The 60's are BACK!!

[m2]

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: macle96@yahoo.com ]

[Lee Flier]

LOL Macle. I do too, actually. I think if that story were actually untrue, Lennon would certainly have said so during his post-Beatles "confessional" days, when he would go out of his way to debunk any "myths" about the Beatles that people held onto. Everybody already knows they did acid back then, so what harm would it have done to "come clean"? But Lennon told the same story in some of his very last interviews in 1980, so I think it's true. Not that it really matters, I think the admonition to "trust the art, not the artist" is right on. Either you dig the song and you get something from it, or you don't, and if you do, who cares what it was literally "about"? Personally, "LSD" is not one of my favorite Beatles songs, and I don't think that knowing whether or not it was "really" about LSD would change that. :D --Lee

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]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?[/quote] hmmm, where the 'artist' is coming from is the furthest thing from my mind when evaluating music...the music should speak for itself. Personally I don't try to say anything when making music...I often get some kind of message from it later when listening back but that's different. BTW, this is perhaps a new topic discussion but should we stop calling these various musicians 'ARTISTS'?...it somehow doesn't fit over 90% of the time. I've got an ego but I like to think I'm humble enough to not go around calling myself an artist...it seems inappropriate for anyone else to call me that too. I wonder how Keith, Mick, Pete, John, Paul or Ringo would feel about it. Just some thoughts. [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[m2]

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: macle96@yahoo.com ]

[-]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b] BTW, this is perhaps a new topic discussion but should we stop calling these various musicians 'ARTISTS'?...it somehow doesn't fit over 90% of the time. I've got an ego but I like to think I'm humble enough to not go around calling myself an artist...it seems inappropriate for anyone else to call me that too. I wonder how Keith, Mick, Pete, John, Paul or Ringo would feel about it. Just some thoughts. [/b][/quote] I don't think it's pretentious at all. I mean, all of the people you mentioned are recording [i]artists[/i], not "recording musicians". Heck, even Brittney is considered a recording "artist", so it's not like it's some elite term reserved for extremely talented folks or something. :D Using the word "artist" implies someone is creating something. A musician can create and contribute things too, but the implication is that someone labeled simply a musician is a hired gun or is not calling the shots (like a "studio musician") in the way, say, Keith, Mick, etc. would.

[halljams]

[quote]Originally posted by Steve LeBlanc: [b] I've got an ego but I like to think I'm humble enough to not go around calling myself an artist...it seems inappropriate for anyone else to call me that too. [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ][/b][/quote] First off, I have listened to what you are capable of Steve and, like it or not, you are an Artist. You successfully create music, which is art. Better yet, you are capable of spontaneous creation. Which is IMO a higher level of art. Unfortunatley,(for you) this makes you an artist. I have known several folks who seem to think that they must entirely rid themselves of their ego in order to go through life without upsetting things or other people. I think that some of these people take it to the point of making themselves feel like such 'nobody losers' that it hinders their confidence and ability to create.(I'm not saying this is your philosiphy, but take credit where credit is due man. Your abilities in music are at a very high level, You deserve artistic respect for that.) Great, powerful art comes from geat powerful minds. If we don't allow ourselves to feel powerful, the threshold of our art's potential for greatness will remain low. The purpose of art is to connect to other people. People are drawn to conviction and power.The personality is directly reflected in the art. It's inescapable. As an artist, (IMO)your only real responsibility is to deliver the truest, realest, closest to your heart work you are capable of, with as much conviction as you can possibly muster. Well this should be the ultimate goal anyway. I'm certainly not cutting it yet. But i will! This is why people love the stones and the black crows and led zeppelin etc. The heart and authenticity, good or bad they did their best with a ton of conviction and took themselves and what they did seriously, so everyone else did too, and look how much pleasure they gave to people because of it. (in sleezy corporate marketing voice)"People love that shit!" I'll shuddup now.

[m2]

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: macle96@yahoo.com ]

[Steve LeBlanc]

[quote]What's the big deal. How about "recording artist".[/quote] I quoted Macle but this is response to all: heh, well I never said it was a big deal...I guess I'd rather see myself as a musician who makes music than an artist. The time I spent hanging around Painters, Multi-media artists, etc. has tainted my view of that word I guess... Definitly no biggie...like I said I'm just sharing my thoughts about it. If you want to call John Lennon a recording artist that's cool. :) [ 11-08-2001: Message edited by: Steve LeBlanc ]

[m2]

[ 02-13-2002: Message edited by: macle96@yahoo.com ]

[halljams]

[quote]Originally posted by macle96@yahoo.com: [b] Uh oh. In that case, I'm screwed! :( [/b][/quote] LoL. But i didn't say i thought you could make a living from art with that attitude, i meant in terms of extending your life here on earth by leaving something behind. Personally i plan to only write solid gold hits for a couple years till i can afford this particular mountain i have had my eye on. :D :D :D :D :D

[midispaceho]

[quote]Originally posted by macle96@yahoo.com: [b] I do.[/b][/quote] Me too. I have done enough acid in my youth to know that you don't really see rocking horse people and the like.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [b]there are just a lot of people I like better. [/b][/quote] Understandable - I'm not buying an Black Crowes recordings, either.... [b]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. [/b] No, I don't correlate them with the retro thing from a ... philosophical point of view, in that I'm quite sure Lenny knows that he's doing that vibe and is conscious of it; the Robinsons - I dunno, but they're not mindlessly doing it. I consider a band like Oasis actually to be the bane of "retro" - taking fluff from the past, remodeling it and claiming originality. [b]Soundgarden's "Superunknown" [/b] 10 pts. [b]STP's "Tiny Music"[/b] 10 more pts. I used to hate STP as well, I'm embarassed to admit. Probably my favorite band now. Used to think Weiland was an Eddie Vedder clone, and "Sex Type Thing" *is* basically a Kiss song note per note - but much much better. Weiland's "theatrical approach to singing" in retrospect is a totally brilliant thing, I was shallow for thinking they were shallow based on one song. I respect the DeLeo's musical tastes a lot - apparently listen to a similar variety that I do, the musical nods (I hate to use "nod" again, but....) they make are clever and intelligent. Brendan O'Brien with them does very cool things IMO. I wish they weren't touring with all the kiddie bands. [b]get tired of people assuming that I must be some huge fan of theirs. [/b] I'm tired of the ratings thing people do now. It's not "who is your favorite?" but "who do you think is "best"?". My favorite is whatever I feel like hearing at the moment. Right now - hmmm. Art Blakey.

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by lovesinger: [b]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. [/b][/quote] Out of curiousity - where exactly do they sing off-key?

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by halljams: [b] First off, I have listened to what you are capable of Steve and, like it or not, you are an Artist. You successfully create music, which is art. Better yet, you are capable of spontaneous creation. Which is IMO a higher level of art. Unfortunatley,(for you) this makes you an artist. I have known several folks who seem to think that they must entirely rid themselves of their ego in order to go through life without upsetting things or other people. I think that some of these people take it to the point of making themselves feel like such 'nobody losers' that it hinders their confidence and ability to create.(I'm not saying this is your philosiphy, but take credit where credit is due man. Your abilities in music are at a very high level, You deserve artistic respect for that.) Great, powerful art comes from geat powerful minds. If we don't allow ourselves to feel powerful, the threshold of our art's potential for greatness will remain low. The purpose of art is to connect to other people. People are drawn to conviction and power.The personality is directly reflected in the art. It's inescapable. As an artist, (IMO)your only real responsibility is to deliver the truest, realest, closest to your heart work you are capable of, with as much conviction as you can possibly muster. Well this should be the ultimate goal anyway. I'm certainly not cutting it yet. But i will! This is why people love the stones and the black crows and led zeppelin etc. The heart and authenticity, good or bad they did their best with a ton of conviction and took themselves and what they did seriously, so everyone else did too, and look how much pleasure they gave to people because of it. (in sleezy corporate marketing voice)"People love that shit!" I'll shuddup now.[/b][/quote] Don't stop there, man - excellent post.. :)

[rold]

[quote]Originally posted by macle96@yahoo.com: [b] Uh oh. In that case, I'm screwed! :( [/b][/quote] Yep...add me to those ranks as well.. :D

[dansouth]

I remember reading an interview with Chuck Rainey where he discussed a gig as an opening act for the Beatles. Chuck said their vocals were dead on perfect live. Those old Ed Sullivan clips bear him out. Think of the pressure, coming to America, performing in front of millions on TV. They nailed it. I'm not disputing the existence of some obscure performance with lousy vocals. Every makes mistakes. But the Beatles were VERY serious about perfecting their performances, both on stage and in the studio. When they were in Germany, the rehearsed twelve hours a day, six days a week. By the way, Chuck said the John and George hung out with his band after the gig and that they were really nice.