that list you gave.

Topped by
Delbert McClinton. One word. God.
Lee Roy Parnell
T. Graham Brown

Good time music.

Get a clue folks, the good music is there, but you won't hear it on the
radio, won't see it oh MTV, VH1, CMT or anything owned by CBS or Clear
Channel.
--
JD-10