From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org (shindell-list-digest) To: shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Subject: shindell-list-digest V8 #26 Reply-To: shindell-list@smoe.org Sender: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk shindell-list-digest Sunday, February 12 2006 Volume 08 : Number 026 Today's Subjects: ----------------- [RS] Once a genre, always a genre. [Rongrittz@aol.com] RE: [RS] Once a genre, always a genre. ["Joe Lanzalotto" ] Re: [RS] Re: Springsteen [Peter Booth ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:09:44 EST From: Rongrittz@aol.com Subject: [RS] Once a genre, always a genre. Re: Springsteen: >> I think he's an excellent songwriter, but his body of work could hardly be called "folk," a few albums notwithstanding--almost everybody has been "unplugged" at some point in their careers. << So, I'm curious: once an artist establishes himself in one genre, he can never move outside it and be recognized for success in a new one? Let's say, for argument's sake, that Richard records a brilliant and widely-acclaimed instrumental record of South American songs. Should he not be recognized in the (category I'm making up) "Best South American Instrumental Album" field because his previous body of work was folk? I'm just askin'. RG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 14:52:58 -0500 From: "Joe Lanzalotto" Subject: RE: [RS] Once a genre, always a genre. How about Dion DiMucci? (You know, Run Around Sue, etc) He was the ultimate 50's/early 60s doo wop king and later in the 60s made what I would consider a bunch of folk/pop songs like Abraham, Martin and John. Am I stretching a point? Joe - -----Original Message----- From: owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org [mailto:owner-shindell-list-digest@smoe.org] On Behalf Of Rongrittz@aol.com Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 2:10 PM To: shindell-list@smoe.org Subject: [RS] Once a genre, always a genre. Re: Springsteen: >> I think he's an excellent songwriter, but his body of work could hardly be called "folk," a few albums notwithstanding--almost everybody has been "unplugged" at some point in their careers. << So, I'm curious: once an artist establishes himself in one genre, he can never move outside it and be recognized for success in a new one? Let's say, for argument's sake, that Richard records a brilliant and widely-acclaimed instrumental record of South American songs. Should he not be recognized in the (category I'm making up) "Best South American Instrumental Album" field because his previous body of work was folk? I'm just askin'. RG ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 18:47:31 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time) From: Chip Robertson Subject: [RS] Re: Springsteen Regarding John McD's comment that "........ the committee should use their powers to do good, not evil. " .. all I can say is "Huh"? You're making an inconsequential bunch like the Grammy voters/nominators seem like Joe McCarthy for God's sake. Is Richard selling 5 million cd's going to make you feel better about his music? Or would you be on a message board complaining about him being overexposed? Maybe that connection you feel with him might be tainted a bit if you had to see him at an arena or stadium Do you want to stand in line with 20,000 fans for an after show "meet and greet"? And do you really need the Grammys to validate your musical choices? I'm sure your indignation is heartfelt, but at a time when people are getting killed over cartoons, maybe we need to re-examine what may or may not be "evil". Back to Lurking, Chip - ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:48:25 -0500 From: John McDonnell Subject: [RS] Re: Springsteen Hi All, RG wrote: >>Just because Springsteen used to be the consummate rocker, does that mean that he should not be able to make a folk-"sounding" album from time to time, and be recognized for having done so? Or, is it once a rocker, always a rocker, no matter what the album actually sounds like?<< I often find categories a little reductive, but in this instance having Springsteen as the face of folk is somewhat misleading--like Michael Jordan playing baseball. He may do it, and do it better than most, but he's no baseball player. Phenomenal athlete? Yes, but not a baseball player. I wouldn't have any objection to his album being nominated in the folk category (I didn't see much of the show--was it??), but it seemed a little like celebrity fast track--you know, where actors/actresses all of a sudden are singers/performers. He hardly needs the publicity, the recognition or the money, so why not spread the wealth a little?? If not, why not then at least get someone who paid some dues in the genre? I realize there may be some advantage to having a name like his in a folk category, in that it may draw in some listeners/consumers who ordinarily wouldn't buy any folk music, but ultimately that is somewhat insulting to a rich musical tradition--that it needs some kind of celebrity endorsement. I don't usually watch the Grammy's, and could not care less about the "winners," (Milli Vanilli anyone??), but the committee should use their powers to do good, not evil. John McD. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 20:41:15 -0500 From: Peter Booth Subject: Re: [RS] Re: Springsteen I'll drink to this post. On Feb 11, 2006, at 6:47 PM, Chip Robertson wrote: > Regarding John McD's comment that "........ the committee should use > their > powers to do good, not evil. " .. all I can say is "Huh"? You're > making an > inconsequential bunch like the Grammy voters/nominators seem like Joe > McCarthy for God's sake. Is Richard selling 5 million cd's going to > make > you feel better about his music? Or would you be on a message board > complaining about him being overexposed? Maybe that connection you > feel > with him might be tainted a bit if you had to see him at an arena or > stadium > Do you want to stand in line with 20,000 fans for an after show > "meet > and greet"? And do you really need the Grammys to validate your > musical > choices? I'm sure your indignation is heartfelt, but at a time when > people > are getting killed over cartoons, maybe we need to re-examine what > may or > may not be "evil". > > Back to Lurking, > > Chip > > > > ------------------------------ > > Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 11:48:25 -0500 > From: John McDonnell > Subject: [RS] Re: Springsteen > > Hi All, > > RG wrote: >>> Just because Springsteen used to be the consummate rocker, does that >>> mean > that he should not be able to make a folk-"sounding" album from time to > time, and be recognized for having done so? Or, is it once a rocker, > always a rocker, no matter what the album actually sounds like?<< > > I often find categories a little reductive, but in this instance having > Springsteen as the face of folk is somewhat misleading--like Michael > Jordan > playing baseball. He may do it, and do it better than most, but he's no > baseball player. Phenomenal athlete? Yes, but not a baseball player. > I wouldn't have any objection to his album being nominated in the folk > category (I didn't see much of the show--was it??), but it seemed a > little > like celebrity fast track--you know, where actors/actresses all of a > sudden > are singers/performers. He hardly needs the publicity, the recognition > or > the money, so why not spread the wealth a little?? If not, why not > then at > least get someone who paid some dues in the genre? > I realize there may be some advantage to having a name like his in a > folk > category, in that it may draw in some listeners/consumers who > ordinarily > wouldn't buy any folk music, but ultimately that is somewhat insulting > to a > rich musical tradition--that it needs some kind of celebrity > endorsement. > > I don't usually watch the Grammy's, and could not care less about the > "winners," (Milli Vanilli anyone??), but the committee should use their > powers to do good, not evil. > > John McD. ------------------------------ End of shindell-list-digest V8 #26 **********************************