Write about anything related to music
Acclaimed Music Forum
|
||
| Return to Website | ||
| Viewing Page 1 of 2 (Total Posts: 159) |
| Author | Comment |
schleuse
 Dec 10, 07 - 1:36 PM |
AM Survivor: Week 4
Time to wave goodbye to: 93. Metallica (24) 92. Eminem (20) 91. The Band (18) 90. The Jam (16) Dry for another week: Kraftwerk (15), Madonna (15), Patti Smith (12), Fleetwood Mac (11), The Cure (11), Paul Simon (11) and Elliott Smith (11). We reached a milestone this week: for the first time, more than half of the artists still on the island have been “voted off” by somebody or other some time in the last month. Only 34 of the remaining 89 artists have yet to be mentioned on anybody’s ballot. 89 artists remain: The Beach Boys, Beastie Boys, The Beatles, Beck, Chuck Berry, Björk, Blondie, Blur, David Bowie, James Brown, The Byrds, Johnny Cash, Nick Cave, Ray Charles, The Clash, Leonard Cohen, John Coltrane, Elvis Costello, Creedence Clearwater Revival, The Cure, Miles Davis, The Doors, Nick Drake, Bob Dylan, Brian Eno, The Flaming Lips, Fleetwood Mac, Aretha Franklin, Marvin Gaye, Al Green, PJ Harvey, Jimi Hendrix, Buddy Holly & the Crickets, Michael Jackson, Elton John, Joy Division, The Kinks, Kraftwerk, Led Zeppelin, John Lennon, Little Richard, Madonna, Bob Marley and the Wailers, Massive Attack, Curtis Mayfield, Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, New Order, Nirvana, OutKast, Parliament/Funkadelic, Pavement, Pink Floyd, Pixies, The Police, Elvis Presley, Prince, Public Enemy, Pulp, Radiohead, Ramones, Otis Redding, Lou Reed, R.E.M., The Rolling Stones, Roxy Music, Sex Pistols, Paul Simon, Simon and Garfunkel, Frank Sinatra, Sly and the Family Stone, Elliott Smith, Patti Smith, The Smiths, Sonic Youth, Bruce Springsteen, Steely Dan, The Stooges, Talking Heads, T. Rex, U2, The Velvet Underground, Tom Waits, The White Stripes, The Who, Wilco, Hank Williams, Stevie Wonder, Neil Young. And Week 4 starts now. |
|
LonesomePanda
Dec 10th, 2007 - 1:55 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I really don't want to see them leaving the island, but I wonder if you have not forgotten points for the Beastie Boys... |
|
schleuse
Dec 10th, 2007 - 2:28 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Whoops. You're right, LonesomePanda; the Beasties had 14 points, just behind Kraftwerk and Madonna. And so it said on my spreadsheet; I just forgot to include them in my post. Thanks. I try to do my due diligence and doublecheck everything--especially for the artists who get voted off--but if I goof, y'all please call me on it, ok? Apart from my own obsessive-compulsive disorder, you guys are the only quality control I've got. |
|
Henrik
Dec 10th, 2007 - 4:39 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I have always checked if there's something wrong with the AM artist ranking since Kraftwerk are only at 50-something and now it looks like they're only going to be 80-something in Survivor!!! I urge you all to think twice and to broaden your view on music. A guitar is not necessary to make excellent music. I'm a little worried that we are voting out all the artists that are "different" and keep those who are "in the middle" without offending anyone. But well, that's probably survivor in a nutshell. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 10th, 2007 - 5:03 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1. Buddy Holly & the Crickets 2. Patti Smith 3. Roxy Music 4. Pulp 5. Brian Eno - If we were talking about the guy's work producing some of the greatest albums of all time it would be a different story. When it comes to his solo stuff there's nothing remarkable. |
|
Greg
Dec 10th, 2007 - 5:33 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Once again... 1. The White Stripes 2. The Beastie Boys 3. Patti Smith 4. John Coltrane 5. T. Rex |
|
schleuse
Dec 10th, 2007 - 5:52 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Quick bit of trivia—the lowest-ranked artists who have not appeared on anyone’s ballot yet are: 156. Hank Williams 136. Curtis Mayfield 91. Nick Drake 87. Leonard Cohen 66. The Stooges 61. PJ Harvey 58. New Order 53. OutKast 51. Simon and Garfunkel 48. Sonic Youth Hope I’m not jinxing these folks by pointing this out; just thought it was interesting. |
|
Jonah
Dec 10th, 2007 - 5:56 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1.Patti Smith 2.Paul Simon 3.The Byrds 4.Nick Cave 5. Fleetwood Mac - it still is interesting to have a blockbuster selling featuring the internal dynamics of recently divorced bandmates. The music is sounding a little bland and not very revolutionary, compared to the smaller company of artists now. |
|
MightyMadMax
Dec 10th, 2007 - 7:13 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1) Paul Simon 2) Fleetwood Mac 3) Steely Dan 4) Al Green and... 5) Creedence Clearwater Revival. I actually caught a bit of John Fogerty at Glastonbury this year, and enjoyed it, but still when I sifted through that list at the top of this page, almost every other name made me think 'I really like at least something by them'. I didn't think that for CCR. |
|
Loophole
Dec 10th, 2007 - 7:55 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1. Madonna (5 pts) - She has some good songs, but its her version of American Pie I'm thinking of now. 2. Patti Smith (4 pts) - Because the Night is pretty good, but I think's she's overrated. 3. Elliot Smith (3 pts) - Too hushed and breathy. 4. U2 (2 pts) - wasted vote. 5. Police (1 pt) - another wasted vote. |
|
Moonbeam
Dec 10th, 2007 - 8:05 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I concur with Henrik about Kraftwerk. I'd also be really bummed to see Madonna and The Cure (both of whom are top 5 artists for me) take an exit. |
|
John
Dec 10th, 2007 - 8:34 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1. Tom Waits 2. Blur 3. Steely Dan 4. Nick Cave 5. Curtis Mayfield- Hey, somebody had to take him down a notch. He's like Nick Cave to me. I respect his work but I just am not into it. Everybody else on the list has at least 2-3 songs I like except these 5 artists so respect goes out the door and I have to just vote for what I like. Now that the Band is gone there are only two bands that I don't have any respect for at all. |
|
nicolas
Dec 10th, 2007 - 9:34 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1. Madonna : until she's gone, she'll have my 5 points 2. New Order : I know, I know, New Order is untouchable because of the Joy Division devotion which is raging now But I've tried to hear "Blue Monday" and I just can't listen to this cold music. That's all. 3. Talking Heads : I've got serious problems with 80's cold wave with guys singings like they have swallowed a robot. They probably are great artists (especially Talking Heads, they are excellent musicians) but this music makes me want to hit the "stop" button. I'm really sorry, but that's my blind spot. 4. Patti Smith : I realized the 2 songs by her that I like are covers (Van Morrison and Springsteen). I'm not particulary moved by her so-called beat poetry which is hardly better than Morrison's (Jim) but without a Manzarek or a Krieger behind. Nevertheless, her sound is not too bad (like Talking Heads) but that's not enough to maintain her. 5. Joni Mitchell : I love folk, but her brand of folk leaves me indifferent. Can't say I like, can't say I dislike. Indifference is a terrible thing. This gale is terrible. You spend your time playing the part of a prosecutor or the DA in a trial. These are the charges we are pressing against you.. |
|
DrDre
Dec 11th, 2007 - 12:25 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Last week, I took the doubtful honour to be the first to vote Sinatra off, and after Anthony did as well, the moose was loose and quite some reactions came. Although I think he will still last for at least 2 or 3 weeks, I have to put him into top position (my first 3 from last week all left the island): 5 points - Frank Sinatra 4 points - Fleetwood Mac My newly selected artists that get the sack: 3 points - Nick Cave - His albums don't touch me enough. It takes a long time to get into the music and I just prefer the raw, dramatic singing of PJ Harvey. 2 points - Buddy Holly & the Crickets - Really sad, he died so young. The Crickets' album is one of my favorites, but that's it. His complete work is too small compared to other artists to reach the top 50 acclaim. 1 point - T. Rex - Another artist that was on my initial list of 15 to vote off immediately. Slipped through the maze for the first few weeks, but now the party is over and our glamour boy can go shine somewhere else. |
|
Rune
Dec 11th, 2007 - 9:08 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Let's see what I dislike this week. #1 (5p) Madonna - It's music for little girls. #2 (4p) Marvin Gaye - I guess I'm just not a Gaye man. #3 (3p) James Brown - After last week, I tried listening to him again. Still can't understand the words. I wonder what he would have sounded like sober. #4 (2p) Creedence Clearwater Revival - Still the most boring band that ever existed. #5 (1p) Chuck Berry - I wouldn't eat that Berry. |
|
nicolas
Dec 11th, 2007 - 12:46 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Rune, what a fine humorist you are.. that joke about Marvin... Sure you can't appreciate him |
|
Neoptolemos
Dec 11th, 2007 - 1:58 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1) Beastie Boys - The made two decent songs that have been overplayed and are associated to frat parties so much it makes me sick just listening to them. They didn't even play any instruments on their first (and arguably least bad) albums.. this is no band, this is crap. I don't know why I didn't put these guys first from the start.. 2) Beck 2) Public Enemy 3) Nirvana 5) Parliament/Funkadelic |
|
schleuse
Dec 11th, 2007 - 4:00 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Returning: 1. FLEETWOOD MAC 2. PAUL SIMON 3. THE DOORS 4. KRAFTWERK. Time for my regular bi-weekly apology to Henrik and Moonbeam (2 weeks ago it was for Depeche Mode). Believe me, I’m familiar with Kraftwerk, I understand them, and when I’m in the right mood, I even kind of like them. But SH2B86. New: 5. ELLIOTT SMITH. Having been familiar only with “Miss Misery” from its appearance in an overrated Matt Damon/Ben Affleck movie (but I repeat myself), I downloaded all of his other songs ranked on this site. Conclusion: not bad, and I can see how he’d become somebody’s favorite, but a little out of his depth in present company. This might be a provisional pick, though, and as I keep listening to artists I don’t know well, I could see putting someone else ahead of him. I think most of us have gotten to the point where we’re starting to include artists we actually like and respect. |
|
Neoptolemos
Dec 11th, 2007 - 4:21 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
For me there's a few left, but we're pretty close. Not to mention the great artists you dummies already voted off. 
|
|
Nicolas
Dec 11th, 2007 - 4:30 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Well, Schleuse, that depends on how open-minded we are But the good point is maybe some of us are going to be less negative. The game is cool, but if it is only an opportunity for some to shoot acts down in flames, it will soon lose its interest. |
|
schleuse
Dec 11th, 2007 - 4:35 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
One thing’s been bothering me about the points the Beastie Boys have been getting—a frequent complaint about them is that they appeal to loutish frat boys. There are some problems here: 1. This complaint applies primarily to Licensed to Ill, which is a little like judging the Beatles on the basis of Please Please Me. They’ve come a long way since then. 2. I went to college in the late 80s and early 90s, and it looked to me like frat guys were just as likely to be listening to the Replacements or Violent Femmes as to the Beastie Boys. I know the ridiculous sexism of many of the songs on Licensed to Ill (though tame compared to a lot of later rap) earned them the rep of being the official band of drunk horny white guys, but that’s like assuming that Caddyshack is a realistic representation of golf. 3. (And this is really the big one) I feel…uncomfortable with the idea of judging artists based on who listens to them. Probably most artists on this list have been enjoyed by bigots, nincompoops, reactionaries, and predators (Charlie Manson on the White Album, anyone?)—but that’s just not relevant to evaluating their music. Country music (which I love) has always had its share of virulently racist fans. Skinheads in the UK rallied around ska in the late 70s and Morrissey in the early 90s. If you don’t like the Beasties’ music, I understand (Neoptolemos, I gather your main objection is the music, not the frat-boy association). But I hope we can find better reasons to vote artists off the island than the reputation of their audience. (And on a related note, I don't think Madonna's music is for little girls. I think it's music for Gaye men.) |
|
Neoptolemos
Dec 11th, 2007 - 5:32 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
It is mainly about their music, I try not to get influenced by what artists do or represent but sometimes it's almost inevitable. |
|
Schwah
Dec 11th, 2007 - 5:51 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Somehow still in the tribal counsel: 1. The Cure 2. Kraftwerk 3. The Doors 4. Roxy Music New vote getters: 5. Joni Mitchell - I'm now getting into the votes for artists whose work I am admittedly less familiar with, as opposed to those where I felt like I knew enough of their work to pass judgment. In many cases, my unfamiliarity is based upon not caring for my limited taste, and therefore not motivated to seek more. And so is the case for Ms. Mitchell. I was not taken by Blue, or the other songs of hers I've heard. Hard to place what I don't care for. The airiness in her voice is one. I respect her experimentation, but what I have heard has never connected with me. |
|
nicolas
Dec 11th, 2007 - 6:27 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
You're right schleuse, in France Madonna is a gay icon One of my friends who was a gay writer, publisher and activist (he tragically died 2 years ago) used to say that Madonna was the most important political figure of these last 20 years. Exaggerated ? Of course But the problem for me is not the woman, that I appreciate but the music that I find uninteresting and accessory I mean she doesn't write her own stuff and keeps changing with the moods : once dance, then electro, the pop, etc.. |
|
Henrik
Dec 11th, 2007 - 7:05 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1. Ramones 2. Buddy Holly & The Crickets 3. Patti Smith 4. John Coltrane - Having released dozens of albums per year doesn't impress me. Also, I've never really gotten into 'A Love Supreme'. My favourite Coltrane record is 'Giant Steps', but even that I don't go back to very often. 5. Wilco - Although Wilco gave me one of the best concerts in my life a few years ago, they're on my list already. I'm just never in the mood for Wilco on record. |
|
schleuse
Dec 11th, 2007 - 7:11 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
She's not just a gay icon in France, my friend. I don't mind her new look and (allegedly) new sound every album--after all, Bowie did that. But I won't be upset to see her go, whether it's this week or not. Her presence in Survivor has more to do with the sheer volume of her 24-years-and-counting career than anything else (though there are 2 or 3 good songs in there). By my count, there are three artists left in Survivor who are performers but, for the most part, not songwriters: Madonna, Sinatra, and Elvis. In that group, Ms. Ciccone is dead last as a performer (but first in public relations--she could have taught Tom Parker a thing or two). |
|
Henrik
Dec 11th, 2007 - 7:33 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
What do you mean Madonna is not a songwriter? Hasn't she written almost all her material from 1986? I love Madonna! |
|
Anthony
Dec 11th, 2007 - 7:33 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
My ballot will be coming (eventually), but I needed to chime in here. First of all, welcome aboard the E. Smith train, schleuse; you’re in good company. Hopefully it changes from “provisional” to “cemented”. Re: the Non-Songwriting Three (Madge, Blue Eyes, Pelvis) – I look at that group and Sinatra sticks out like a sore thumb. It seems to me that Madonna and Elvis were, for the most part, more controversial (which doesn’t necessarily make them better artists, but I respect those who challenge cultural norms.) And at least those two contributed in the songwriting department (Madonna moreso than Elvis; she wrote at least half of “True Blue”.) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m not sure if Sinatra wrote even one of his songs. |
|
Loophole
Dec 11th, 2007 - 8:24 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
(1) The group of fans to which an artist appeals is often attributable to the sound of the music. Saying that you dislike the Beastie Boys "because they appeal to frat boys" may be a shorthand way of saying that you don't like "the kind of music that appeals to frat boys." (That's not the case for me. I know one particular trust-fund/frat boy that made me dislike the Beastie Boys. Total A-hole. Took me years to grudgingly admit that the Beastie Boys had some musical value.) (2) A lot of decisions about what kind of music to like are based on the social group that we identify with. In many cases, meaning the group identity comes before and guides the decision whether to "like" a particular kind of music (i.e., skaters like skater music; hippies like hippie music). There is, at the very least, a strong association between our social group the music we like. Music = Identity, Identity = Music. (Do you think some gays may be faking" their devotion to Madonna just to fit in better?) I think it can also work in reverse too. So I don't really see anything wrong with using the fan base as grounds for voting an act off the island. And the fact that we identify so strongly with our favorite music might be part of the reason why we get so bent out of shape when people criticize our favorite bands. I could care less if you criticize my favorite food, but if you trash Hank Williams you are getting personal!! |
|
nicolas
Dec 11th, 2007 - 9:06 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
What you said Loophole is very true about music and social identification. Being French and miles away from America sets me free of these social influences. I can like country, rock, rap, even some metal and -exception all the same without picturing myself the different social groups backing these styles. On the other hand, there are some styles in French music that I just can't stand, not because the music is bad, but because I can't stand the people who like it (I'm thinking of the Nouvelle chanson française scene, and worse, of all these bands trying to play that gypsy Django Reinhardt style - I love Django but not his imitators. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 11th, 2007 - 9:48 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Being listed as a songwriter is not the same as writing a song. Madonna and Elvis are frequently credited simply for financial reasons, though neither had much to do with the songwriting. Even now that she is an established singer Madonna never writes beyond, at the most, simple chords and lyrics. All arrangements and production are entrusted to more capable talents. |
|
John
Dec 11th, 2007 - 11:04 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
You can say that about a good percentage of all pop or rock songwriters jonmarck. I guarantee a very good majority of them only came up with simple chords and lyrics and the rest was filled in along the way. I don't think too many songwriters actually know how to arrange a score. Some do. Most don't. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 11th, 2007 - 11:21 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
well yeah, that's why pop and most rock sucks ass. Any good musician makes their own music. It's the difference between an entertainer (Elvis, Madonna, JT) and an artist. |
|
John
Dec 11th, 2007 - 11:29 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
So now you're making the claim that music sucks if the artist didn't write the entire score? Wow. Have fun with that. |
|
Rocky Raccoon
Dec 12th, 2007 - 1:15 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Anyway, back to the actual game. Well, the Jam are gone now, so one more gets my vote. 1) T. Rex - Too mediocre to be in the top 100. Go Bang a Gong somewhere else. Still on the island? How? 2) Kraftwerk - Beep Beep Boop Whirrr Buzzz Bleep Bloop Beep Bop Whirr Buzz Buzz Beep Boop. I have a heart and a soul not a hard drive and processors, so this doesn't appeal to me. I'm sure 3CPO and R2D2 love the shit out of these guys, though. 3) The Cure - A few good songs, but would you like some cheese with that whine? And dude, you're like 40-something now, enough with the ridiculous makeup and hair. 4) Nick Cave - Because of a recommendation from someone I checked him out more. Was going to give him a pass this week and vote off Depeche Mode. Well, they're gone now, so he's back on the list. 5) Little Richard - A couple of pretty good '50s piano rockers and a Geico commercial, but what else? |
|
schleuse
Dec 12th, 2007 - 2:08 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Mashed potatoes! Cranberry sauce! Wooooooo! |
|
schleuse
Dec 12th, 2007 - 2:12 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I just realized that anybody who hasn't seen Little Richard's Geico commercial must think I just had a psychotic episode... |
|
jonmarck
Dec 12th, 2007 - 2:35 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I have and I still didn't get the reference. I think my mind mentally blocks out stuff associated with Little Richard. John the musicians that I respect make music. They don't hire other people to do it for them. |
|
Keith
Dec 12th, 2007 - 2:59 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
1. Madonna 2. Little Richard 3. Sex Pistols - Influential? Sure. But not an enjoyable listen in my opinion. 4. Ray Charles 5. Outkast - Just not my style |
|
Anthony
Dec 12th, 2007 - 3:02 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I recently stumbled across a great Seinfeld fansite, and its forum is using a similar Survivor-type game to determine the series' greatest episode. Very cool. But anyway, let's get down to brass tacks here... 1. Beastie Boys: this is just a consistently discouraging vote, because it sure as hell ain't doing a lot of good. But I stand by it. 2. Elliott Smith: for reasons previously mentioned. 3. Ramones: bad. 4. Frank Sinatra: back to Sinatra. Contrary to my "note to self" remark last week (which, more or less was a joke), I appreciated everyone's comments. I went back and listened to "Wee Small Hours" - the only album I own - and it basically re-confirmed everything I wrote previously. Maybe "Vegas-lounge drivel" was extreme, but I'm still not captivated by Frankie, on any level. I can appreciate his talent, of course, but I still don't feel anything when I listen to him. When he sings a lyric like "I could lay me down and die ("Mood Indigo"), I simply don't buy it. Unlike something like, say, "...you and I are gonna live forever...". which, everytime I hear that line, makes me think I'm immortal. Or "...today is the greatest day I've ever known..." - another poignant gem. I know it seems like I'm comparing apples and oranges here, but I'm really not. At the end of the day, music draws us in emotionally through a combination of lyrics and music, and the combinations that captivate some may not make such an indelible impression on others. 5. Madonna: *new entry* - Longevity in the industry is admirable, but not when it's the result of reaping the benefits of hired-gun songwriters and producers (Leonard, Orbit, etc.) and using controversy as a gimmick. Burning crosses and sex books aren't artistic statements - they're dollar signs. |
|
Moonbeam
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:10 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Just thought I'd chime in to defend Madonna. While she may not be as musically gifted as most of the artists remaining, her cultural impact is certainly larger than nearly everyone on the list (and certainly any female artist)- in fact, I think hundreds of years down the line, she'll be among the top 5 most remembered artists from the era covered by all of these artists. As their placement in the AM lists will attest, I believe that several Madonna songs will go down in history and be revered as genuine pop classics. Yes, she had her influences (she seems to have taken quite a few cues from Debbie Harry, for one), but the history of female pop music can pretty much be divided into two segments: before Madonna and after Madonna. Moreover, her music has an appeal well beyond gays and little girls, as some posters have mentioned. You would be surprised to see the makeup of a Madonna concert- I myself was expecting to be one of the only straight guys there, but I was pleasantly surprised to be wrong. On a more embarrassing note, you can catch me on one of her DVDs. I attended the concert in Detroit which was filmed and broadcast on HBO and later released as the Drowned World DVD. I'm seen with my blonde hair jumping around in the front row during "Holiday", "Ray of Light", "Candy Perfume Girl" and "Beautiful Stranger". My brother and I were even recognized on the street in Toronto once from this! |
|
Anthony
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:13 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Crazy! I'm going to go rent that right now! Not. |
|
Moonbeam
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:15 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Hater!
|
|
Anthony
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:21 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I'm sure you're an above-average looking guy, Moonbeam (and I say that with an unblemished record of staunch heterosexuality,) but it's not enough for me to want to spend the better part of two hours watching a Madonna concert. |
|
Moonbeam
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:23 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Not even for the jelly bracelets? |
|
Rocky Raccoon
Dec 12th, 2007 - 6:18 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Cough, cough, cough, hey, did anyone see that Bears game on Sunday? (that's a Planes, Trains and Automobiles reference.) |
|
Slush
Dec 12th, 2007 - 6:24 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I'll watch it and gosh darnit, I'm pretty sure I'll still be a straight man afterwards. I saw her at Coachella a few years ago, which was abysmal due to the crowd so I've wanted to see that tour. I'm not sure how Madge is going to move on after all these early votes, but it would be sad if she didn't. Really, Little Richard > Madge? GOOD GOLLY! |
|
Anthony
Dec 12th, 2007 - 6:28 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Hey, Rocky... wasn't it you that got a boner during our group hug a while back? You're not fooling anyone. |
|
Rocky Raccoon
Dec 12th, 2007 - 7:42 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Thanks for noticing, weren't you on the other side of the huddle? |
|
Midaso
Dec 12th, 2007 - 9:42 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Anthony - your comments always make me laugh. Just putting 'bad' for The Ramones made me laugh even harder. Alright I think I've voted for these all before 1)Beastie Boys 2)Elliott Smith 3)Kraftwerk 4)Creedence Clearwater Revival 5)Brian Eno |
|
nicolas
Dec 12th, 2007 - 10:00 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Looks like I've seen the name "Creedence" a little too much on some lists time to retaliate... |
|
Greg
Dec 12th, 2007 - 1:30 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Re: John the musicians that I respect make music. They don't hire other people to do it for them. So you can't tell if something's good or not until you know how and by whom it was written? |
|
jonmarck
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:18 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I can usually tell by listening to something how it was written/produced. I don't have to search through the liner notes to know that Avril Lavigne's Let Go was not written by Avril. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:28 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
...also... I research all of the albums I buy, and if I buy something just because it catches my eye the first thing I'll do when I get home is look it up on the the internet. Usually the best part about an album for me is the story behind it. |
|
Anthony
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:36 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I’m with jonmarck on this. As I’ve written before, my favorite artists tend to be the ones that write and perform their own material. (I think this relates to why I’m not a fan of Sinatra, Elvis or Madonna.) Also, like jonmarck, I’m fascinated with the stories behind certain albums/artists. One common story that I’m attracted to is artists or bands that release a single or definitive piece of work and then disappear shortly thereafter (eg. The Zombies, Neutral Milk Hotel, Jeff Buckley, New Radicals, My Bloody Valentine, etc.) |
|
nicolas
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:48 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Robert Johnson too |
|
Anthony
Dec 12th, 2007 - 5:50 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Yes, Robert Johnson! Definitely. Any others? |
|
Greg
Dec 12th, 2007 - 6:21 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
i'm not making an argument for a strict formalism. who doesn't love a good story? and sure, anything we know about an artist affects how we listen to it - sometimes it enhances, sometimes it doesn't. but do you really need to do research to know what kind of background nina simone had? can't you just hear it in her voice? that's the test for me - does some sense of the artist's personality really come through in the song (even if what we imagine that to be is completely wrong)? does the artist really make the song his/her own? put their individual stamp on it? interpret it in an utterly unique way? if yes - sinatra, george jones, aretha, etc. - i don't give a damn who wrote the stupid song. what's your take on covers? what's the best version of all along the watchtower? september song? i fought the law? |
|
JR
Dec 12th, 2007 - 7:07 PM |
LOL!
Moon, I'll have to check for ya on that. :) And how nice not to be the first to chime in with a defense.  Among some, Madonna surely is underestimated as a collaborator in the songwriting/production proces. No matter who she works with, it always ends up sounding like her. And, come on now- if she weren't viewed as a template for what she does and revered, would she be as acclaimed as she is? (her and the music) Plus, she has avery stong shot at being inducted into the R&R Hall of Fame come the announcement tomorrow- so, I think it's time for the old debate to end- yes, she is worthy.  My 5 to vote off: 1. Steely Dan 2. Nick Cave 3. Beck 4. Elliott Smith 5. Nick Drake |
|
nicolas
Dec 12th, 2007 - 7:23 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Arthur Rimbaud |
|
Schwah
Dec 12th, 2007 - 7:39 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Good questions, Greg. I'm with you on this. And while I concede and am largely satisfied that the "auteur" theory holds true far more for music than it does for film, I also don't want to discount that music is very often a collaborative exercise. And I reject the idea that collaboration -- including a non-performer writing the subject song -- devalues the music. Taken to the extreme, this sentiment means that David Gilmour's participation on Roger Waters' penned songs (or John Lennon's on Paul McCartney's) devalues the work, and vice versa. In popular music, the auteur theory (so self-evident that we don't even need an "auteur theory" like they do in film) is maintained when collaborators assume a single name like "the Beatles" or "Pink Floyd." (And with Pink Floyd, it gets even stickier.. cause are you voting for Syd Barrett era or otherwise. OutKast presents a similar issue.) But that's just part of the picture. When I did not vote to kick off Missy Elliott, it's because I like her music. But I was fully aware that I was voting for Timbaland's work on songs released under her moniker also. Is Timbaland a hired hand or a collaborator? That's a false dichotomy. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 12th, 2007 - 8:56 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
That's why I don't take it to extremes. Here is the best way of explaining it: If music is self-expression and the music is largely written by someone other than the artist then the artist is not expressing themselves. Of course there are instances where this has worked really well (I'm a big fan of the first two Bat out of Hell's) but what must be acknowledged is that the music is less authentic, less personal. If the music is not meant to be authentic or personal (Motown, for example) then this might be an efficient way of organizing the workload. However the artist still has the same task; make something interesting to listen to, and by contracting out the work the artist has just lost one of the easiest (easiest for people with talent that is) ways to make a song worthwhile; giving the audience a person to relate to directly, rather than having to peek behind the curtains to see the real wizard, as in the Bat out of Hell case. Contracting out the work is almost a sure sign that the artist is extremely limited in the breadth of their talent, which is never respectable. Some acknowledge this, even if not directly. Meat Loaf knows he's an actor and a singer, not a songwriter. Frank Sinatra knew he was more entertainer than artist. It's when they start with the pretensions; trying to be taken seriously as an artist (Avril, Madonna), that my bullshit detector starts ringing and my lunch starts rising. |
|
John
Dec 12th, 2007 - 8:59 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I just had a problem with jonmarck saying that if the songwriter didn't compose the entire song it can't be respected. I would bet that would take away at least 95 percent of every song written in the past 50 years. How about Bob Dylan? He didn't completely write all of those songs. His backing band came up with a lot of the instrumentation. Or Lennon/McCartney? George Martin, their hired producer had a good deal to do with the way those songs were written. I think there are a small handful of songwriters in the past 50 years that have had total control over the finished song. If that's what you want to limit your catalog to go ahead. But, I have a feeling you don't limit your catalog to just that yet you are trashing artists that don't stick to those stringent rules. |
|
nicolas
Dec 12th, 2007 - 9:26 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
I don't agree with the songwriter-only attitude, although you'll notice in my top 100 my love for songwriters. I think that as long as what you're hearing is good and authentic, who wrote or who didn't doesn't matter. Anyway this theory only works for pop/rock. In classical music, that would mean every conductor, avery great performer isn't an artist : Karajan isn't an artist, Solti isn't an artist, la Callas isn't an artist. In blues, folk and and world music, to a lesser extent country, it has absolutely no sense, because songs are carried from musician to musician : did Robert Johnson write "Cross road" or "Sweet Home Chicago" ? No, he just heard bits of songs once and made another one out of these. I could name you a half-dozen recordings that are pre-"Sweet home chicago". Even Elvis' "That's all right mama" is very different from Arthur Big Boy Crudup's original version. In rap and electro the songwriting doesn't exist. You generally build your own piece of music with other pre-recorded material. Numerous jazz pieces consisted of recycling of pop songs So I think what really matters is what you hear. I know fantastic covers (you named "All along the watchtower", there's also "Hallelujah", "House Of The Risong Sun") that completely transfigure the original versions. I'm saying that although my favorite artists are The Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young or Neil Hannon who are pure songwriters. But my love goes also to Johnny Cash, who wrote a small part of his works, or Leadbelly (off-topic because he was a songster and not a songwriter) |
|
jonmarck
Dec 12th, 2007 - 10:12 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Look John you're the one taking it to extremes. All I said was I respect musicians who make their own music, they don't hire other people to do it for them. Of course if it's a simple string arrangement here and there, well, big deal, that's more a chore than anything else. Who cares if that gets contracted out. When it comes to Dylan's music, it would be way worse if he DID try to score the things. Those depend on improvisation, but that's why no one listens to Dylan for the arrangements! Everything important about his music, the lyrics, the structure, the feel, he took care of himself. That's a far cry from Elvis, whose career was removed from his control practically from day one. |
|
John
Dec 12th, 2007 - 10:53 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Eh, we're not going to agree here, but what you said about Dylan translates perfectly to Elvis, Madonna and any other person who didn't have complete control over the finished project. That is not what is important about their music just like the arrangements aren't important to what makes Dylan's music great. Music doesn't need a formula...every great artist, every great song or album have different qualities to explain why they are great. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 12th, 2007 - 11:21 PM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
That is hardly accurate. When it comes to popstars like Elvis and Sinatra the amount of creative control they wield is analogous to a mouse trying to pull an elephant. Once that elephant picks where it wants to go that mouse is just going to get dragged along. The labels/managers have so much reign over these people it's closer to slavery than artistry. The types of contracts that governed their careers gave them so little creative control that it would be more accurate to say that Colonel Tom was the artist. |
|
Greg
Dec 13th, 2007 - 12:02 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Ok. First, the art/entertainment binary is, aside from being the earmark of snobbery, a fanciful and untenable position. I don't care how you define the two - if I breathe on it, it's gonna collapse. Second, you make the session musicians, to whom the "work" is contracted out, sound like retarded robots. Sometimes true, but often not. The session players on Highway 61, for instance, had quite a bit to do with the album's unique sound - Bloomfield was one of the best guitarists of the '60s and Al Kooper is a perennial session great. If Dylan had played lead guitar on the album it would've sounded like total shit. Fortunately, he was smart enough to hire someone else. So substantial but not exclusive credit can go to Dylan. Elvis Costello, Lou Reed and Stephin Merritt are other examples of brilliant songwriters who are not technically proficient on any instrument - no reason to hold them in any lower esteem than true musical prodigies like Prince and Stevie Wonder, in my opinion. Third, the difference between a "hired" musician and a band member is merely nominal. For example, we're both big fans of The Band, who, of course, were at one point a backing group, and some of whose best songs are Dylan covers. According to you, only one person at a time gets credit for self-expression while everyone else I guess just kind of plays along. I'm not sure how this would apply to The Band. For me, it's hard to think of a better example of a genuinely collaborative group - what is The Last Waltz if not a tribute to influence and collaboration? Perhaps the problem is that the the phrase "artists who make their own music" is terribly vague. It basically tosses the entire genre of rap/hip-hop out the window. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 13th, 2007 - 12:47 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Well, I'll give you the last sentence. The tough thing about this argument is that it's terribly difficult to explain my position while taking into account the vast differences in music, especially if I want to keep it short. Yes, the session musicians on Dylan's albums were valuable contributors. Not as valuable as you make them out to be, in fact I think it was the type of thing where any slob with a guitar could've fit in well (which was kind of the point), but, yes, Dylan could not have done it alone. But you're not understanding the meaning of arrangement. Improvisations are not arrangements, especially when even the number of musicians playing isn't set in stone until the tape starts rolling (and even then...). What shows to me that I'm either not explaining properly or you're not understanding completely is that you consider Elvis Costello to be one of the artists I'm criticizing. In fact he was the one that I was trying to describe! He has such an extraordinary command of the craft that hacks like Madonna could only dream of replicating. In my opinion he represents one of the best examples of what a proper musician should be capable of. I'm not saying a good musician shouldn't collaborate. I'm saying they shouldn't be forced into it from severe short-comings on their part, usually resulting from ignorance, laziness and only a passing interest in the craft (usually just to get rich and famous or, like Beyonce, launch themselves into more lucrative industries like film). I respect someone who makes music to a respectable level. No, they don't have to have made EVERY piece of music ever invented. They just have to impress me. As much as I enjoy Ray of Light, Madonna is a hack. She doesn't impress me. So I have no respect for her (which is an oversimplification. I actually have a great deal of respect for the way she is able to adapt to different trends and portray herself in different ways. She has an amazing understanding of image. Alas, this is not music, or, at least, is a very small part of it.) And there is no problem with differentiating between artist and entertainer. I think the line is actually quite clear. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 13th, 2007 - 12:54 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
In case the line is actually not quite clear here's an analogy: McDonald's is entertainment, fine dining is art. One is temporary, disposable, quick, commercial and fun (while it lasts). The other has substance. I wonder how our musical tastes would differ were we forced to digest it as frequently as food. |
|
John
Dec 13th, 2007 - 1:27 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Yeah, Elvis and Madonna are so temporary. Flash in the pan I tell ya. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 13th, 2007 - 1:50 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
uh....yeah How many times have YOU spun Like a Virgin in the last 6 months? They are solid entertainers. They are not artists, at least not at the level that their celebrity suggests. |
|
Loophole
Dec 13th, 2007 - 2:27 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Does it matter if the song is written by the singer? Or will the bass player suffice? If the bass player is OK, what about the manager? |
|
schleuse
Dec 13th, 2007 - 2:37 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Wow. I don't really want to jump into this, except to say that trying to draw hard-and-fast boundaries (say, between "artists" and mere "entertainers") in any art form is like trying to nail jelly to the ceiling. Sorry, jonmarck. Line not clear. More importantly, line not necessary. ... Meanwhile, back at Survivor...JR, I need explanations for your picks, please. After this week, you don't have to comment on these artists again, but everyone must explain their reasons for voting an artist out the first time they do it. Especially because you're the first person to vote out Nick Drake! |
|
jonmarck
Dec 13th, 2007 - 2:43 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
They're entirely different skills. I don't think that anyone would disagree with the statement that Nick Drake was NOT an entertainer! |
|
John
Dec 13th, 2007 - 2:46 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Actually I just listened to Bedtime Stories a couple days ago. |
|
JR
Dec 13th, 2007 - 2:46 AM |
jonny boy...
if you were to say Britney Spears is a hack, then, yes, I probably could see that point. But Madonna? You gotta be kiddin' me. I mean, everyone has their viewpoints and such, but lawdy. It's OK if you're not a fan, but as long as you understand that many out there DO see her as a viable artist/collaborator and such, it's fine. Both her albums and singles are decently acclaimed, as she is an an artist- no one's saying she's a Joni Mitchell musically, but she certainly has merged art and commerce probably better than anyone over the last 25 years, and for the pop world, she often is looked at as the template. That's why she's often given props by non-mainstream acts/outlets. And, of course, her cultural impact via what she's done with her work (music, videos, stage) is unparalleled. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 13th, 2007 - 3:18 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Well I wouldn't consider her my primary target, and, hey, there is a lot I respect about what she accomplished, especially culturally, but she's no musician, at least nowhere near what her celebrity suggests. Just the fact that she lip synchs her performances tells us where her and her audience's priorities lie. What she does is closer to what magicians and actors do than what musicians do. |
|
schleuse
Dec 13th, 2007 - 3:42 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
Funny we're talking about Drake now--I just listened to him (consciously) for the first time last week, as part of my crash-course review for Survivor. Five Leaves Left. Just gorgeous--introspective, layered, melodic. Is he an artist? Yep. Is he an entertainer? Yep. If you are a musician, you are both. You are trying to express something, to practice your skill, to play-act, to move your audience, and to make a living. All of those things motivate(d) Nick Drake and Britney Spears and Joni Mitchell and the Monkees and Bob Dylan and Justin Timberlake and Robert Johnson and Madonna. Of course each artist may emphasize some motivations and downplay others, but I'm not smart enough to read their minds to figure out which is which. I can make educated guesses, sure, but really...what's the point? All we can really do is look at the results. Guess I am getting involved in this conversation. Oh well. |
|
jonmarck
Dec 13th, 2007 - 4:23 AM |
Re: AM Survivor: Week 4
"Of course each artist may emphasize some motivations and downplay others" Right, which is what I'm getting at. Madonna, Elvis, etc. downplay the whole music part of being a musician. Their talent is in being celebrities; in shaping their image (or hiring others to shape it for them). |