# The Magic Is Gone



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Paul McCartney was in town last night. I didn't go but I just checked out some clips on YouTube. He sounds like an old man who can't sing because he is. Are you a desperate old boomer who will pay inflated ticket prices to see an over the hill rock / pop legend? McCartney, Dylan, The Stones, Yes with no original members, Lightfoot, etc? I certainly won't. If you feel differently please express your reasons for paying big bucks to see these old timers.

We have a jazz fest coming up this summer and they've booked Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. They are not jazz artists and their combined ages total 161 years. Is this what concert promotors think jazz fans want to experience in person? With all the phenomenal young jazz artists in need of a gig in front of a sizeable audience surely these festivals could book more actual jazz musicians instead of 80 year old former pop stars.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Unfortunately, musicians do not have a pension plan. Many of them NEED the money.

Not Mac of course. He just likes performing.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm sure there are plenty of Casinos that will book these folks but I don't want them booked at my city's jazz festival.


----------



## 59540 (May 16, 2021)

Bill Wyman, formerly of the Stones, is 85. I thought he'd passed away but he's apparently still living. I think Mick Jagger once said he'd rather be dead than still singing "Satisfaction" when he's 45. I think he's 80 next year.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

NoCoPilot said:


> Unfortunately, musicians do not have a pension plan. Many of them NEED the money.


I have no sympathy. They could have put the money aside during their career. It is only common sense.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Common Sense isn't very Rock 'N Roll.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

dissident said:


> Bill Wyman, formerly of the Stones, is 85. I thought he'd passed away but he's apparently still living.


It was Charlie died last year (Aug. 24).

And of course, Keith gets regular blood transfusions from aborted fetuses


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

starthrower said:


> Paul McCartney was in town last night. I didn't go but I just checked out some clips on YouTube. He sounds like an old man who can't sing because he is. Are you a desperate old boomer who will pay inflated ticket prices to see an over the hill rock / pop legend? McCartney, Dylan, The Stones, Yes with no original members, Lightfoot, etc? I certainly won't. If you feel differently please express your reasons for paying big bucks to see these old timers.
> 
> We have a jazz fest coming up this summer and they've booked Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. They are not jazz artists and their combined ages total 161 years. Is this what concert promotors think jazz fans want to experience in person? With all the phenomenal young jazz artists in need of a gig in front of a sizeable audience surely these festivals could book more actual jazz musicians instead of 80 year old former pop stars.


Honestly, it's classic Supply and Demand.

It people didn't buy tickets for the likes of Paul McCartney, Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr, and "Yes with no original members", promoters wouldn't bother booking them.

Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr are being promoted _*because*_ _"jazz fans want to experience"_ them in person. 

_"With all the phenomenal young jazz artists in need of a gig in front of a sizeable audience surely these festivals could book more actual jazz musicians instead of 80 year old former pop stars."_

Promoters don't book what YOU think are _"actual jazz musicians"_ because _"80 year old former pop stars"_ sell more tickets and make them a better profit.
they sell more tickets


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The boomers are remembering the 1960s and '70s and their years of Love and Glory. That is also why tribute bands do big business. But it is relative--I have been listening to the 90s band _Bush _recently on YouTube and was intrigued by the number of commentators remembering fondly the wonderful, golden years of the 1990s, their years of Love and Glory.


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

I was disappointed with Diana Ross' singing at the Queen's Jubilee concert on Saturday night here in the UK. She had such a gift but inevitably, now a waning one. Rod Stewart wasn't his old self neither imv.
I remember McCartney singing at the opening of the 2012 London Olympics and thinking that his 'Oh Darling' days had left him.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I don't know any jazz fans who listen to Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis. The promotors book pop acts at jazz festivals to draw pop fans and they can have them. I'll pay to see somebody else.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Even when I first got into pop/rock most of the acts I liked were either already past their best, defunct or, in the case of some solo artists, dead. It does hurt when true legends don't know when to stop. I don't know whether it's the desire to keep raking the money in or because their egos dictate that they just can't do without treading the boards once in a while in order to breathe in the adulation - or sympathy - but I'm getting the impression that many people who would see the likes of Rod Stewart, Van Morrison, the Stones (what's left of them, anyway) and Bob Dylan these days is because they don't know it they will get another chance.
I don't deny anyone the right for wanting to see their crumbling idols but there is a real whiff of denial about it all - I think anyone who pays crazy money to go to an enormo-dome to see acts long past their sell-by date risk getting the underwhelming gigs they deserve, quite honestly. In the case of Paul McCartney we all know he hasn't produced a decent album for decades but at least he did rejuvenate himself by getting a (relatively) young band behind him which did give him a shot in the arm when playing live, but when he did so he wasn't in his late 70s then...
In many cases the best thing to do these days would be to see a reputable and realistic tribute band/act for a fraction of the price - at least there is a far better chance that they will still have the chops as well as the energy.
As regards who I myself would see who fall into the 'one foot in the grave' category, the answer is none. I might have seen the Kinks had they reformed 15 or so years ago but it's far too late now - as I suspect it is for anyone whose glory era is long gone.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

NoCoPilot said:


> *Unfortunately, musicians do not have a pension plan.* Many of them NEED the money.
> 
> Not Mac of course. He just likes performing.


The American Federation of Musicians has a pension fund and thousands of musicians in the US receive pensions from it.


----------



## mbhaub (Dec 2, 2016)

And most of those pensions are quite modest. In fact, the AFM was on the verge of having to reduce benefits until the US Govt (foolishly) printed and pumped trillions of money out of the blue and the Butch Lewis act bailed out pensions.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I didn't start this thread to talk about the financial needs of older musicians. The question was which of these elderly performers are worth paying your hard earned money to go see and hear? I have paid to see Steve Hackett, and Richard Thompson, both in their 70s and it was well worth it. I would not pay to go hear anyone who can no longer sing including Dylan, McCartney, and Ian Anderson. I saw Mose Allison when he was 77 and he was terrific! Still full of energy and sounding great. This coming Sunday I'm going to see the Zappa Band. Both Bobby Martin and Ray White can still sing very well for their ages. And of course the overall musicianship is of the charts. I'm looking forward to this show!


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

starthrower said:


> I don't know any jazz fans who listen to Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis. The promotors book pop acts at jazz festivals to draw pop fans and they can have them. I'll pay to see somebody else.


I didn't know there were any jazz fans left under the age of 70

I play jazz, and when I was a kid, I thought old people liked jazz. Turns out that what most old people like is what they listened to in high school. In the 1970s, when I was a young musician, the old people of the time listened to music in the 1940s. That was jazz. Now, the old people of today listen to classic rock.

my guess is that what the festival promoters were looking for primarily was someone they could actually get that had some name recognition. Besides, Marilyn McCoo is an R& B singer, that's close enough for a festival promoter



not saying its right, I'm just sayin...


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There are a lot of young people playing and listening to jazz. And not just 60 year old albums by dead musicians.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

starthrower said:


> I didn't start this thread to talk about the financial needs of older musicians. The question was which of these elderly performers are worth paying your hard earned money to go see and hear? I have paid to see Steve Hackett, and Richard Thompson, both in their 70s and it was well worth it. I would not pay to go hear anyone who can no longer sing including Dylan, McCartney, and Ian Anderson. I saw Mose Allison when he was 77 and he was terrific! Still full of energy and sounding great.


Many singers lose their pipes, and horn players lose their wind (or embouchure). Piano players and bassists can play 'til they drop dead. Surprisingly many top-notch drummers still play into their eighties and nineties too.

Of the popular bands I grew up with, I wouldn't pay a nickle to see any of them. I'm not stuck in the past.


Ricky Nelson said:


> If memories are all I sing, I'd rather drive a truck.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

NoCoPilot said:


> Of the popular bands I grew up with, I wouldn't pay a nickle to see any of them. I'm not stuck in the past.


Are you saying you would not go back in the time machine to experience the bands singing their stuff then? Or are you saying that even if groups today are their own tribute bands performing the oldies, that you would not attend? Or both?

I myself love the old songs enough to see/hear them over again performed by either new tribute bands or the above bands doing their old stuff. Though it's getting old itself the band calling itself Mickey Thomas' Jefferson Starship did an amazing concert in Vegas and filmed on YouTube, with only Thomas as a somewhat original member The same with Styx, Bee Gees, etc. Pop seems to survive such reviving somewhat better than Rock--simpler songs that may be less dependent upon the idiosyncrasies of the original performers, though the tribute bands seem to care to retain the original sound in either category.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Apart from music festivals the types of music which fills stadiums is that of very wide appeal- this includes nostalgia bait for boomers wanting to see their childhood heroes. 

The "interesting" stuff tends to be in smaller venues like theaters and nightclubs anyway.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

I saw King Crimson a few years back. They too were playing mostly old material, but a fair bit of it had never been performed live before and some of the old stuff had been significantly rearranged.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

The current KC ensemble has really grown on me. I recently picked up the Meltdown set with the DVD and it was a pleasure to watch them perform this diverse set of material. I thought the arrangement of Fracture was brilliant! It's great to hear Mel Collins in the band playing tunes like Pictures of a City.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

I thought McCartney was past it 20 years ago; now he's just sad. When Ringo sounds better than you, it's time to pack it in.

It's not everyone though; I saw the Zombies about 5 years ago and Colin Blunstone sounded great.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Consumers are stupid. There's a sucker born every minute—as they say, and these over-the-hill rockers are merely cashing in—can one blame them? People give them their money willingly.


----------



## SearsPoncho (Sep 23, 2020)

But where's the new generation of "greats" to fill stadiums? Many of these older acts were filling stadiums 40-50 years ago. Nothing's really changed for them. I saw the Rolling Stones on their Still Life(??)/Tattoo You tour in Philly in 1981. It was the 1st concert of that mammoth tour. I also saw them in 2019 (tickets were a gift). To be honest, they sounded much better in 2019. Mick was almost too wasted to sing in that 1981 concert. Of course, I agree that most of the best stuff is in smaller venues, just like classical. I would much rather attend a chamber concert in Wigmore Hall than attend a stadium concert of Andre Rieu or Celtic Woman.

ST, it's all about the Benjamins. I've been to the New Orleans Jazz Fest a few times. All the jazz artists are on small, side stages, but the big stage is usually reserved for pop acts, like Springsteen and others who are much more pop than him. At least the food is incredible. The New Orleans Jazz Fest stopped being about jazz music a long, long time ago. The best jazz stuff during the festival occurs after midnight at small clubs around the city (or at least it used to.)


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

starthrower said:


> Paul McCartney was in town last night. I didn't go but I just checked out some clips on YouTube. He sounds like an old man who can't sing because he is. Are you a desperate old boomer who will pay inflated ticket prices to see an over the hill rock / pop legend? McCartney, Dylan, The Stones, Yes with no original members, Lightfoot, etc? I certainly won't. If you feel differently please express your reasons for paying big bucks to see these old timers.
> 
> We have a jazz fest coming up this summer and they've booked Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. They are not jazz artists and their combined ages total 161 years. Is this what concert promotors think jazz fans want to experience in person? With all the phenomenal young jazz artists in need of a gig in front of a sizeable audience surely these festivals could book more actual jazz musicians instead of 80 year old former pop stars.


I don't really want to see old rockers simply retreading what they did as young rockers.

But they're just as entitled to write and play new music and if it's good enough, perform it in front of a paying audience.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

There won't be any new generation of greats. There's no record industry to support talented artists. And nobody listens to radio anymore. Everybody is online surfing around. Personally, I don't think my country deserves any great art. The society is crumbling and nobody with the resources gives a damn about great art and music. We as a society have been reduced to shoot outs every day of the week.


----------



## NoCoPilot (Nov 9, 2020)

Careful. Mods are likely to warn you that mass shootings are "political" just like the pandemic became "political"... because one political party denies their existence.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Forster said:


> I don't really want to see old rockers simply retreading what they did as young rockers.
> 
> But they're just as entitled to write and play new music and if it's good enough, perform it in front of a paying audience.


The material is besides the point concerning this thread. If performers are far over the hill and can't sing anymore I'm not paying money for sub standard performances.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

starthrower said:


> The material is besides the point concerning this thread. If performers are far over the hill and can't sing anymore I'm not paying money for sub standard performances.


It's not really beside the point. You asked if I would pay to see "old timers". I answered your question, giving my caveats. I took for granted in my post that I would only want to pay for artists that could perform capably. What I was trying to point out was that artists shouldn't be discounted just because they are old; and, the corollary of that, that artists shouldn't be promoted just because they are young.

No-one wants to see artists that are incapable, do they?

Oh, and please stop dissing "Boomers"


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

starthrower said:


> I don't know any jazz fans who listen to Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis. The promotors book pop acts at jazz festivals to draw pop fans and they can have them. I'll pay to see somebody else.


Couldn’t agree more and at the risk of alienating hordes of people on the forum I don’t consider any jazz vocalist to be actually jazz music. They are, as far as I’m concerned, popular music singers. Scat is not jazz! Gregory Porter and Kurt Elling, talented individuals that they are, are not jazz musicians. Imho, of course.
I now await opprobrium!


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I do disagree with you about jazz vocalists. Scat is vocal improv. I have nothing against pop singers but I just don't want to go see them at a jazz festival.


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

starthrower said:


> Paul McCartney was in town last night. I didn't go but I just checked out some clips on YouTube. He sounds like an old man who can't sing because he is. Are you a desperate old boomer who will pay inflated ticket prices to see an over the hill rock / pop legend? McCartney, Dylan, The Stones, Yes with no original members, Lightfoot, etc? I certainly won't. If you feel differently please express your reasons for paying big bucks to see these old timers.
> 
> We have a jazz fest coming up this summer and they've booked Marilyn McCoo and Billy Davis, Jr. They are not jazz artists and their combined ages total 161 years. Is this what concert promotors think jazz fans want to experience in person? With all the phenomenal young jazz artists in need of a gig in front of a sizeable audience surely these festivals could book more actual jazz musicians instead of 80 year old former pop stars.


Interesting topic you broach. 

I have not gone to an area to see a rock band since college. It just made no sense to me as I always went for the music. 
As to getting too old to play Rock and Roll, I totally agree. Come on, the Stones sang about a 13 year old girl (Stray Cat Blues, YA YA's Album) Seriously? 

I think Grace Barnett Wing, the Acid Queen herself said it best. "All rock-and-rollers over the age of 50 look stupid and should retire... You can do jazz, classical, blues, opera, country until you're 150, but rap and rock and roll are really a way for young people to get that anger out", and, "It's silly to perform a song that has no relevance to the present or expresses feelings you no longer have."


----------



## eljr (Aug 8, 2015)

Strange Magic said:


> Mickey Thomas' Jefferson Starship


Micky Thomas?

The Airplane/Starship were never a good touring bad to begin with but they were arguably my favorite of all time.
I even saw Jefferson Starship when Jorma's brother, Peter played with the band. 

I don't do nostalgia acts. I like clubs or concert halls. Springsteen on Broadway was perfect except for his excessive greed. That kept me away.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> Couldn’t agree more and at the risk of alienating hordes of people on the forum I don’t consider any jazz vocalist to be actually jazz music. They are, as far as I’m concerned, popular music singers. Scat is not jazz! Gregory Porter and Kurt Elling, talented individuals that they are, are not jazz musicians. Imho, of course.
> I now await opprobrium!


here's a short clip


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Fantastic singer no doubt.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Barbebleu said:


> Couldn’t agree more and at the risk of alienating hordes of people on the forum I don’t consider any jazz vocalist to be actually jazz music. They are, as far as I’m concerned, popular music singers. Scat is not jazz! Gregory Porter and Kurt Elling, talented individuals that they are, are not jazz musicians. Imho, of course.
> I now await opprobrium!


Any singer who is singing off key is a true jazz vocalist. That means that I'm one of the greatest jazz vocalists out there! Those who don't sing off key are pop vocalists. 
If you want to find real jazz vocalists there are many examples on The X-Factor etc. Instead of recognizing their brilliance, they laughed at them. Almost no one (except me and a few other brilliant geniuses) is able to recognize a true jazz vocalist! 🥰


----------



## Roger Knox (Jul 19, 2017)

Forster said:


> It's not really beside the point. You asked if I would pay to see "old timers". I answered your question, giving my caveats. I took for granted in my post that I would only want to pay for artists that could perform capably. What I was trying to point out was that artists shouldn't be discounted just because they are old; and, the corollary of that, that artists shouldn't be promoted just because they are young.
> 
> No-one wants to see artists that are incapable, do they?
> 
> Oh, and please stop dissing "Boomers"


I went to a Bob Dylan concert with a friend several years ago. This concert hall appearance was the first live show of his that I'd been to since 1966 (my first rock concert ever), when he was backed by the as-yet-to-be-named The Band. Great stuff -- I've always liked his music. This time he played piano -- very well -- and his band was astonishingly precise and agile. He did only more recent material. There was no hype, no merch. His singing was weaker than before but frankly, he's never been a great vocalist and sometimes he uses speech-song. The audience was spellbound and I am glad I went -- yes there are nostalgia and boatloads of memories involved (please allow us seniors that!) -- and it is likely the only one of these "old-timers'" concerts I will go to. It was my way of closing the door to an era, and my friend felt the same way.


----------



## hammeredklavier (Feb 18, 2018)

Why question their _divinity_? After all, they _can't even be compared to_ Bach, Mozart, Beethoven.


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

Nate Miller said:


> I didn't know there were any jazz fans left under the age of 70
> 
> I play jazz, and when I was a kid, I thought old people liked jazz. Turns out that what most old people like is what they listened to in high school. In the 1970s, when I was a young musician, the old people of the time listened to music in the 1940s. That was jazz. Now, the old people of today listen to classic rock.
> 
> ...


Was it Jazz: or things on the bordering on Jazz like Glen Miller, big bands and crooners like Crosby and Sinatra? I have rarely met a person born in the 20s or 30s who liked jazz: it was always a minority interest outside college jazzers in the 1950s.
I have loved classical music since my teens. I got into rock soon after, it took me until my mid thirties to get into jazz.


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

Jay said:


> I thought McCartney was past it 20 years ago; now he's just sad. When Ringo sounds better than you, it's time to pack it in.
> 
> It's not everyone though; I saw the Zombies about 5 years ago and Colin Blunstone sounded great.


I live round the corner from the pub in St Albans where the Zombies first played "She's not there" . There is a blue plague.
There is also huge writing on the garden wall that says "Best garden this side of Babylon"


----------



## John O (Jan 16, 2021)

SearsPoncho said:


> I've been to the New Orleans Jazz Fest a few times. All the jazz artists are on small, side stages, but the big stage is usually reserved for pop acts, like Springsteen and others who are much more pop than him. At least the food is incredible. The New Orleans Jazz Fest stopped being about jazz music a long, long time ago. The best jazz stuff during the festival occurs after midnight at small clubs around the city (or at least it used to.)


Reading Rock was once a Jazz festival. In fact when I went many years ago the banner over the stage said "Reading Jazz, Blues and Rock Festival" . Headliners were Black Sabbath, The Stranglers and Thin Lizzy. No Jazz!


----------



## mikeh375 (Sep 7, 2017)

John O said:


> ....... . There is a blue plague......


Well that's St Albans off the list of places to visit. As if covid19 wasn't enough........(sorry John couldn't help myself with that typo, especially as I'm a Liverpool fan...)


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

I just wanted to say, I re-experience the songs of my glory days by playing the old sheets and pop books I've bought over the years. I've kept them, more by accident - and good luck. But anyway, you get to a point in the sheet that you remember really impressed your younger self, and the feeling comes back! It's surprisingly clear in your mind (music does that). You smile.. You wish you could get together some band mates and imitate the sounds of the famous groups.

Anyway, I still have my first pop book. I promised myself I'd keep it. It contains, My Boyfriend Got a Beatle Haircut and My Beatles Lie Over the Ocean (same melody as My Bonnie Lies Over the Ocean). It's a trip, man. And far out, man! (from John Denver about 10 or 12 years later).


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

John O said:


> Was it Jazz: or things on the bordering on Jazz like Glen Miller, big bands and crooners like Crosby and Sinatra? I have rarely met a person born in the 20s or 30s who liked jazz: it was always a minority interest outside college jazzers in the 1950s.
> I have loved classical music since my teens. I got into rock soon after, it took me until my mid thirties to get into jazz.


jazz is an American music, so I can understand why you are saying that. Someone born in the 1920s and 30s in NYC would have been prime age and in the right place for the BeBop era, so its different over here. Also, I lived in a big city and moved in jazz circles, so I probably saw more of it than the average civilian

so when I was young and growing up in America in the late 1970s, the people in the audiences I was playing to were in their 60s and 70s


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> jazz is an American music, so I can understand why you are saying that. Someone born in the 1920s and 30s in NYC would have been prime age and in the right place for the BeBop era, so its different over here. Also, I lived in a big city and moved in jazz circles, so I probably saw more of it than the average civilian
> 
> so when I was young and growing up in America in the late 1970s, the people in the audiences I was playing to were in their 60s and 70s


Yes, music that's a new fad or youth-oriented is usually, or very often, annoying to older folks. 

It's funny now to think back ...but very early rock'n roll and rockabilly was annoying to my grandparents.

Early Beatles, raucous and their vocal antics were annoying to my parents.

Very predictably, trash metal, Sid Vicious types etc., Grunge and Rap and the repetitive 'dance' music of today are often annoying to me. Now it's my turn to suffer and complain.

We include the current music we grow up with as part of our self identity.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, music that's a new fad or youth-oriented is usually, or very often, annoying to older folks.
> 
> It's funny now to think back ...but very early rock'n roll and rockabilly was annoying to my grandparents.
> 
> ...


You are very likely correct in your overall assessment about loving the most the music we grew up with. My situation is somewhat different--I'm not sure why, I did grow up in a house where my mother played some CM and Big Band music, so they became familiar to me. But as other musics presented themselves to me, I absorbed many of them as favorites--Doo-W0p, Rock, all sorts of Pop, Disco, sung Flamenco, R&B, Grunge, Alternative, Blues, Folk, Israeli and Arab music. Never got deeply into Jazz or C&W or much Punk. A least favorite is the Tin Pan Alley of my youth once I heard Doo-W0p, the Blues, and R&B.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> You are very likely correct in your overall assessment about loving the most the music we grew up with. My situation is somewhat different--I'm not sure why, I did grow up in a house where my mother played some CM and Big Band music, so they became familiar to me. But as other musics presented themselves to me, I absorbed many of them as favorites--Doo-W0p, Rock, all sorts of Pop, Disco, sung Flamenco, R&B, Grunge, Alternative, Blues, Folk, Israeli and Arab music. Never got deeply into Jazz or C&W or much Punk. A least favorite is the Tin Pan Alley of my youth once I heard Doo-W0p, the Blues, and R&B.


This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..

The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.

All these changes give us a more vibrant experience when experiencing music in those years, and then it gets all mixed up with identity, sexuality, approval from our peers etc.

So apparently as we're latching on to our favorite types of music, it's not a thinking process, but it's more akin to a developing instinct, like apprehension at the sound of a rattlesnake or a lion roaring.

Ah music, it's a deep subject.


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> here's a short clip


It’s possible to take a different view of the piano player’s reaction. He could be thinking ‘WTAF! Why doesn’t she just sing what the composer wrote?’


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Barbebleu said:


> It’s possible to take a different view of the piano player’s reaction. He could be thinking ‘WTAF! Why doesn’t she just sing what the composer wrote?’


Yes, we have a singer who thinks she can improve on the song while she's on the stage singing,

and we tell her, and she agrees, and then the next time she does it again anyway. She's OK, she's no Ella.

When Whitney and Mariah started doing it I was a little annoyed, and then I guess everybody in the era thought that's the way you sing pop.
Sinatra did it but he always seemed to improve on the songs in my opinion. And Bing Crosby. Como and Andy Williams, not so much, IMO.

added: that's a little harsh on Whitney because she did some good things but sometimes she totally lost me.


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

Luchesi said:


> This idea, new to me, that we're at the mercy of luck and happenstances during our years of adolescent brain development, explains a little about the complicated process going on, about 13 years for girls and 14 years for boys. If we don't get a love of serious music in those years, we might develop a love later but it will be different and probably less intense, because the brain chemicals have already done their developmental work. It’s over (the blank slate of youth) for that person..
> 
> The amygdala is responsible for immediate reactions including fear and flight-or-fight behavior (apparently this is important so young - for survival). This region develops early, but the frontal cortex develops later. And this part of the brain, which does the logical thinking before we act, is still changing and maturing well into adulthood.
> Also, during adolescence a rapid increase in the connections between the brain cells and making the pathways more effective enhances every sensory experience. The myelin continues to fill in to become an insulating layer that helps cells communicate.
> ...



I remember as a kid I never liked what my peers liked or listened to. From early days till today I could never understand how people can listen to something because it makes them more 'cool' or 'accepted' by their peers. With time I realized that people mostly have that primal herd mentality, so that is the main reason why they are listening to anything at all. Music became a 'way of life' to them.. a way to identify with a certain group of people that is always, 'of course', way better than some other group of people. That is especially accentuated during teen years considering boys. On the other hand, teen girls seem to be more into sugary music made by 'cute boys'.

I was always black sheep during my teens (especially today while being 41) and I simply couldn't and didn't want to listen to something I considered to be crap just because everybody else was listening to it. 
My dad liked classical music and operas, so when I was born I had an opportunity from early days to be exposed to that (but not overloaded with it) and yes, I like many of the classical music, but I never became a fan of opera. While growing up during my teen years (early 90s) there was great pop music on the radio including mostly 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s songs and I liked 50% of what they were playing. Of course, it was mostly the same set of songs most of the time. 

I remember when I was 13-14 years old I became a fan of Twin Peaks music... It was dark and atmospheric music. It was some crazy, yet great mix of jazz with synth music and beautiful dreamy vocals (R.I.P. Julee Cruise). 
But I realized that was music for me back then. There was no other 14 year old kid who wanted to listen to that, but I loved it! 

Also, when I was probably 11 years old (1990-91) I remember watching a video 'You Gotta Love Someone' by Elton John. They were playing it almost every day on TV and I was watching it every time like I was hypnotized. It was love at first listening/sight. I didn't know who that guy was, but my gut feeling told me that he is capable of so much considering music.. I simply felt that he was born to make music and felt that he must have other great songs and I was right. To this day I'm a big fan. It wasn't cool to listen to Elton John, you can guess why. 

I can't help but laugh at people who are convinced by their peers to listen to some certain type of music that will make them look more 'cool' or 'smart', but oh well, even I must accept that people want to be accepted by the rest of the herd and that many are never mature enough to develop their individual taste. I guess that some people don't even care about music, but they listen to something that correlates with their 'image' and 'way of life'. 

And all those horrible minimalistic 90s dance music that everybody in high school liked except me. I simply couldn't relate to that. I still prefer 80s pop music that I was too young to comprehend during the 80s. 
I realize now that 90s dance-pop is much better than today's pop, but that's not because 90s dance-pop was good... it's because today's pop music is really and truly horrible beyond my wildest dreams. 

You Americans were probably never exposed that much to that 90s trash, but here in Europe teens were listening to that minimalistic and lifeless crap.
So, once you can't be influenced by horrible music that your peers like because you have a 'strange' personality and don't care to be 'accepted' by greater idiots than you are, then you are actually able to enjoy music that you actually like. What a revelation! 

And jazz was never for me. It's music that people like to listen to with intellect. I can't listen to music with intellect and pretend that a million tones in one minute means anything to me. I like songs with jazz influence, but REAL jazz (modal, free etc.) is not for me.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

*^^^^@nikola: *Our situations are quite similar though we are 50 years apart in age. Doo-W0p, R&B, the Blues, and sung Flamenco all struck me like a thunderbolt when I first heard them at about 14 also. The first three genres were acquired by my chance roaming around the AM radio dial and picking up from the ether radio station WNJR out of Newark NJ. I was thus suddenly exposed to what was then still called "race music". Utterly new and fascinating sounds! As I recall, my love for Flamenco was ignited by seeing/hearing Jose Greco (of Italy and Brooklyn NY) and his troupe on the Ed Sullivan TV variety show. Greco at that time had a fine group of singers and managed to contain his egomania enough to let the singers sing. Magic!

Needless to say, my musical tastes put me at wide variance from my age peers.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

nikola said:


> I remember as a kid I never liked what my peers liked or listened to. From early days till today I could never understand how people can listen to something because it makes them more 'cool' or 'accepted' by their peers. With time I realized that people mostly have that primal herd mentality, so that is the main reason why they are listening to anything at all. Music became a 'way of life' to them.. a way to identify with a certain group of people that is always, 'of course', way better than some other group of people. That is especially accentuated during teen years considering boys. On the other hand, teen girls seem to be more into sugary music made by 'cute boys'.
> 
> I was always black sheep during my teens (especially today while being 41) and I simply couldn't and didn't want to listen to something I considered to be crap just because everybody else was listening to it.
> My dad liked classical music and operas, so when I was born I had an opportunity from early days to be exposed to that (but not overloaded with it) and yes, I like many of the classical music, but I never became a fan of opera. While growing up during my teen years (early 90s) there was great pop music on the radio including mostly 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s and early 90s songs and I liked 50% of what they were playing. Of course, it was mostly the same set of songs most of the time.
> ...


I'm glad to see someone bringing up the issue of the trend of minimalism. Computer dance music and especially Grunge might've been a reaction to the "cornier", more traditional pop songs of the 80s.

As for Jazz, consider that if you had grown up with someone like Monk or Bill Evans or Miles did, and you followed their early attractions to the the jazz -- and then all the work they did before they could play in public. If you had done all that groundwork (I didn't) you probably would love jazz is much so early as they did -- and you would try to develop it further.. (when the old movements in jazz became effortless to you). Anyway, that's how I think of most types of music (and composing) in history, but especially jazz, because it's unique in some many ways, as you know.

Subtle topics in music are unwieldy/unique to put into words. Sorry. As musicians, we don't talk to ourselves in terms of words very much.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> *^^^^@nikola: *Our situations are quite similar though we are 50 years apart in age. Doo-W0p, R&B, the Blues, and sung Flamenco all struck me like a thunderbolt when I first heard them at about 14 also. The first three genres were acquired by my chance roaming around the AM radio dial and picking up from the ether radio station WNJR out of Newark NJ. I was thus suddenly exposed to what was then still called "race music". Utterly new and fascinating sounds! As I recall, my love for Flamenco was ignited by seeing/hearing Jose Greco (of Italy and Brooklyn NY) and his troupe on the Ed Sullivan TV variety show. Greco at that time had a fine group of singers and managed to contain his egomania enough to let the singers sing. Magic!
> 
> Needless to say, my musical tastes put me at wide variance from my age peers.


I've come to an understanding (maybe) that you and Fluteman and maybe Sananton, maybe Forster (you various subjectivists) have had unusual exposure to so many types of music, too early, so that you never went through the straightforward adolescent brain development mentioned about. I mean, you're only slightly different in this regard, but you became totally open-minded! I never did. Before the Beatles, I was into the simpler, early rock and roll.

What do you think, as a scientifically inclined music fan?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> I've come to an understanding (maybe) that you and Fluteman and maybe Sananton, maybe Forster (you various subjectivists) have had unusual exposure to so many types of music, too early, so that you never went through the straightforward adolescent brain development mentioned about. I mean, you're only slightly different in this regard, but you became totally open-minded! I never did. Before the Beatles, I was into the simpler, early rock and roll.
> 
> What do you think, as a scientifically inclined music fan?


I think in my case it is a mixture of early imprinting combined with a certain sense of independence (can you believe that?) that led me to making a god of my own taste in music and art. The reasons why I should or shouldn't like A over B never took hold. I appreciate the writings of others (experts) on esthetics--certainly where esthetics merges with history-- but keep my own counsel.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

starthrower said:


> There won't be any new generation of greats. There's no record industry to support talented artists. And nobody listens to radio anymore. Everybody is online surfing around. Personally, I don't think my country deserves any great art. The society is crumbling and nobody with the resources gives a damn about great art and music. We as a society have been reduced to shoot outs every day of the week.


Indeed—shootouts & mass shootings. God hasn't "blessed" America in a long while and I can't say I blame Him. Personally, I would have put an end to the whole sorry spectacle a long time ago. There's nothing our people love more than money, guns, violence, sex, and gluttony.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> There won't be any new generation of greats. There's no record industry to support talented artists.


I just don't believe this is true. And I am not sure what you mean by "greats." I hear what I consider exceptional music being made by a plethora of young songwriters and bands, as well as great stuff being done by older established artists on independent labels.

What is also true is that the music business has changed from major labels and radio dominating the market to a more decentralized landscape of artists using home studios and marketing their music without a major label (who wouldn't sign them anyway). Major artists have feuded with their labels, e.g. Tom Petty, over creative control and royalty rates, so no musician really mourns the loss of major label domination. What is important to them is control of their process and music both of which were often undermined by major label contracts.

Talented songwriters still exist and will always exist.


----------



## Red Terror (Dec 10, 2018)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, music that's a new fad or youth-oriented is usually, or very often, annoying to older folks.
> 
> It's funny now to think back ...but very early rock'n roll and rockabilly was annoying to my grandparents.
> 
> ...


Grunge is retro now. A lot of what's considered POP today is damn gnarly. I don't know that the quality of music as a whole has decreased, but pop music has certainly gone to **** ... and people like the smell.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I think in my case it is a mixture of early imprinting combined with a certain sense of independence (can you believe that?) that led me to making a god of my own taste in music and art. The reasons why I should or shouldn't like A over B never took hold. I appreciate the writings of others (experts) on esthetics--certainly where esthetics merges with history-- but keep my own counsel.


So, do you have an opinion on when the brain center (in my post above) developed in you? It developed slowly over twice the time maybe.. Maybe you don't have a fully-charged adolescent music brain like normal people.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Red Terror said:


> Grunge is retro now. A lot of what's considered POP today is damn gnarly. I don't know that the quality of music as whole has decreased, but pop music has certainly gone to **** ... and people like the smell.


Well, I assume that adolescents USE music in their lives (pervasive as it is) very differently than boomers did.

added: maybe they need the new kind of energetic backgrowns


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> So, do you have an opinion on when the brain center (in my post above) developed in you? It developed slowly over twice the time maybe.. Maybe you don't have a fully-charged adolescent music brain like normal people.


I don't know what kind of music brains others have--or art brains for that matter--I observe others' tastes and sometimes they match mine and often times not. We had a book when I was a kid called 100 Best Loved Paintings, selected and commented upon by Rockwell Kent, and I was quite selective about which I thought were worth the effort. I loved the two of Turner's most famous works in the book; very high on my list (and still are). Most portraits and Renaissance art left me cold. I would like to publish my own 100 Best Loved Paintings (as would most of us!)

Sorry. This reply was likely of no help at all.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

When I said no more greats I wasn't inferring that there were no more talented artists working today. But there aren't any cultural icons like Dylan, The Beatles, Zappa, etc. These people not only made great music but they questioned authority and changed society. And everyone knew who they were. 

As for blessings from above, I don't assume there is some personal deity bestowing blessings on one nation over another. Spend a little time reading the history of America from the colonial years of 1,492 through the early 20th century and the horrendous crimes and genocide committed against all indigenous peoples and then ask what kind of God would bless this? As for grunge music? I never liked it. I've always found it uninteresting in sound, color, texture and melody. YMMV


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> I don't know what kind of music brains others have--or art brains for that matter--I observe others' tastes and sometimes they match mine and often times not. We had a book when I was a kid called 100 Best Loved Paintings, selected and commented upon by Rockwell Kent, and I was quite selective about which I thought were worth the effort. I loved the two of Turner's most famous works in the book; very high on my list (and still are). Most portraits and Renaissance art left me cold. I would like to publish my own 100 Best Loved Paintings (as would most of us!)
> 
> Sorry. This reply was likely of no help at all.


Well, adolescence is partly about thrusting your ego out there and trying to justify your choices and your likes and dislikes. 
You never felt the need to do that because you had already explored so much art and music (comparatively). It’s a different dynamic than peer group struggles (or even approval from imagined peer groups).


----------



## nikola (Sep 7, 2012)

starthrower said:


> When I said no more greats I wasn't inferring that there were no more talented artists working today. But there aren't any cultural icons like Dylan, The Beatles, Zappa, etc. These people not only made great music but they questioned authority and changed society. And everyone knew who they were.
> 
> As for blessings from above, I don't assume there is some personal deity bestowing blessings on one nation over another. Spend a little time reading the history of America from the colonial years of 1,492 through the early 20th century and the horrendous crimes and genocide committed against all indigenous peoples and then ask what kind of God would bless this? As for grunge music? I never liked it. I've always found it uninteresting in sound, color, texture and melody. YMMV


Music was actually important as art before. Not so much anymore. So much has changed in the last 20 years. Along with technology and marketing considering music, the mentality of society changed too.

For example, back in the 80s I remember all those memorable movie and TV shows themes that were great. There were musicians like Vangelis, Jarre, Danny Elfman, Jan Hammer etc. who made some of the most memorable and creative musical pieces. You can't find today something like 'Crockett's Theme' by Jan Hammer or 'Sledge Hammer Theme' by Danny Elfman. You actually had to have talent back then to create something like that. Creative, fun and interesting musical ideas were appreciated. Even pop music was allowed to be often great. Today, a song can't be great anymore... maybe once in a few years.

Musicians like Bob Dylan, Tom Waits, Bruce Springsteen, Queen, ABBA, Leonard Cohen, Billy Joel, The Beatles, Elton John etc. actually meant something because the world cared about music. I really can't find today almost anyone who matters or is good on that level, no matter how many musicians are out there. Almost everything seems bland, generic and uninteresting. I'm not a fan of Dylan, but I like many of his songs and I can appreciate him for his influence on music and culture. Same for David Bowie and some other musicians.
No one is important today anymore... maybe Brandi Carlile imo, but she's not a new artist anymore.
Very little talent and so much fuss out there today. Interesting melodies and harmonies have been dead since long ago.


----------



## CatchARisingStar (7 mo ago)

I don't go to concerts anymore because I stopped drinking. (Yeah, they're connected). But if I did, I'd give KISS a looksee. I know Paul Stanley is losing his voice, but maybe the Covid vacation made his pipes stronger? Also, if Rush ever replaced Neil, that'd be a good gig even though, towards the end there, ol' Geddy was losing his voice, too.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

The situation today is one of such abundance of every sort of music in vast quantities that individual artists and groups are drowned out in the excess. Another factor is the loss of FM radio as a glue holding an audience together in a feeling of shared musical tastes among peers (though classic Rock remains alive and well on FM hereabouts.) Another factor is the constantly growing inventory of past loved music that people wanted to hear then and still want to hear now--back in Bach's day, all one heard was Bach (and Vivaldi, Telemann, Buxtehude, etc.) Today you can listen to everything from Palestrina to Babbitt (if you want to), or in rock and pop, everything from Doo-W0p to BTS and every conceivable genre in between. I have posted before about the New Stasis in the arts as recognized and elucidated by Leonard Meyer: this is yet another example of the correctness of Meyer's thesis. New good music is out there still, but finding it on the infinite sea of possibilities is a daunting challenge. So many choices--where to begin?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

starthrower said:


> When I said no more greats I wasn't inferring that there were no more talented artists working today. But there aren't any cultural icons like Dylan, The Beatles, Zappa, etc. These people not only made great music but they questioned authority and changed society. And everyone knew who they were.
> 
> As for blessings from above, I don't assume there is some personal deity bestowing blessings on one nation over another. Spend a little time reading the history of America from the colonial years of 1,492 through the early 20th century and the horrendous crimes and genocide committed against all indigenous peoples and then ask what kind of God would bless this? As for grunge music? I never liked it. I've always found it uninteresting in sound, color, texture and melody. YMMV


Grunge seemed to me to be reflecting the wallowing in angst (teens and 20 yr olds). Not wrong at all, and the song writers felt it and did it well/effectively as musical expression. Probably not totally healthy for vulnerable people, but understandable.
The Blues was always in the back of the minds of creators. You add the blue notes deftly and well, you have a formula = predictable, even for folks who don't hear music very well yet.

Gary Burton's performances with the Animals served the function long ago, I guess, and then others sounded darker as the 70s began. Just my opinion. A song like Nowhere Man, Fool on the Hill, and then Zeppelin, The Who maybe.

There's been angst in art in every decade, 'nothing very heavy and over-riding until Grunge, I would say, but that's only my perspective. Interesting subject.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> The situation today is one of such abundance of every sort of music in vast quantities that individual artists and groups are drowned out in the excess. Another factor is the loss of FM radio as a glue holding an audience together in a feeling of shared musical tastes among peers (though classic Rock remains alive and well on FM hereabouts.) Another factor is the constantly growing inventory of past loved music that people wanted to hear then and still want to hear now--back in Bach's day, all one heard was Bach (and Vivaldi, Telemann, Buxtehude, etc.) Today you can listen to everything from Palestrina to Babbitt (if you want to), or in rock and pop, everything from Doo-W0p to BTS and every conceivable genre in between. I have posted before about the New Stasis in the arts as recognized and elucidated by Leonard Meyer: this is yet another example of the correctness of Meyer's thesis. New good music is out there still, but finding it on the infinite sea of possibilities is a daunting challenge. So many choices--where to begin?


Yes, less music for us to dismantle and appreciate more deeply would probably be better. 
I enjoyed visiting music stores and collecting LPs as I could afford them, very slowly. The album covers and acquiring complete sets. Go to a big store and make a wish list. It was all a big part of it for me. 

It seems sort of like stamp and coin collecting, but better. I never got into those hobbies.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Even before the internet the FCC ruined radio through deregulation which made it legal for media conglomerates to buy up hundreds of radio stations around the country and turn commercial radio into a homogenized bore fest existing merely to generate advertising revenue.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

starthrower said:


> Even before the internet the FCC ruined radio through deregulation which made it legal for media conglomerates to buy up hundreds of radio stations around the country and turn commercial radio into a homogenized bore fest existing merely to generate advertising revenue.


What was so great about radio? I never relied on it for most of my music. Radio has always been a platform for advertising, with some music (usually the lowest common denominator) in between.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

SanAntone said:


> What was so great about radio? I never relied on it for most of my music. Radio has always been a platform for advertising, with some music (usually the lowest common denominator) in between.


There was a time when FM stations were independently owned and you could hear different music driving around the country. My point is that the government sold out the public interest to the highest bidder.


----------



## SanAntone (May 10, 2020)

I was never into FM "album oriented" radio. But I did listen to public radio, Classical and Jazz stations. Nowadays I create my own "radio" stations with large Spotify playlists. I don't miss radio one bit.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I can't believe you guys are saying there are no greats today....I got two words for you: TAYLOR SWIFT

I dont care what you say, that girl made in Nashville AND New York.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> I can't believe you guys are saying there are no greats today....I got two words for you: TAYLOR SWIFT
> 
> I dont care what you say, that girl made in Nashville AND New York.


Yes, I find her songwriting to be an interesting peek into the easy, pop music, but not as 'mannered', predictable and gimmicky as Country today and famous singing 'styles' of traditional stuff. I couldn't be as clever. 

As they say, it's Taylor-made for her buying audience.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

SanAntone said:


> What was so great about radio? I never relied on it for most of my music. Radio has always been a platform for advertising, with some music (usually the lowest common denominator) in between.


Not the same issue in the UK. BBC Radio is very good value.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

Luchesi said:


> Yes, I find her songwriting to be an interesting peek into the easy, pop music, but not as 'mannered', predictable and gimmicky as Country today and famous singing 'styles' of traditional stuff. I couldn't be as clever.
> 
> As they say, it's Taylor-made for her buying audience.


no kidding. I thought Paula Abdul was the best at ringing the cash register with the teenage girl audience, but Taylor Swift does it better than anybody I ever saw. 

I think she's a great songwriter, though. I'd love to cover some of her tunes, but they're all about boys and dancing in the rain in a dress and all. Even in this day and age, it just doesn't look right for some geezer weighing a solid eleven stone to be on the bandstand singing something like "Blank space" or "Fearless"


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> no kidding. I thought Paula Abdul was the best at ringing the cash register with the teenage girl audience, but Taylor Swift does it better than anybody I ever saw.
> 
> I think she's a great songwriter, though. I'd love to cover some of her tunes, but they're all about boys and dancing in the rain in a dress and all. Even in this day and age, it just doesn't look right for some geezer weighing a solid eleven stone to be on the bandstand singing something like "Blank space" or "Fearless"


I like to play them on piano, up tempo, just exploring her ideas. We don't include any in our combo. Perhaps we could learn her most famous songs, and the audience would enjoy them in the different sound of our arrangements.

But there's so much popular material already, and so much more out there. That's a big difference at this point in time (as Strange magic says) because when I started playing in a rock band in the 60s we could only learn with the big hits of the bands we were fascinated with. or that's what we thought.. and how we thought, the coolness factor, the 'significance', what was relevant to us..


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> Grunge seemed to me to be reflecting the wallowing in angst (teens and 20 yr olds).....
> 
> Gary Burton's performances with the Animals served the function long ago, I guess, and then others sounded darker as the 70s began. Just my opinion. A song like Nowhere Man, Fool on the Hill, and then Zeppelin, The Who maybe.


There was something different about Grunge. In the 1950s and throughout the 1960s and 70s, most downer songs were about love denied, lost, thwarted, not reciprocated..You did have Barry McGuire's _Eve of Destruction_ as a sign of Things to Come, but most of the popular music from those years was pretty cheerful stuff. The Doobie Brothers, Laura Nyro, Beach Boys, ELO, many hundreds of other artists were singing upbeat and often wonderful songs about love and just being alive.

Out of this arose Disco and Punk, which one critic called the Secret Sharers--Disco emphasizing the feelgood aspect of popular music; the other a sort of rage building up against the euphoria. Then came Grunge, out of the gloomy Pacific Northwest, where the dreams of a better tomorrow--personal and public--were being examined and dashed by folks who themselves were already deeply troubled by feelings of alienation and by drug use--it is no accident that the lead singers/songwriters of so many Grunge groups ether OD'd or committed suicide--Staley, Cornell, Wood, Cobain...

But we are long out of that phase now, and back to adolescent cheerfulness in much of today's Pop--angst about love gone wrong, etc. And of course Rap, its own category entirely. I agree that Grunge could be dangerous music for certain young minds--I was well into middle age when I first heard it (Soundgarden's _Louder than Love, _with its cry for stopping environmental destruction, Hands All Over, and the darkness of Alice in Chains' We Die Young and Man in the Box. But some great music emerged from Grunge for those able and willing to listen to it somewhat dispassionately. There is a poem by Robinson Jeffers that catches the essence of Grunge and warns those who get too involved in it....

*To a Young Artist*
It is good for strength not to be merciful
To its own weakness, good for the deep urn to run
over, good to explore
The peaks and the deeps, who can endure it,
Good to be hurt, who can be healed afterward: but
you that have whetted consciousness
Too bitter an edge, too keenly daring,
So that the color of a leaf can make you tremble
and your own thoughts like harriers
Tear the live mind: were your bones mountains,
Your blood rivers to endure it? and all that labor
of discipline labors to death.
Delight is exquisite, pain is more present;
You have sold the armor, you have bought shining
with burning, one should be stronger than strength
To fight baresark in the stabbing field
In the rage of the stars: I tell you unconsciousness
is the treasure, the tower, the fortress;
Referred to that one may live anything;
The temple and the tower: poor dancer on the flints
and shards in the temple porches, turn home.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> There was something different about Grunge. In the 1950s and throughout the 1960s and 70s, most downer songs were about love denied, lost, thwarted, not reciprocated..You did have Barry McGuire's _Eve of Destruction_ as a sign of Things to Come, but most of the popular music from those years was pretty cheerful stuff. The Doobie Brothers, Laura Nyro, Beach Boys, ELO, many hundreds of other artists were singing upbeat and often wonderful songs about love and just being alive.
> 
> Out of this arose Disco and Punk, which one critic called the Secret Sharers--Disco emphasizing the feelgood aspect of popular music; the other a sort of rage building up against the euphoria. Then came Grunge, out of the gloomy Pacific Northwest, where the dreams of a better tomorrow--personal and public--were being examined and dashed by folks who themselves were already deeply troubled by feelings of alienation and by drug use--it is no accident that the lead singers/songwriters of so many Grunge groups ether OD'd or committed suicide--Staley, Cornell, Wood, Cobain...
> 
> ...


Good info, some of it new to me, great post with the Jeffers (an impressive thinker and wordsmith).

I was thinking more of just looking at the song sheets of grunge-like artists, and trying to figure out how they were so different/original and how they came up with the 'atmosphere’.

For me, the happy songs were more disposable, except for some of the Beatles clever songs, and other big hits in every subsequent decade.
So, for my favorites I was left with the more depressing/realistic(?) songs reflecting those emotions. They're easier to pull off, solo ...and fitting and straightforward/accessible for a contemplative mood.. What a gift they are.


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

the thing I found in the "grunge" movement was that it was a return to guitars and amps and the loose time feel of the early 1970s. In the 80s, pop music was real "tight" in its arrangements and time feel. Pop music was "slick"

then around 1990 I start hearing these northwest bands and it was like the music we played in our dad's garage when I was a kid


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> There was something different about Grunge. In the 1950s and throughout the 1960s and 70s, most downer songs were about love denied, lost, thwarted, not reciprocated..You did have Barry McGuire's _Eve of Destruction_ as a sign of Things to Come, but most of the popular music from those years was pretty cheerful stuff. The Doobie Brothers, Laura Nyro, Beach Boys, ELO, many hundreds of other artists were singing upbeat and often wonderful songs about love and just being alive.
> 
> Out of this arose Disco and Punk, which one critic called the Secret Sharers--Disco emphasizing the feelgood aspect of popular music; the other a sort of rage building up against the euphoria. Then came Grunge, out of the gloomy Pacific Northwest, where the dreams of a better tomorrow--personal and public--were being examined and dashed by folks who themselves were already deeply troubled by feelings of alienation and by drug use--it is no accident that the lead singers/songwriters of so many Grunge groups ether OD'd or committed suicide--Staley, Cornell, Wood, Cobain...


Punk/disco as a reaction to prog is sometimes brought up but that era was also the highly confessional singer-songwriter era - John Denver, Carly Simon, James Taylor et al. There's some great stuff there (I wouldn't give up early Randy Newman for the world) but a lot of that stuff aged _incredibly_ poorly. I think a lot of punk speaking to larger political trends was a reaction to the sort of introspective, arguably egotistical nature of being incredibly confessional. This is obviously a pejorative over-simplification, but still (disco, to an extent, was also non-introspective and populist by nature - not to mention its popularity with marginalized populations during that time)

to an extent i think grunge and nu-metal later were reactions to production trends as well. Nirvana knocking off Michael Jackson from the pop charts is a well-known story but I think it was also reactionary to stuff like, idk, "November Rain" by GNR (granted, that was 1992 track, but still). Plus there was also the reaction to mainstream popular music being politically vapid - it wasn't grunge, but one of the most memorable moments of 90s UK music culture was Michael Jackson (again!) at the BRIT Awards doing some massive overproduced stage song about saving the whales or something, interrupted by Jarvis Cocker of Pulp walking onto the stage and faux-mooning the audience. 

then you had the nu-metal stuff which was both an adaptation, and i think a reaction to the first mainstream EDM boom of the mid-90s (i.e. "electronica"). 

weirdly enough the most "garage-y"/DIY stuff I hear these days, mostly from amateur friends on Bandcamp/etc is electronic, because the barrier of entry to making electronic music is now extremely low- it's at the point where stuff like Steve Albini proudly remarking that an album has no synthesizers in its production seems like a bygone era thing.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

re: the whole singer-songwriter thing, I have "mixed" opinions on Robert Christgau's taste in music but when you read his columns from like 1973-1975 and see his escalating despair at the progress of highly produced, introspective singer-songwriter artists, you can kind of get an impression of why "Blitzkreig Bop" was so impactful when it released.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

There was "depressive" music before grunge, angst ridden pop that grew from punk, itself an angry ba$tard of rock n roll.

It's always been there, though in different guises on different sides of the Atlantic.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

you'd expect it to be big now because the impression i get from people under the age of 35 or so is more or less despair. Really unhappy and depressed generation it is. 


i said it earlier but i think the problem is based on the current structure of the music industry being extremely unfriendly to amateurs/"middle class" artists who aren't at Taylor Swift popularity levels


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> I've come to an understanding (maybe) that you and Fluteman and maybe Sananton, maybe Forster (you various subjectivists) have had unusual exposure to so many types of music, too early, so that you never went through the straightforward adolescent brain development mentioned about. I mean, you're only slightly different in this regard, but you became totally open-minded! I never did. Before the Beatles, I was into the simpler, early rock and roll.
> 
> What do you think, as a scientifically inclined music fan?


No two teens are the same, so I'd say it's a mistake to assume that most teens go through the same adolescent brain development (wrt to music). It's certainly true that my exposure to music was both early, continuing and evolving, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm totally open-minded. I had my own biases and prejudices as a teen (and still do of course) - "hating" disco and American MOR, but also finding my own way without jumping on the Bowie bandwagon, the pinnacle of not-pop in the UK in the 70s. My first reaction to punk was completely negative, but I came round in the end and eventually embraced post-punk and new wave, electro and synth-pop, while my prog, and Canterbury was relegated to the back of the record collection.

I'm pretty sure there were plenty like me in the UK.



nikola said:


> [...] Almost everything seems bland, generic and uninteresting. [...]
> No one is important today anymore... maybe Brandi Carlile imo, but she's not a new artist anymore.
> Very little talent and so much fuss out there today. Interesting melodies and harmonies have been dead since long ago.


Maybe you're looking in the wrong place? What have you tried that you say is bland and uninteresting?


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

I think you're right because the record companies promoted the record and got it placed in all the stores in the malls and all that in the old days. Sure today a musician can record themselves and get their music onto a streaming service, but it was the record company's distribution contracts that moved the units and got the record sales


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

for the record, I only hated disco because I was a rocker that had a little sister that was in love with Andy Gibb


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Nate Miller said:


> the thing I found in the "grunge" movement was that it was a return to guitars and amps and the loose time feel of the early 1970s. In the 80s, pop music was real "tight" in its arrangements and time feel. Pop music was "slick"
> 
> then around 1990 I start hearing these northwest bands and it was like the music we played in our dad's garage when I was a kid


Yes, it was an innovation. I could picture them (Nirvana) sitting around with their guitars and knowing a few chords and different amplified sound effects. Thinking about what they could use to put together a composition. Maybe they already had some words that guided them.

I remember thinking the same thing about the path of the early Beatles when they were trying to learn how to write songs, up to their standards and their purposes. So much of it is just exploring with the guitar and singing words that might fit. As you know, the key ingredient is to be playing live so much of the time that you do it effortlessly and you can improvise as need be, without getting frustrated.

So many of the notable songs were probably generated like that. I think it's great. It means that anyone could do it, they just need to learn the basic chords and want to sing. Of course it's devilishly difficult to come up with something memorable.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Disco fascinates me. I love the music, but for me the key takeaway is the strange wistfulness of the genre--a sense in many songs (especially those of _Chic)_ of ill-defined, only sensed Trouble just around the Corner. Let's boogie on the deck of the Titanic, the music says, while we still have the illusion of time before something happens. Let's dance; make love; party while we are still here. Janis Joplin's _Get it While You Can _would be a non-disco precursor. Another, related, theme is of giving oneself some relief, some break from the constant pressures of life, work, the stress--it's getting almost unbearable. MJ's _Off The Wall _and other Chic.

But the counterpoint, the upside, is, for me, the infectious joy of the music and the invitation to dance the night away. Tavares' _Heaven Must be Missing an Angel _would make a corpse want to dance--there is a YouTube of them performing that somewhere in England, maybe New Year's Eve, that shows everybody moving and grooving. Disco, though, evolves into the darker music of Billy Idol and some of Laura Branigan (_Self Control)._


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

This aspect of disco sometimes gets slightly exaggerated - it had plenty of mainstream pickup - but remember too that disco was very popular with communities that it wasn't very nice to be in in the 1970s - minorities, and gay communities specifically. Music as joyful, escapist pleasure makes more social sense in that context.


Or per Jarvis Cocker, since I mentioned him earlier - "You'll never fail like common people [...] and dance, and drink, and scr*w / because there's nothing else to do"


----------



## Nate Miller (Oct 24, 2016)

what disco was really about was the record companies coming up with a pop dance music "formula" so that if they did , x and y their sales would be z.

It was the beginning of a drum machine, keyboard player and engineer replacing a band. That is what garage band rockers of the day (like myself) really hated about disco.

I remember playing an 8-trac of the Village People and randomly popping through the tracs and never missing a beat. Every song was the same tempo and same beat.


----------



## fbjim (Mar 8, 2021)

i mean for dance music, people literally sort their records by BPM, hah. it does have to fulfill a functional purpose, after all


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> No two teens are the same, so I'd say it's a mistake to assume that most teens go through the same adolescent brain development (wrt to music). It's certainly true that my exposure to music was both early, continuing and evolving, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that I'm totally open-minded. I had my own biases and prejudices as a teen (and still do of course) - "hating" disco and American MOR, but also finding my own way without jumping on the Bowie bandwagon, the pinnacle of not-pop in the UK in the 70s. My first reaction to punk was completely negative, but I came round in the end and eventually embraced post-punk and new wave, electro and synth-pop, while my prog, and Canterbury was relegated to the back of the record collection.
> 
> I'm pretty sure there were plenty like me in the UK.


Yes, you're right, we can't offer such definitive statements about individuals in psychology or developmental biology. But I was thinking about you guys and CM. 
You seem similar to me, thinking of my experience with other groupings of CM enthusiasts. Youse all know all kinds, the different trends and the history of pop, jazz, others. Perhaps it's merely rare in my social circles around here. People are remembered by their favorite musical categories, what they spend their time with. 
I don't remember such eclecticism, especially among acquaintances when I was 20 or 30. It's become a new world.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Nate Miller said:


> what disco was really about was the record companies coming up with a pop dance music "formula" so that if they did , x and y their sales would be z.
> 
> It was the beginning of a drum machine, keyboard player and engineer replacing a band. That is what garage band rockers of the day (like myself) really hated about disco.
> 
> I remember playing an 8-trac of the Village People and randomly popping through the tracs and never missing a beat. Every song was the same tempo and same beat.


What Disco was about was getting together and dancing to an infectious groove. People liked it--it sold, it was everywhere on the radio. We keep reading about the giant corporations stifling certain musics--but nobody is actually forcing anyone to listen or to dance. It just so happens in my case that I love a very wide spectrum of popular music--one runs into this music puritanism regularly, but what must we so zealously defend?


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> What Disco was about was getting together and dancing to an infectious groove. People liked it--it sold, it was everywhere on the radio. We keep reading about the giant corporations stifling certain musics--but nobody is actually forcing anyone to listen or to dance. It just so happens in my case that I love a very wide spectrum of popular music--one runs into this music puritanism regularly, but what must we so zealously defend?


What if Disco and Punk and Metal were caboshed by the commecial sources, what would have happened to 70s and 80s rock and pop? I don't know.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> What if Disco and Punk and Metal were caboshed by the commecial sources, what would have happened to 70s and 80s rock and pop? I don't know.


We may never know.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> We may never know.


What about 90s music, and even today.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Luchesi said:


> What about 90s music, and even today.


Luchesi, I again confess that I can only deal with clearly-formulated and contextualized questions and issues. Your two most recent brief posts above are far beyond my ability to understand what they ask or mean. I am no good at subtlety, alas!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Luchesi said:


> What if Disco and Punk and Metal were caboshed by the commecial sources, what would have happened to 70s and 80s rock and pop? I don't know.


Do you mean kiboshed? ("decisively ended or rejected")? "Caboshed" is a term in heraldry!


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

I admit this is straying from the OP, but so have some of the posts preceding mine.



nikola said:


> I really can't find today almost anyone who matters or is good on that level, no matter how many musicians are out there. Almost everything seems bland, generic and uninteresting.


Here's a list of the top scoring albums so far in 2022 on Metacritic.

New Album Releases by Metascore - Metacritic

I've only heard of two artists listed here, so I have little idea of what to expect from the rest. How about you nikola?


94Motomami - Rosalía92Ants From Up There - Black Country, New Road89Feeding the Machine - Binker & Moses89Heart Under - Just Mustard89Dear Scott - Michael Head & the Red Elastic Band88Big Time - Angel Olsen88Dawn FM - The Weeknd88Forever on My Mind - Son House87Dragon New Warm Mountain I Believe in You - Big Thief87This Is a Photograph - Kevin Morby87For You Who Are the Wronged - Kathryn Joseph87Summer at Land's End - The Reds, Pinks & Purples87Electricity - Ibibio Sound Machine87Wet Leg - Wet Leg87Amaryllis - Mary Halvorson87LIFE ON EARTH - Hurray for the Riff Raff86Live at the El Mocambo - The Rolling Stones86Belladonna - Mary Halvorson86Un Verano Sin Ti - Bad Bunny86A Light for Attracting Attention - The Smile


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Let's face it--we're almost dinosaurs here, attempting to find our place in the new post-dinosaur age. Some of us are luckier (older) than others and therefore have perhaps the fuller mental warehouses filled with the great songs of yesteryear, of many of the genres that have come (and gone). I go back to Jimmy Dorsey songs and the Mills Brothers being the popular songs and singers of the day while WWII was still in progress--




The world of popular music has moved on, leaving many of us behind (like me), but as has been noted, trying to keep abreast of What's Happening Now is attempting to drink from a fire hose. So. like Jethro Tull. I'll keep Living in the Past--and it's a long and good past


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

Strange Magic said:


> Some of us are luckier (older) than others and therefore have perhaps the fuller mental warehouses filled with the great songs of yesteryear,


Well, yes, logically, the older you are, the larger the store of "great songs from yesteryear".

Just that your store is full of different songs from mine.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Forster said:


> Well, yes, logically, the older you are, the larger the store of "great songs from yesteryear".
> 
> Just that your store is full of different songs from mine.


It's a matter of bandwidth as well as age. I am extremely lucky in having always had a penchant for never discarding music I liked, and also of having low standards, plebeian tastes. Having low standards is a gift and is a key to much happiness. I am being serious. I am trying to call up again the source for a remark I read long ago of the desirability of having a willingness to be pleased.


----------



## Luchesi (Mar 15, 2013)

Forster said:


> Do you mean kiboshed? ("decisively ended or rejected")? "Caboshed" is a term in heraldry!


Ah yes, thank you. I remember the sound of kiboshed now, never knew the spelling.. 

English is such a large subject. I'd like to see the number of words compared to other Indo-European languages (and others). 
Learning the spellings and the grammar takes 3 years they say, and coincidentally, I've found that learning sight-reading and how music works takes about 3 years also. Drudgery, unless you just love it, or you're quite young.. It's how the brain learns, at different ages, it's fascinating to me.


----------



## Forster (Apr 22, 2021)

One source for word counts is, unsurprisingly, in Wiki.

List of dictionaries by number of words - Wikipedia 

It puts Korean at the top of the list.

A BBC article considers the question, how many words do you need to learn to be able to converse in another language.

How many words do you need to speak a language? - BBC News


----------

