Why does history treat some bands better than others?

Real music lovers and those with depth of knowledge know the facts of who's who, and that's what counts. Look at Floyd's DSOTM. A lot of DSOTM shirts out there, but how many of those wearing them know anything about the band. History is fickle.

 

Could not agree more, in terms of James Brown's influence on several genres of popular music, but I'm not certain his true place on the short shelf of legendary musicians is in as good a shape. And it seems Robert Christgau has similar concerns:

http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop-shop/6228957/robert-christgau-get-on-up-james-brown

 

I am absolutely certain Dylan would never enter this thread of his own accord.

 

He's too busy being treated well by history. So far, anyway....

L.

 

I agree.

I agree again.

And I agree again: the Band dressing up like nineteenth century hobos on the cover of their second album (or young Bobby Dylan moving from his birthplace, where there was in fact a vestige of a rural lifestyle, to New York City to dress up like a Dust Bowl refugee and play folk music, because New York City was paradoxically the capital of the "folk" scene) are just as much a reflection of the tension of modern urbanization as "Clash City Rockers" or "Anarchy in the U.K." Whether one engages with the modern environment or runs away from it towards an imaginary retreat in "folk" art, one is still reacting to it.

 

So Uriah Heep are still relevant today because they're popular in Eastern Europe, but the Sex Pistols' political songs don't matter because … they had little relevance outside the UK? You need to make up your mind with regard to America-centric views of music.

 

OK, look here's the chronology.

Aug 71 - Concerts for B'Desh
Dec 71 - album release
Spring 72 - Film opens
.
.
.
Winter 73 - Dylan announces not only his first tour since 1966 with the same band as he had then but also his first studio album since Oct 1970.
Jan 73 - Tour opens and album released which hits #1 on the back of advance sales

See that 18 month gap in the middle ?

That's the one saying "There is no Beatle influence or anything left from Concert for Bangladesh for what I'm doing". Two of the most famous bootlegs around at that point were Bob Dylan with The Band - that's why there was so much excitement ahead of the 74 tour.

Read Clinton Heylin's "Behind the Shades" about Dylan reconnecting with The Band in the summer of 73 - that's what led to both the album and the tour.

 

Hang onto your theory about bootlegs making stores order real albums. I'll remain confident in the fact that The Beatles released no new material from 1971 to January 1974, yet Bob Dylan remained active in featuring himself in a worldwide smash album and film from his concert with two Beatles, he continued his Jagger and Ringo type of escapades acting in a major motion picture, and wrote a Beatles type of song in 1973 to complete the Beatles scene. The gap of a lack of positive visible Beatles karma (that began with Macca's announcement in April 1970 coupled with the intensely sad viewings and bad feelings upon the release of the Let It Be film) effectively ended with the opening of the Bangladesh film. Beatles fans saw Beatles playing nice with Mr. Dylan. As they say, the rest is number one record making history. Dylan was just another member of the Beatles. Number one albums are par for the course.

 

I really don't think Deep Purple is as obscure as some people are suggesting.

 

The point isn't about artists reacting -- its about what the average listener today identifies with. And the ratio is shifting. Rural themes and folkway subjects generally don't appeal to the average modern person living in urban/suburban environments. I saw this growing up, I see it today even moreso (not just because of my music interests). Likewise, songs about gritty urban living, pushers, pimps and transvestites don't typically appeal to people who prefer rural or suburban lifestyles. In a half century I've watched rural areas become miles of strip malls, big box stores, hi-density apartment complexes, graffiti 'art', crime...most of the kids don't have one iota of a connection to the rural lifestyle that existed only 30 years ago. These are by and large not people who connect to The Band, CCR or later americana acts like Wilco. Its anything but: metal, hip hop, modern pop, whatever. People playing video games in apartment GG-24A after a long day at minimum wage, with a paper tray of nachos soaked with artificial 'cheez' from the local convenience store, are not down with rural music. And they're an ever increasing majority.

 

Couldn't disagree more. While your hypothetical wage sleeve eating Cheetos while playing video games may not be down with rural music, I would argue that the target audience for most "Americana" music - Johnny Cash's late-career albums, Gillian Welch, Lucinda Williams, and whatever other contemporary Nashville/Country/Americana artists are accepted by "purists," early Ryan Adams and Wilco, etc. - is the more middle-class/upper-class person living in an urban/suburban environment, who seizes on that kind of music as an antidote to their normal everyday environment in the cubicle, or on the computer all day, etc. Likewise, contemporary hit country also provides its own idealization of rural themes for people who live in suburban Atlanta (or Cleveland, for that matter). From the original 1927 Bristol recordings onwards, the entire country/roots music industry has always been about providing an idealized vision of rural life for an audience ever-more-estranged from actual rural life, I'd argue.

I assume this is a reference to the Velvet Underground and their lyrical themes, but, again, I don't find this to make a whole lot of sense. Maybe there aren't a whole lot of songs about transvestites in the blues, but country blues music is filled with pushers, pimps, drugs, violence, sex, etc. To pick one example at random, Robert Johnson's "32-20 Blues" is as gritty and violent and dark as any Lou Reed or gangsta rap song:

 

Allow me to quote my all time favorite blues couplet, from "Sissy Man Blues" by Kokomo Arnold: "Woke up this morning with my pork-grinding business in my hand / Lord, if you can't send me no woman, please send me some sissy man."

 

True enough. The Robert Johnson song was the first song that came to my mind, but urban songwriters such as Lou Reed certainly have no monopoly on writing about the seamier side of life.

 

The answer is easy isn't it? Some were good...even great...but others were better!

 

Yes. And this sort of thing in one form or another has been going on at least since the 3rd Century B.C.E., when Theocritus wrote his Idylls, poems in the voices of rural Sicilian shepherds, but written for sophisticated urban readers in Alexandria. The classic study of the modern literary representation of the rural and/or working class world in these terms is William Empson's Some Versions of Pastoral, although he doesn't discuss pop music.....

L.

 

I'm cool with that, and certainly I see a healthy albeit small market for americana/roots. But I remember the days here when there was quite a number of honky tonk bars and saloons where country rock and such was regular fare. They're dried up. Leaving just a few venues that tend to specialize in booking americana etc. But its cool to see sales of americana going on - I just feel its slowly becoming a smaller slice of musical life. As I mentioned, its not just music, I've been involved in americana collecting since I was young (classic cars, antiques, and so on - I was one of those 'American pickers' type guys long before reality TV). Almost all of us note the dwindling interest in this part of history. Part of this is economics, part hurdles of home ownership for so many working people, but also, the widening time gap as that lifestyle dissipates into history and becomes remote to kids. There will still (I hope) be a sizable market for it, but it may be headed the direction of vinyl - a niche market for smart, interesting people.

Sure - the country has a hustler, hooker, and outlaw for every city slickin' pimp, whore, and gangster - the difference being where the crime goes down. City folk want to engage on street corners or alleys, country folk like to do it yonder by the fence line or the old oak tree.

 

This seems to be a retreat from your statement just a minute ago about city music being the sole home of songs about sex, drugs, and violence, and that "country" listeners can't relate to those themes …

 

I think I used the term generally to distinguish the reference from ALL people. Of course country music has traditionally dealt with crime and nefarious folk as well. The picture I intended with pimps etc. was a distinctly urban one. Instead of drugs I could say heroin, back in the '60's a drug associated with the inner city's. Nowadays of course its everywhere.

 

You know something, when looking at the Rock bands that are best known today from the 70s, they seem to be either the same brand of Rock or close to it. Wonder why that is? Does that have anything to do with why they're treated better by history than others? What was it about that brand of Rock that made it last over the others?

It has nothing to with being better or not because one could make a valid argument showing how other Rock brands were/are just as good or even better.

 

Speaking from an American perspective, I would say that the top bands from the 70s that remain influential today would include Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, David Bowie, Fleetwood Mac and Black Sabbath. Though naturally there are some similarities between these artists, they all seem pretty stylistically distinct to me.

 

What brand of rock are you pointing to here? People talk about "classic rock," but that's a pretty broad category (part historical, part an invention of marketers and radio programmers) and not all that helpful for any sort of analysis.

L.

 

Yeah, because Led Zeppelin, the Sex Pistols, The Eagles, Pink Floyd, Blondie, The Talking Heads, and David Bowie all sound alike.

 

I don't recall offering "blind references". Stats are stats - you can attempt to discredit them if you want, but it seems to me that they're a pretty good gauge of popularity.

Combining the sales of 2 SMB albums seems like a real stretch - and even if you try that to validate your opinion, the 7 million copies of the two SMB albums still adds up to many fewer copies than "Rumours" or "Hotel California".

"Hotel California" was the 4th biggest selling album of 1977 and went to #1. "Rumours" was the best-selling album of 1977 period and (obviously) also went to #1.

"Fly Like An Eagle" peaked at #3. I don't know where it ended up on the year-end charts.

You can argue anecdotally that the SMB were as popular as the others back in 1976/77, but the numbers don't support it...

 

Was the missing the point about Dylan meeting up and playing with The Band in the summer of 1973 deliberate?

I only ask since it is rather important to the story of how PW and the tour came about...

 

Actually I think the entirely opposite to be true. A lot of those 70's rock bands sound SO different that they each had a very distinct sound and there was never the problem that they would all get kind of blended together and forgotten about.