Agree? I have all the music I want for the rest of my life. No need to hear anything new.

The new Monkees album? Imo, yes it's very derivative of music that's come before it - probably due to some of the songwriters present on the album. A bit of an Indie tint to it.

I personally don't care as some of the songs I just happen to like at face value (usually how I judge things). But it's interesting that it's getting such praise here when other similarly sounding albums, if made by a modern artist, would get a big "meh" instead.

 

So you have young friends lookin for older music. That does not make it more likely than more than a minority of the youngsers do just that. I din t believe it s a new phenomeneither. Like when Dylan started up lot s of people were lookin back at old folk / blues as an alternative to pop-music. An iconic album like Clash London calling even borrow the cover from Elvis first album. Generations of listeners has turned to vintage soul after starting up with modern RnB or Hip-Hop.'
There will always be lot s of great new music and now and then there might be a true game-changer. Sometimes those are sonewhat hard to find white they are still active.
A guy like Dylan certanely has not revolutionised music-mostly using traditional forms. But his lyrics combined with popular music was sonething new that definively turned pop- culture into high art. I mean the man is-(and this I know for a fact) a serious contender for the Nobelprice in litterature. If that could not be called high art nothing really could.
Whatever high art might be.

 

I think we may be talking past each other.

All I mean is that "greatness" itself is an objective cultural artifact, like a dam or a government building.

I may wish to deny that Shakespeare is really all that great. But that would not objectively change the fact that he is the great British poet.

Course syllabi, reprinted editions, scholarship, theater festivals, birthday celebrations, tourist destinations all conspire to confirm that he holds that status.

That's the sense in which I mean greatness is an objective fact.

 

It's silly to pretend that only a few young music fans feel the music produced decades ago is superior to that of today. Who do you suppose is downloading classic rock era music? Probably not anyone who lived through it

 

Best thing said on this thread...

 

I disagree

 

Whether educated or not, it's all opinions. I prefer critics without musical training most of the time. Largely, I don't enjoy academic reviews, they ever seem to talk about music on the same terms as I do.

 

I never pay attention to "best" lists at all and I didn't mention them. I said that I don't religiously follow critics and writers but I have always found that I tended to agree with assessments of the great or secondary artists.

Ditto my above comment. Did I say that I "follow" everything that critics say? No. So go take a shower.

 

I'm halfway there. Most of the new music I listen to is made by people I've been a fan of for years.

 

So if you don't follow the critics 100% and you don't necessarily follow Best Of lists, I'm not exactly sure where you're getting your information on what you consider musical High Art.

Unless of course you're just using your ears and making a judgement from that. If so, then you and I are more alike than different. And how did you know that I needed a shower, have you been watching my webcam?

 

Go back and read. That was in reply to someone who said that the only thing that determines if one artist is superior to another is simply whay one likes. It was an absurd thing to say, so I demonstrated its absurdity with that example.

So you think that today, there are modern artists that compare with:

Frank Zappa
Rolling Stones
John Coltrane
Jimi Hendrix
The Beatles
Bob Dylan
The Allman Brothers Band
Duke Ellington
Muddy Waters
Marvin Gaye
Elvis Presley
The Sex Pistols
Neil Young
Led Zeppelin
Frank Sinatra
Eart Wind & Fire
David Bowie
James Brown
Charlie Parker
Miles Davis
Lou Reed
Chuck Berry
...

?

 

I don't "follow critics" at all. For decades, I have been reading about music and studying it. I never mentioned "High Art" either. Why make things up?

 

Frank Ocean
Burial
James Blake
Beyoncé
Jason Isbell
Kendrick Lamar
Sturgill Simpson
Explosions In The Sky
Queens Of The Stone Age
Lin Manuel Miranda
Deerhunter
Lydia Loveless
Blood Orange
Chromatics
D'Angelo
Jessie Ware
Trixie Whitley

 

Fair enough - I guess "great artists" would be more appropriate?

Same question however - how do you know what is a great artist is (or isn't) if you are cherry picking critics and Best Of Lists? What's the metric you actually go on?

 

I realize it would be better to avoid this particular debate - but the artists in red don't, imo, belong on any "Greats" list.

Frank Zappa
Rolling Stones
John Coltrane
Jimi Hendrix
The Beatles
Bob Dylan
The Allman Brothers Band
Duke Ellington
Muddy Waters
Marvin Gaye
Elvis Presley
The Sex Pistols
Neil Young
Led Zeppelin
Frank Sinatra
Eart Wind & Fire
David Bowie
James Brown
Charlie Parker
Miles Davis
Lou Reed
Chuck Berry

 

Can't relate. For me one of the thrills in all this malarky is having my bias shattered. For instance, I've recently been obsessed with two songs off Justin Bieber's new album: Love Yourself and Sorry. That's not to say I'm a Belieber by any stretch of the imagination, just that these two songs happen to be good (Love Yourself particularly). If you'd asked me 6 months ago if I liked JB, I would have laughed in your face.

 

If I knew who any of them were, I'd disagree with you. But since I don't, I'm going back under my rock.

ps: This is my attempt to inject some humor into the thread.

 

Absolutely-in most cases. Not sure about Miles Davies, Elvis , Sinatra, Charlie Parker, Chuck Berry or Marvin Gaye though. We could of course add Louis Armstrong, Bille Holiday and Edith Piaff to that list. Or Michael Jackson or Prince or Kanye West, 2-pac, Jay Z, Amy Winehouse. Or why not Bob Marley or D angelo or Notorious big,

 

For me of the above, I'm only a fan of Lehman to a limited degree. I like the octet recordings save that they are a bit too mannered for my liking and we don't hear Tyshawn at full power. Rudresh is a fine scales player but I know 20 other dudes who can improvise at a much more creative level. Potter is exceptionally skilled yet stuck somewhere between post bop and free never giving his gifts a real chance to be heard with the grand outre master progenitors. The dude needs a trio session with Hamid Drake and Bankhead or Hemingway & Dresser.

The younger saxophone masters a generation or two younger than the older plus 70 folks (I plan on s drum & bass thread/commentary later. This promises to bring up a wholly new perspective as a few here might know my thoughts on the aforementioned Drake, Hemingway and the slew of master drummers playing today) that I believe are musicians of an extremely high order/level/ranking/or whatever descriptor one would like to apply include the following players: Tony Malaby, Josh Sinton, Ab Baars, Michael Moore, Paul Dunmall, Ingrid Laubrock, Rodrigo Amado, Dave Rempis, Marty Ehrlich, Assif Tsharar and a few others that are on that cusp. Some would say Matana Roberts, Tim Berne, Ellery Eskelin, Steve Coleman and some others are on that level. This is where it gets very subjective.

What I do know is that on a few days I've heard some of the above give performances on record but especially LIVE that were / are outrageously great - not really an opinion per se, as all of there knew what we heard - including my wife who is only somewhat of a jazz fan as she sometimes goes with me.

At one ICP show that had a very impressive performance from Ab Baars on tenor, she told me that she thinks he might be better than Tony (i.e. Malaby) and there is no saxophonist my wife like more than her boy Tony.

7 years ago she would have thought all he was playing was sounds. Today she wonders how the hell they do what they do and she's asked them - and they just chuckle with a little bit of humility. What I expect from master improvisors when it all comes together.


Let The Horse Go

 

The thing is-I love this forum because I love music-from prewar blues and jazz to modern hip-hop or RnB. And inbetween lots of blues, jazz, soul, gospel, tango, classical music, world-music, pop-music, reggae, country and lot s of other stuff. If one bother to catch up there are just as much good music now as it was before. But also lot s of bad music just like before. That s all.
An album like the last one from D Angelo is just as innovative and spectacular as some landmark albums of old. Some of Adeles hits are just as good as some of the hit-music of old, Kanye West might be a bit ceazy but I agree with Paul McCartney that he is a god-given musical innovator and talent. And on and on,

 

You're being very generous. I would have taken off a lot more than that.

 

Sad but true, I just pictured this guy:



Playing with these guys:

 

Nobody cares, Mr. Spaceman/MusicalHeaven/Scarecrow/CSNYMusicisLove/King Edward, etc. Seriously, how many different identities have you had on this board over the years? Why can't you just pick one and stick with it like everyone else? Why do you expect us to take your opinions seriously when you won't stand behind them unambiguously? You just get very upset because so many of your strongly held views (which occasionally border on the Ahab-like, like your anti-Zeppelin obsession) are outside of the norm for this board--not that there's necessarily anything wrong with having unconventional opinions, but don't pitch a fit just because the rest of the board doesn't embrace them.

 

I don't think I have all the music I'll ever want. But as far as back catalog of old songs, I mostly have what I want. I buy a CD or two here and there these days, mostly audiophile editions or something I don't have yet.

 

You demonstrated nothing of the sort because it really is all about subjectivity. You can say that it's the general consensus that determines the "hierarchy" - but the thing is, it's based on individual opinions which tend to change.

Let's imagine a hypothetical scenario: 300 years from now, the world gets to the point where the tastes and aesthetic mileage of the vast majority of the public and critics are no longer shaped by the criteria of art evaluation as we know them. The music of the 20th century becomes obsolete, The Beatles are virtually unknown, today's jazz greats are no longer held in high regard, etc. - you get the drift. The Justin Biebers of the future have conquered the minds not only of the general public but of the critics and "intelligentsia".

Imagine yourself in an Orwellian situation like this, alone, surrounded by people whose musical tastes and criteria of greatness have twisted beyond recognition. Do you think you would be able to force your objective observations upon an entire world of people who think differently?