From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V7 #551 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Thursday, November 27 2008 Volume 07 : Number 551 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] Can [Dan Sallitt ] Re: [loud-fans] Can [treesprite@earthlink.net] Re: [loud-fans] Can [treesprite@earthlink.net] Re: [loud-fans] Can ["Tom Marcinko" ] Re: [loud-fans] Can ["Tom Marcinko" ] [loud-fans] Re: Pay some mind to the Fogeys [info@richardgagnon.com] Re: [loud-fans] Re: Pay some mind to the Fogeys [Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Can >> I wouldn't say that these people were major innovators. Parsons was >> unusually willing to use undiluted country stylings in a rock context, but >> it seems to me he worked well within a tradition, as did Big Star. (And >> Shakespeare, and Mozart - there's no shame in working within a tradition.) - > > This genuinely interests me. My understanding had always been that what set > Gram Parsons and Big Star apart from their contemporaries was that, somehow, > they did something innovative that influenced a bunch of artists. If, in > fact, they weren't especially innovative, what is it about them (and, I > suppose, Can) which causes folks to cite them as influences? Speaking for myself, I was influenced by Big Star because I love the music, and got ideas for doing things I wanted to do by listening to and playing their music. Innovation wasn't as much on my mind as love for the work. You could say that they brought a certain Southern R&B inflection to Beatles-style pop, but I don't think of this as a radical innovation - more as a natural result of the creative situation. This issue runs through art criticism over the years. Obviously innovation is important, and easily impresses people, so that innovators are easy to champion and often get the acclaim they deserve. But there's an argument to be made that non-innovative artists create the really great work, by "standing on the shoulders of giants," to use Newton's phrase. According to this line of thought, someone like Shakespeare, working entirely in forms that are mature and familiar, gets to take advantage of the best aspects of genre, and invests every ounce of his artistic energy into personal exploration; whereas, after creating new forms, the innovator can be forgiven for not then maturing the form and taking it to its highest level of expression. To be fair to Parsons, it did sound a bit radical to hear country stylings in such an undiluted form in rock music at that point in time. (Some of you may recall that country was considered unhip among hippies, associated with political conservatism and rednecks.) Obviously he was one of those guys who didn't care what anyone thought, and that's a characteristic of innovators. But I'd say the shock was due more to transposition than to new forms. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:04:43 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: treesprite@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Can Parsons is helped along in rock mythology by having an extraordinary story and being such a Romantic figure. He also helped steer a major established band, The Byrds, deep into country music -- there was plenty of country rock throughout the decade, so it's hard to tell how influencial that move was. I'm a big fan, and he made some extraordinary music, but I don't think of him as innovative. Big Star is innovative in small ways, perhaps -- in songwriting and lyrics more than anything. By using the musical vocabulary of the British Invasion to write songs riddled with the seediness, melancholy and spiritual burn-out of a post-60's generation, I think they took the concept of power pop from being a kind of retro-minded teenage nostalgia genre to a place where that teenage nostalgia is a launching pad for looking at the ugliness and frustration of young adulthood. Innovation is definitely the most overrated element in art, though -- when it's combined with true inspiration there's nothing better, but as an end itself it's usually pretty hollow! B ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:04:45 -0800 (GMT-08:00) From: treesprite@earthlink.net Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Can Parsons is helped along in rock mythology by having an extraordinary story and being such a Romantic figure. He also helped steer a major established band, The Byrds, deep into country music -- there was plenty of country rock throughout the decade, so it's hard to tell how influencial that move was. I'm a big fan, and he made some extraordinary music, but I don't think of him as innovative. Big Star is innovative in small ways, perhaps -- in songwriting and lyrics more than anything. By using the musical vocabulary of the British Invasion to write songs riddled with the seediness, melancholy and spiritual burn-out of a post-60's generation, I think they took the concept of power pop from being a kind of retro-minded teenage nostalgia genre to a place where that teenage nostalgia is a launching pad for looking at the ugliness and frustration of young adulthood. Innovation is definitely the most overrated element in art, though -- when it's combined with true inspiration there's nothing better, but as an end itself it's usually pretty hollow! B ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:06:03 -0700 From: "Tom Marcinko" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Can Somewhere I heard a 1970s interview with Chilton in which he was asked if his music felt outdated in this the age of disco. I don't remember the answer, except I think it trended in the general direction of "No." Expectation seems to play a part, though. I wonder if people who knew The Box Tops were thrown for any kind of loop by "#1 Record." I'm sure a lot of Byrds fans were by "Sweetheart of the Rodeo." Hard to believe it now, but when I bought "The Kinks Are The Village Green Preservation Society" as an Xmas gift for my brother a few years after its initial release, I was initially disappointed that it didn't sound anything like "You Really Got Me." On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 9:38 AM, Dan Sallitt wrote: > I wouldn't say that these people were major innovators. Parsons was >>> unusually willing to use undiluted country stylings in a rock context, >>> but >>> it seems to me he worked well within a tradition, as did Big Star. (And >>> Shakespeare, and Mozart - there's no shame in working within a >>> tradition.) - >>> >> >> This genuinely interests me. My understanding had always been that what >> set >> Gram Parsons and Big Star apart from their contemporaries was that, >> somehow, >> they did something innovative that influenced a bunch of artists. If, in >> fact, they weren't especially innovative, what is it about them (and, I >> suppose, Can) which causes folks to cite them as influences? >> > > Speaking for myself, I was influenced by Big Star because I love the music, > and got ideas for doing things I wanted to do by listening to and playing > their music. Innovation wasn't as much on my mind as love for the work. > You could say that they brought a certain Southern R&B inflection to > Beatles-style pop, but I don't think of this as a radical innovation - more > as a natural result of the creative situation. > > This issue runs through art criticism over the years. Obviously innovation > is important, and easily impresses people, so that innovators are easy to > champion and often get the acclaim they deserve. But there's an argument to > be made that non-innovative artists create the really great work, by > "standing on the shoulders of giants," to use Newton's phrase. According to > this line of thought, someone like Shakespeare, working entirely in forms > that are mature and familiar, gets to take advantage of the best aspects of > genre, and invests every ounce of his artistic energy into personal > exploration; whereas, after creating new forms, the innovator can be > forgiven for not then maturing the form and taking it to its highest level > of expression. > > To be fair to Parsons, it did sound a bit radical to hear country stylings > in such an undiluted form in rock music at that point in time. (Some of you > may recall that country was considered unhip among hippies, associated with > political conservatism and rednecks.) Obviously he was one of those guys > who didn't care what anyone thought, and that's a characteristic of > innovators. But I'd say the shock was due more to transposition than to new > forms. - Dan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:27:53 -0700 From: "Tom Marcinko" Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Can I think that's a well-phrased assessment of Big Star. On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:04 AM, wrote: > Parsons is helped along in rock mythology by having an extraordinary story > and being such a Romantic figure. He also helped steer a major established > band, The Byrds, deep into country music -- there was plenty of country rock > throughout the decade, so it's hard to tell how influencial that move was. > I'm a big fan, and he made some extraordinary music, but I don't think of > him as innovative. > > Big Star is innovative in small ways, perhaps -- in songwriting and lyrics > more than anything. By using the musical vocabulary of the British Invasion > to write songs riddled with the seediness, melancholy and spiritual burn-out > of a post-60's generation, I think they took the concept of power pop from > being a kind of retro-minded teenage nostalgia genre to a place where that > teenage nostalgia is a launching pad for looking at the ugliness and > frustration of young adulthood. > > Innovation is definitely the most overrated element in art, though -- when > it's combined with true inspiration there's nothing better, but as an end > itself it's usually pretty hollow! > > B ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:17:02 -0500 (EST) From: info@richardgagnon.com Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Pay some mind to the Fogeys Glenn wrote: > Well, at least I agree that the covers album was appalling. And I agree > that _Venus in Overdrive_ is different in style than the string of albums > before that, and I agree that those other albums were really good. So we agree on > almost everything! Except I'm still enjoying ViO a lot, *including* the > different production, which to me sounds mostly simpler, not imitative. So > be it. Oh, not to worry. I know it's my personal aversion to the production choices that keeps me from giving the album its, uh, due. Rick's singing is wonderful, certainly. And if this album is a step in the direction of simplification, then it was worth it. That's been a problem of Springfield's since...Tao. JR wrote: > The ABC lyric in question can be found in the song where Martin Fry sings, > "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink..." and you think he > must be setting up something clever, but he isn't. That's all Fry has to > say. > The guy was never as glib as Costello, but that clunker seems particularly > lame on a record that otherwise sounds like the follow-up to BEAUTY STAB. Excellent point. Once an uninspired and disappointing lyric wedges itself into your consciousness, you wish you'd never noticed it, and you certainly can't ignore it. Well, I suppose most people *can* and do, but it's not generally within my powers...;) > Todd Rundgren has been doing pretty well for an old-timer, too. If you can line up two consistently good and passionate records, you're ahead of the pack. > I like the new Sparks, but it sounds like the well-timed end of a trilogy. Now I want > to > hear the album of good ol' Sparks songs that they ditched in favor of LIL' > BEETHOVEN. As long as it doesn't sound like BALLS. They've come a long way as producers, I must say. I realized, after writing yesterday, that I'd forgotten to mention another, uh, venerable gentleman who's just beaten the odds and released an excellent cd. Burton Cummings released, a couple of weeks ago, his first album of original material since 1990's Plus Signs. 19 new songs, all of them written on his own, which is something he'd never done in his entire career, solo or with the Guess Who. I've enjoyed his last two outings immensely, since he stopped writing to please anyone but himself, essentially. No more formula love songs. Now he writes honestly, sometimes bitterly, sometimes angrily. But I'd say it's pretty honest. An example, from "Crazy if you mess with the gods": I did some talkin' to a girl in Honolulu Seems I was less than polite Her island warrior showed my face where the ground was Twenty-seven stitches that night A lot of second-guessing that night...yeah... Funny, though: his three finest albums (imho, 1980's Woman Love, 1990's Plus Signs, and this one) have been Canada-only releases. Anyone else? Richard ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 17:35:59 -0500 From: Jenny Grover Subject: Re: [loud-fans] Re: Pay some mind to the Fogeys info@richardgagnon.com wrote: > Once an uninspired and disappointing lyric wedges itself > into your consciousness, you wish you'd never noticed it, and you > certainly can't ignore it. And one need look no further than Colin Meloy for plenty of those. Speaking of old and oldish artists with new material, anyone heard the latest Wedding Present album "El Rey"? I heard one song off it last night on 3wk and it was enough to make me sit up and take notice. Says on Amazon that it came out last May, but it seems to have just snuck in under my radar. Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V7 #551 *******************************