The 60's are BACK!!

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]Anybody else digging Lenny Kravitz?[/quote] Yuck...not me. His best album was his first, a totally derivative 60s record. It's really good, I've played it a lot...unfortunately he had a few hit records and everything he's done since sucks. His version of "American Woman" is an insult to everything that ever was Rock n Roll. Just my Opinion of course ;)

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by timrocker: [b]Reading Chip's post that sums up the diversity of the "scene" in his town, I wondered if that isn't the "real" legacy of the 60's-that different is good. It made me want to pack up and move there, to meet all those people and hear all those different sounds.[/b][/quote] Yeah, I live in Atlanta which is not far at all from where Chip lives and the scene is similarly very diverse. And yes, I think that IS the legacy of the 60's, very astute observation. [quote][b] My understanding of the 60's is that somehow the times were conducive to a virtual explosion of creative artistic expression. And that people were very "hungry" for that expression.[/b][/quote] Yes indeed! [quote][b]Reading Lee's posts, I was struck by her deep affection for the Stones. And I can really relate. I super-dig The Who. I had Who's Next and several others on vinyl when I was about 17, and even though it was ten years out of date, approximately, I just thought it was killer. When music really moves you, I think it has little to do with the issue of whether you're hearing the greatest guitarist in the world or just hearing a guitarist who's "on".[/b][/quote] Absolutely! And I'm a Who superfan too, BTW! [quote][b]Anybody else digging Lenny Kravitz? Lee, I'm curious how you feel about the Black Crowes, too.[/b][/quote] Arrrghh... well, to be honest I don't much care for either of them. I think it's because I really get the vibe that they are basically just trying to ape the sound of their respective "eras" in a very calculated way, an attempt to be "retro" in a hip rock-star sort of way, as opposed to just playing that way because it's what they love and it just comes out that way. Granted, some of that may be somewhat forced on them by record labels, but ya know, in the early days of the Black Crowes when they were playing the clubs here in Atlanta, they sounded just like REM. And then suddenly here they came with this Stones/Faces vibe. It seemed as if they were just trying to find a sound that was trendy and would sell, and to me their records reflect that. I could name you half a dozen bands just in Atlanta that do something similar to what Kravitz or the Crowes do but do it way better and more soulfully. I am totally and completely nuts about much of the music and creative sensibility of the 60's. But I am not at all about simply trying to re-create everything about 60's recordings or sounds or fashion down to the last detail. To me that's just kind of fossilizing it when the whole point of it was to be vital and passionate. If you ain't got that passion behind it, I don't care about it, and it doesn't matter how many vintage amps and tube compressors you used. But when something becomes a "trend" it becomes all about the gear and the fashion, and I don't really expect anything different at this point, so whatever! --Lee

[inadequate.com]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]Yeah felix and Chip, really I pretty much agree with you that massive "trends" are kinda a thing of the past in themselves and that the future will consist of a lot of diverse and fragmented little "scenes" instead. I don't know if that's necessarily because we are jaded, but rather because a lot of people have discovered that they don't have to take what is force fed to them by the mass markets and feel a greater sense of freedom of choice when it comes to things like music and fashion. IMO, in most respects that's a good thing.[/b][/quote] Sounds a bit like a 60s take on the 80s. Searching for one dominant cultural trend ignores the fact that there's never been one. Elvis & the Beatles both started out to the same widespread adult hostility that boy bands do today. While many people in the 60s were anti war and may have smoked a few joints in college, very few became commune dwelling hippies. In the seventies the majority neither swung nor sniffed. In fact while it is easy to conjure up images that define the 60s, 70s & 80s it is much harder to do the same for the 90s. I suspect in 5 years it will be remembered as baggy clothes & techno yet that would not be most peoples reality for 10 years of their life. [quote]from the early 80s: [b] "If a record sells a million copies in the U.S., so what? That means there are 239 million people who DIDN'T buy it! What are THEY listening to?" [/b][/quote] See? Peace, man.

[Botch.]

[ 11-06-2001: Message edited by: botch@netutah.net ]

[timrocker]

Yeah, Lee, it was a trick question, as I don't care for the Black Crowes either. I just wanted to get your "take" on them without interfering or suggesting anything. Okay, now how do you feel about Drivin' and Cryin'?

[Lee Flier]

LOL Tim! Is this 20 questions? Well now Drivin'N'Cryin I like. I like Kevn Kinney's voice a lot, he's written a slew of great songs and in spite of being a sloppy drunk a lot of the time, he really means it. He's a hundred percent sincere about what he does and it's pretty evident in his singing and stage manner. Yeah they went a bit over the top at times with the arena-rock thing but hey, Kevn did it cuz he LOVES Aerosmith and AC/DC, he really is a big rock'n'roll goofball and you gotta love him for that! --Lee

[midispaceho]

I love retro fashion and re-exploration of music. The 80s had some cool shit going on. I am a huge fan of synth pop and have been waiting for a re-exploration of it. Gary Numan is the man, man.

[mr. rob]

How come when there's retro its all camp. When I want 60's retro, I dont want elvis suits, I want John muthafucking Coltrane on mtv. if Jamiroqoi starts using synclaviers and gated snares were really in trouble.

[lovesinger]

Blessings, guys ... been away 2 days so please accept some late replies in this good-spirited frolic we're having. Actually Lee, I did get it but maybe you thought I was doing something I wasn't. In translatory summation (to sum it up) my comment was about "singers singing off key and kinda blowing the harmony THEY were after" .. not some choir's standards). Off-key is the key. It seems a few thought I was doing a judges' disqualifying critique with high school choir teachers backing me up :) Not so. [i]To the partially quoted:[/i] ...Lee Flier: [b]Whether a high school choir teacher would think the Beatles sing great harmony or not is irrelevent. The Beatles' harmonies should not be judged by the same standards as a choir.[/b] ...dansouth: [b]Skirting aside the ugly issue as to whether some random choir teacher has any qualification to judge the merits of the Beatles arrangements[/b] ... not the [i]"arrangements"[/i] dan, the off-key harmony [i]singing[/i]. And how's everything with you in NY? I only made a point about the isolated element of often hearable vocal delivery problems, which obviously didn't/doesn't stop me and others fond of them from appreciating the Beatles legendary accomplishments. It may have been only one of them (my guess is John, George's voice was too smooth and cool {e.g. "My Sweet Lord"}) but somebody often glitched BG harmony out of tune repeatedly with cracking dissonance, and the excellent Mr. Martin left it in for the sake of all else that was RIGHT with the best take (maybe he felt that was "as good as it's gonna get in this song", after all he knew them musically maybe better than their closest family) instead of pushing for near-perfection and destroying the hit. Not just them but nobody were perfect singers (I've heard Aretha and Marvin glitch a bunch on record), and THAT was maybe a trait of 60s music I neglected to bring up for discussion -- most times vocal or instrumental glitches were LEFT IN released songs. A few hits I can't recall at the moment even had a very hearable spliced-in section (one was the whole second half of the song) with louder volume and different background EQ but we loved em and bought em. BTW, Lee, I like some of the Stones' stuff besides Ruby Tuesday, maybe because they were just part of the dearly remembered landscape of my teen and 20's years , but I'd still bet you can walk into any venue on any night in your city and find a band with better effect overall. Some of what happened with acts we're discussing seems a historical case of (for lack of better words) "positional uniqueness" -- there was NOBODY like The Beatles and NOBODY like The Stones when they came along, so they filled a BIG void and instant lasting superstardom resulted. Then again this is one of those "beauty in the beholder's eyes" thing, and after all I guess that's what [b]fan(atic)dom[/b] is all about ... all of us are fans of something i guess, even if it's ourselves :D . (Another aside...as an artist and wannabe comic strip artist my first 15 years, I love Peanuts AND Van Gogh :) )

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b] I only made a point about the isolated element of often hearable vocal delivery problems, which obviously didn't/doesn't stop me and others fond of them from appreciating the Beatles legendary accomplishments. It may have been only one of them (my guess is John, George's voice was too smooth and cool {e.g. "My Sweet Lord"}) but somebody often glitched BG harmony out of tune repeatedly with cracking dissonance...[/b][/quote] Really? I've never noticed that, or considered it a "problem". And I doubt whether George Martin did either. I would lay down money that he considered the released recordings of the Beatles to be "perfect takes", despite his classical training (which is why I consider George Martin to be one of the more remarkable humans to have blessed this earth). That's what I mean by "you don't get it". If you are even HEARING those things you are judging the Beatles by a standard that doesn't apply to them. Again the Peanuts vs. Van Gogh analogy is apt - do you look at a Peanuts comic and say, "Well, he didn't really draw this line perfectly and the perspective is all wrong, there are obvious execution problems with these drawings, but everybody still loves Peanuts in spite of that." I don't think so. I too appreciate BOTH Peanuts and Van Gogh and even though they are both "art", I would never judge them by each other's standard and if I did I wouldn't be able to appreciate at least one of them. By the same token, I appreciate both Chopin and the Ramones and I wouldn't judge either of them the way I would judge the other. It just ISN'T RELEVANT. [quote][b] BTW, Lee, I like some of the Stones' stuff besides Ruby Tuesday, maybe because they were just part of the dearly remembered landscape of my teen and 20's years , but I'd still bet you can walk into any venue on any night in your city and find a band with better effect overall.[/b][/quote] Bullshit. If you read my posts with any regularity at all, you know that I'm a huge fan of many of the local bands in my town, and think they're extraordinarily talented, much more so than most of what's on the radio these days. But I don't think any of them are the Stones. And no, it's not merely because the Stones were part of my "teenage landscape" and I have some sort of nostalgic affection for them. Hell, I wasn't even born until 1963 and the Stones did most of their best work before I was a teenager. Doesn't matter - I can put on "Beggars Banquet" or "Exile On Main Street" or "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" to this day and it still tears my head off. I have also seen the Stones live on numerous occasions, and have even been to one of their rehearsals, when they were supposedly past their prime. And on a bad night, they are sloppy and out of sorts, but on a good night, they have this incredible focused energy and raw passion that NOBODY else has. If you just plain don't like the Stones, that's OK, but I just plain do, and apparently you don't understand the fact that there is a lot more than one [i]standard[/i] of judgement when it comes to music. To dismiss somebody like the Stones because you just plain don't care for their music is fine. To dismiss them because "they're sloppy and all their songs have 3 chords", and to assume that other people only like them because they are "cultural icons" and not for the music, is TOTALLY missing the point. --Lee [ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Lee Flier ]

[halljams]

.....My stomach (tears streaming down face) oh, Don't stop you two! (ass falls off body onto floor)........

[timrocker]

Now Lee, I hope you don't mind my axeing you all these questions, onnacounta I just start wondering when your posts seem to portend more interesting stuff under the surface. :D I had a real burst of inspiration from Drivin' N Cryin' when they came out and still play covers of them occasionally. Now let's talk about one of my faves: Blue Oyster Cult!!! Yeah baby, I don't mean the singles, of course. I mean songs like ETI, Tattoo Vampire, I Love The Night, In Thee, The Vigil. I could go on and on. Buck Dharma gets my vote for most underappreciated player/writer who could have gone legit with several other styles of music and chose to pursue his band and vision anyway. And his lead guitar sound: Too many to choose from, and all of them just slay! Okay, I'm done enthusing now. Back to youse goise. :D

[Lee Flier]

Tim, you fucking rock, dude! :D I dig a lot of BOC too! Well how could ya not, you wanna talk about a great drummer and bass player! I agree, very underrated. And I don't actually mind you asking a bunch of questions OR your "enthusing", I was just playin around. Keep up the enthusiasm! And halljams, always glad to be of amusement value. :D --Lee

[lovesinger]

Hello Lee ... hellooooooooooo? :) I understand your passion, but for a 2d time you're responding to something I did not say. I am not JUDGING anybody ... I first noted the simple hearable fact of an out of tune background singer (or two), then secondly acknowledged (as in other posts) my present and past fandom of Beatles music. Just because you love your local pro sports team doesn't mean you're dismissingly judging them to say they've played some bad games, or the all-pro quarterback threw some stupid interceptions. Your Peanuts example is VERY apt and I've agreed to it ... we've covered that ground. Geoge Martin had a great sense of good popular music and didn't let his classical gifts get in the way of it. Leiber and Stoller before him on this side of the Atlantic had that same great sense, and did add their classically symphonic background to it, creating a rich heritage of late 50's and 60's powerful hits of a different color. Spank my hands that I've not read your posts "with any regularity at all", but the many I have read said nothing about your local bands fandom. You're obviously a "huge" Stones fan, too, which is good for you and America (freedoms) but maybe that's a "nostalgic" thing itself in addition to liking their particular versions of songs -- you CAN be nostalgic about things that you did NOT live through. T.J. Lubinsky's passion for doowop (circa 194?-1963) has produced three years of super doowop shows for PBS that got more pledge donations than any other shows [irrelevant, just fact], and he JUST turned 29 __ wasn't even born when doowop was king. I never said I "don't like the Stones" (I happen to like several of their efforts -- even "Satisfaction" is entertaining, and not for nostalgia -- it rocks. Otis Redding's original rocks better, but I just enjoy Mic & co. when theirs plays without a comparison) ... I DID say my opinion of their level of professional banddom compared to other bands ... not choirs as several keep misreading into what I've said. Apparently (VERY apparently) you've interpreted the stones as rock gods and all their recorded performances as great and that's OK ... not trying to make you feel any different. But for you to say our differences about their greatness is because of something I "don't get" is inaccurate ... we just see it differently ... period. And you see them thru superfan's eyes which means you "don't get" how anybody can NOT love them like you do. Get it? [quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]apparently you don't understand the fact that there is a lot more than one [i]standard[/i] of judgement when it comes to music. [/b][/quote]I've understood that since 1960, age 12, when old and new music of all styles were one big melting pot on the airwaves. Probably why many of us "old-schoolers" don't wear the exclusionary musically myopic blinders of many younger musical guardians who haven't chosen to familiarize themselves with some musical variety.

[RobT]

[quote] Very few artists seem willing to take any risks these days [/quote] More like record companies and bean counters. Sheesh records companies boy, am I showing my age or what ?!?

[lovesinger]

Btw, Ms. Flier, the following referred-to-quotes were stated by other posters, not me. I suppose abundant rebuke has been made thereto? :D A quick P.S. __ in 1965 I was drumming my head off with 2 bands with covers of both Stones and Redding's versions of "Satisfaction". And FWIW I liked the Stones' "Not Fade Away" more than Buddy Holly's. [quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier:[b] To dismiss somebody like the Stones because you just plain don't care for their music is fine. To dismiss them because "they're sloppy and all their songs have 3 chords", and to assume that other people only like them because they are "cultural icons" and not for the music, is TOTALLY missing the point.[/b][/quote] "10-4" [ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: lovesinger ]

[Tedster]

Just a polite point of order, but Jagger/Richards wrote "Satisfaction"...so the late great Mr. Redding's version would have been a cover, not the original. And, again with all politeness...to reiterate something I said earlier...I've heard the Beach Boys (albeit on TV) in several live situations, at least one of which was a reunion of the original Carl/Brian/Dennis, Jardine, Love lineup...and the harmonies were a bit off key. I found it refreshing...showed they were in reality quite human. Where's my Antares? Maybe I can hook it up to the CD player...

[strat0124]

[ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: strat0124 ]

[strat0124]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b] ......And then suddenly here they came with this Stones/Faces vibe. It seemed as if they were just trying to find a sound that was trendy and would sell, and to me their records reflect that.--Lee[/b][/quote] Yeah, but they've been pretty damn consistent in that vein since, but to me the Stones/Faces vibe was best copied by the London Quireboys. Still, the Black Crowes are a THOUSAND percent better than 99% of whats on commercial radio. They are damn good for what they do, regardless of their beginnings. Just my cut. Still love the guitar sounds

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b]Just because you love your local pro sports team doesn't mean you're dismissingly judging them to say they've played some bad games, or the all-pro quarterback threw some stupid interceptions.[/b][/quote] Uhhh... that doesn't apply at all. Athletic performances are quantifiable - if you play a bad game or screw up a play, you did. Period. The statistics will record that for all eternity. There is no way to say it was good. If a pitcher gives up the game winning home run in the bottom of the 9th with 2 out, the best that can be said about him is that he tried. It can never be said that he performed well in that game, even though in general he might be a great pitcher and I might love the team he plays for. The same can be said for classical music. If somebody botches a note during a performance they botch it, and no matter how great the performer is there's nothing else to say except that he's great but he screwed up that night. Whereas what one person may label the Beatles' "out of tune harmonies" and "adolescent blatch" may actually be what is GOOD about about them, and what the artist DELIBERATELY (if not always consciously) set out to do. THAT is my point. And I DON'T say this because I'm some adoring superfan who thinks the Beatles, or the Stones, can do no wrong. There are plenty of their songs, or executions of songs, that I just plain don't enjoy. Just my personal taste, with which others including yourself are more than welcome to disagree. [quote][b] You're obviously a "huge" Stones fan, too, which is good for you and America (freedoms) but maybe that's a "nostalgic" thing itself in addition to liking their particular versions of songs -- you CAN be nostalgic about things that you did NOT live through.[/b][/quote] You SAY you are not being judgemental - but WHY is it even necessary for you to presume what my reasons are for liking the Stones? It's as if you're saying that because YOU don't like them, I can't possibly REALLY like them just for their music, my mind is just clouded by nostalgia. Does it occur to you that maybe I just put the record on and really, really love it for what it is? [quote][b]I DID say my opinion of their level of professional banddom compared to other bands ... not choirs as several keep misreading into what I've said.[/b][/quote] What other bands? What's your definition of "professionalism" and does it even apply to the Stones? I doubt it. [quote][b]Apparently (VERY apparently) you've interpreted the stones as rock gods and all their recorded performances as great and that's OK ...[/b][/quote] Uhh, no actually. There are quite a few of their recordings and a number of their live shows which I thought were just plain bad. [quote][b]And you see them thru superfan's eyes which means you "don't get" how anybody can NOT love them like you do. Get it?[/b][/quote] No. I totally "get" how anyone could dislike the Stones' music (or anyone else's). That's just a matter of taste. What I don't "get" is when people try to lend some kind of quantification to their tastes, as if that somehow gives weight to what they say that goes beyond personal taste. That's what I don't get. --Lee [ 11-07-2001: Message edited by: Lee Flier ]

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by strat0124: [b] Still, the Black Crowes are a THOUSAND percent better than 99% of whats on commercial radio. They are damn good for what they do, regardless of their beginnings. Just my cut. [/b][/quote] Oh, agreed. They don't really offend me, I mean I'll listen to them on the radio. But I just don't buy their records and I don't really consider myself a "fan". I think they're just "OK" compared to those they imitate, whereas other people have been inspired by someone and actually done as well or better than their heroes. --Lee

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]Does it occur to you that maybe I just put the record on and really, really love it for what it is?[/b][/quote] Lee, I respect your intelligence, your musical understandings and certainly your right to personal tastes. It's ironic that you state the above quote, because that's [b][i]precisely[/i][/b] what I've been trying to say about some of the Beatles' and Stones' music that [i]I[/i] like very much! It seems your campaign to stop me and my 'ilk' from musical judgmentalism blocked you from seeing that. Sorry we got our wires crossed. It looked like coupling my admiration for some of both groups musical works with a simple opinion about background inharmony and overrated superstardom (Stones) that I took American liberties to say 'aloud' didn't sit right with you, leading to a rather detailed (me too) crusade to set my skewed perceptions straight, and my attempts to say i already held no-judgment musical attitudes (it's individual ART after all) went nowhere with you. [ Tho if you're honest you (and most of us) "judge" music and its musicians all the time (see your Kravitz / Crowes criticism, p. 2) ] [quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]You SAY you are not being judgemental - but WHY is it even necessary for you to presume what my reasons are for liking the Stones? It's as if you're saying that because YOU don't like them, I can't possibly REALLY like them just for their music, ...[/b][/quote] Well, let's see how that plays to this quote by someone you know: [quote]"Arrrghh... well, to be honest I don't much care for either of them. I think it's because I really get the vibe that they are basically just trying to ape the sound of their respective "eras" in a very calculated way, an attempt to be "retro" in a hip rock-star sort of way, as opposed to just playing that way because it's what they love and it just comes out that way.[/quote]...Did you ever ASK them if that slamming vibe-opinion of yours is correct? You SAY you are not being judgemental - but WHY is it even necessary for you to presume what [their] reasons are for playing the way they play? Ain't what's good for the goose good for the gander? And talk about 'people' trying to [quote]by Lee: "lend some kind of quantification to their tastes, as if that somehow gives weight to what they say that goes beyond personal taste."[/quote] .. yer Lenny/Crowe critique goes way beyond just singing out of tune. While you've now (this post) taken the Stones down from their pedestal a bit, your impassioned replies to me til now were undeniably Stones-defensive. I guess my only parting hope is that you understand it's all right to critique a "star" or "icon" and you don't have to be trying to deep six 'em when you do. [b]A fellow American "10-4"[/b]

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]Just a polite point of order, but Jagger/Richards wrote "Satisfaction"...so the late great Mr. Redding's version would have been a cover, not the original.[/b][/quote]Thanks for the correct, Ted. My discussional engrossment caused me to disremember that truth.

[gtrmac]

Actually I hope the sixties don't come back. Once was enough for me! I definately would not survive a second round. Actually I'm pretty surprised that I survived the first time around! :eek:

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]LOL Tim! Is this 20 questions? Well now Drivin'N'Cryin I like. I like Kevn Kinney's voice a lot, he's written a slew of great songs and in spite of being a sloppy drunk a lot of the time, he really means it. He's a hundred percent sincere about what he does and it's pretty evident in his singing and stage manner. Yeah they went a bit over the top at times with the arena-rock thing but hey, Kevn did it cuz he LOVES Aerosmith and AC/DC, he really is a big rock'n'roll goofball and you gotta love him for that! --Lee[/b][/quote] What's funny is that (sorry Lee) we have almost the exact diametric opinions relative to Black Crowes/Kravitz/Drivn & Cryin.. I used to not be able to stand Lenny, or the Black Crowes, OR D&C. I came around with Lenny because I think he *does* do it good, gets a natural feel drum-wise and does the retro/vintage gear thing right. Nice little touches brought me in: the off-kilter drum fills in "Are You Gonna Go My Way" combined with the dry od guitar sounds, the shuffle beat hook after the chorus, the sparse backing for the guitar solo, the open voicings, and the detail in the main riff itself - which people seldom do right. The eq on... frick, I can't remember the title (If you want it you got it, la da da da di da), the "2001: space oddysey" video song (which was a cool nod done right again), the ultra-squashed dry/flanged vocal sound on the verses contrasting to the open chorus... it was also cool to hear the nod to Pink Floyd's "Fearless" in the strumming on "Get you Off My Mind", plus the languid/slinky repeating ascending lick in the verse which is pretty novel.. He works within the retro trip and does some neat things with it IMO. It's fun watching him reinvent the 60's/70's thing in different combinations, doing different production approaches, different wacked out guitar sounds. The funniest bit is that he *is* the Morley Wah advertisement "dude" from wayyyy back, bell bottoms and all. Black Crowes - I hate liking them, I remember when they were a cover band - *just another cover band*, for that matter... but they do their deal well IMO. Chris Robinson seems like a coke head obnoxious goon now, but he belts it out *in tune*, which is a remarkable thing these days. Real guitar rock. I also hate to admit but I really liked the Black Zeppelin, Led Crowes - whatever the Jimmy Page thing was. Because they got the vibe right, but as well Chris Robinson managed to hit all the notes and still sound like Chris Robinson. He wailed on the songs with aplomb without it sounding like someone trying to *be* Robert Plant, which is what people normally do when they cover Zeppelin. I also liked that his brother got all the details right in the dual guitar parts, which is a really neat thing on the records you wouldn't hear live. The drum parts of course weren't perfect Bonham takes, but didn't feel too "click track" 90's-like. .. That, combined with the crazy notion that they actually did it was a cool thing. I still don't care for their earlier Stones-ish stuff, but there's a few tunes of theirs I like. They sound like a "outside of ProTools" band, which is a rare thing (again).

[Lee Flier]

[quote][b]Lee, I respect your intelligence, your musical understandings and certainly your right to personal tastes. It's ironic that you state the above quote, because that's precisely what I've been trying to say about some of the Beatles' and Stones' music that I like very much! It seems your campaign to stop me and my 'ilk' from musical judgmentalism blocked you from seeing that.[/b][/quote] Uhhhh... dude, you have REALLY not been paying attention. I have not, at all, attempted to stop you from judging music. In fact the entire discussion has been about HOW to judge music - by what standards. It isn't the fact that you criticized the Beatles that rankled me - it's WHAT you actually said. I was simply pointing out that I don't believe that standard of judgement applies to them. [quote][b] ...Did you ever ASK them if that slamming vibe-opinion of yours is correct? You SAY you are not being judgemental...[/b][/quote] But that's just it - I've never said I wasn't being judgemental, YOU said YOU weren't. I [i]know[/i] that I judge music and that everyone does. I don't just guiltily "admit" to it, I think it's totally right to do that. Again, my point was about HOW one judges it. Again to bring back the Peanuts/Van Gogh thing, if you judge an artist based on a standard that they are not even trying to achieve, the point is irrelevant. Personally when I judge any kind of art I unconsciously am asking these three questions: 1) What is the artist trying to say? 2) Did they succeed in saying it? 3) Do I personally like the result? And I have to admit there are a lot of cases where I can't even answer question #1, therefore I reserve judgement and leave it to others who understand. :) There are other artists whose artistic goals I do feel I understand, and whom I even think have succeeded in their goals, but I just don't happen to like it. That's OK, I still respect it. There are lots of people on these forums who fall into that category: we may have totally different musical tastes but we respect the hell out of each other's passion and dedication and have obviously succeeded in what we are trying to do by our own standards. The fact that you say "the Beatles have bad harmonies" and "the Stones are overrated relative to their talent" simply says to me that you haven't given enough thought to question #1. That's all I was saying, not that they are above criticism. And of course, you are welcome to disagree with my point, assuming you actually know what it is now. :) --Lee

[Lee Flier]

[quote]Originally posted by Chip McDonald: [b] [Lenny] works within the retro trip and does some neat things with it IMO. It's fun watching him reinvent the 60's/70's thing in different combinations, doing different production approaches, different wacked out guitar sounds.... Black Crowes - I hate liking them, I remember when they were a cover band - *just another cover band*, for that matter... but they do their deal well IMO. Chris Robinson seems like a coke head obnoxious goon now, but he belts it out *in tune*, which is a remarkable thing these days. Real guitar rock... ...They sound like a "outside of ProTools" band, which is a rare thing (again).[/b][/quote] I actually agree with all of the above points. I do appreciate the fact that both of those artists operate outside of the current trends especially in production. And they do get a lot of things right. I don't hate 'em or anything, there are just a lot of people I like better. Like I said, I don't turn them off when they're on the radio, and I find it a refreshing change from the other stuff there, but I haven't actually liked them enough to go buy their records and really really get into them. I think the reason for my initial slightly defensive reaction when asked about those guys, is that I get a little weary of the presumption that because I love a lot of the music of the 60's and 70's that I must therefore be really into Kravitz and the Black Crowes. And, ya know, I'm not "trying" to be retro, and the bands I love were not "trying" to be retro at the time, they were just doing their thing and it was very fresh and still sounds fresh to me. And really, my favorite records of the last decade were things like Radiohead's "OK Computer" and Soundgarden's "Superunknown" and Nirvana's "In Utero" and STP's "Tiny Music" and Beck's "Mutations" and Live's "Throwing Copper". So it's not as if I really hate Lenny or the Crowes or anything, I just get tired of people assuming that I must be some huge fan of theirs. Which isn't their fault, and I apologize :D --Lee [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Lee Flier ]

[lovesinger]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]Personally when I judge any kind of art I unconsciously am asking these three questions: 1) What is the artist trying to say? 2) Did they succeed in saying it? 3) Do I personally like the result? And I have to admit there are a lot of cases where I can't even answer question #1... [/b][/quote]An interesting tack, dear lady. I don't know if we can ever definitely answer question #1 (without being presumptuous) apart from the artist [i]stating[/i] what they intended. It took awhile for me to get acclimated to a few artists' 'statements' in the 60's--Credence Clearwater Revival was one. When I savor art I tend to almost reverse your steps above, whittled down to two: 1) Do I like what I see/hear? 2) Did I perceive a clear statement from the artist? (If I did, then apparently they succeeded in making "A" kindred statement -- though maybe one tangential to the main one they intended) I leave knowing what they really intended from their own mouths in interviews and concert monologues and such ... "others who understand" are like those dime-a-dozen newspaper arts critics who rave about the shallowest movies and music and pan those with significant artistic substance (we've got such a curmudgeon here in Dallas - Philip Wuntch). Enjoyed it, ma'am. ............ "10-4"

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b]I don't know if we can ever definitely answer question #1 (without being presumptuous) apart from the artist [i]stating[/i] what they intended. [/b][/quote] Good points being made all around, but I'd take issue with believing what the the artist says in interviews, etc... I mean, does anyone [i]really[/i] believe Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is about a picture that Julian brought home from school? I know that's a story/legend(?) that the Beatles tried to maintain through the years, but if you listen to the song... I dunno, given the time period in which it was written and the documented drug use by the Beatles at that time, the song appears to be about something else to this listener... :D I like the saying, "Trust the art, not the artist". Certainly you can glean some insights into the music via interviews and such, but I don't always trust the artist's interpretations of what the songs are about. I mean, it [i]is[/i] show business, and there are often personal/political/career concerns that might influence the answers that artists give interviewers. [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: popmusic ]

[Lee Flier]

lovesinger, I don't necessarily ask my 3 questions in that order :D , they are just questions that I feel I'm unconsciously trying to answer when I listen to music. And I don't think it's presumptuous to ask what the artist is trying to say, although it's probably presumptuous to think you've definitively answered. :D The question is more like a process of engaging with the artist, of trying to understand what THEY are trying to say as opposed to superimposing my own qualifications on them. Again, even once I think I understand what they're getting at, I just may not like it, or I may not like it enough in the first place to even want to put the effort into understanding it. :D But I still appreciate the process and appreciate the fact that they do what they do. And also, I don't think it's a literal process. I wouldn't literally ask an artist what they were trying to say in most cases. I remember once reading a story about a fan who approached dancer Twyla Tharp after a show and said, "Well, it was all very interesting, but what does it MEAN?" And Twyla replied, "Dahling, if I could answer THAT, what would be the point of doing the dance?" :) --Lee