Why does history treat some bands better than others?

I wasn't aware of any per se disruptive power the Ramones brought to music. Punk was far more about good-timey fun / back to rock 'n roll garage basics than it was political (ala the Pistols street anger at a pointed-in-time British status quo schism....which had little relevance outside there). Overtly gentle '60's American folk music was more revolutionary, inspiring, and change effective with respect to the civil rights and industrial military complex situation going on in the US at the time. America had a disparate, oft-divided, near exclusively youthful counter culture (with a soundtrack) that effected mass change in American culture. The demise of the nuclear family, when the natural environment, race relations, and mass resistance to government edicts became the news of the day. The cultural sweep was so wide and diverse that no single point -let alone artist- could possibly become its voicepiece. Punk was hardly disruptive in the larger socio-political sense, but was certainly more influential in the long run to the art, music, and fashion world, as we (I) see today. And that gets back to the growth of the urban imperative for modern life.

 

You're right that hype is exposure, but exposure doesn't necessarily lead to bigger influence. Influence happens, big or small, because people who make music pick up on the way someone else has done it and they make it work for them. They might be motivated by a desire for popular success and the money that can come with that, or they might be motivated by more centrally aesthetic ambitions (or even by politics or religion, etc.). Any of these motives can lead to the creation of something that a lot of people or some small subculture of people think is great.

But it's never objectively great, and with only a very few exceptions (and the future of those is also uncertain) "greatness" comes and goes.

It's not the job of a critic to tell anyone what is objectively great. Any critic who thinks that's what he or she is doing (or that it's even possible) is deluded. And the value of criticism has nothing to do with that. It's just someone talking/writing out of their own experience, trying to explain what something (some work of art) is or feels like or means or how it matters.

Respect, in so far as any critic (or musician) deserves it, is earned like it is in any other part of life. No one has to like or respect the Velvet Underground's music or the people who like it, at least not beyond the way we respect--up to a certain point--other people and their values just because it's part of what it means to live in a human social world. And just like we (or at least people who have grown up in a certain kind of pluralistic society) don't like it when someone tries to impose their values on us, we can call foul on someone who tries to convince us that the Velvet Underground made the best, most important music of the past 50 years. We also don't like it for good reasons when we're lied to or when someone tries to trick us into excepting a proposition by merely irrational, emotional appeals, etc. But, of course, luckily, an argument is just that and can be ignored or refuted. I for one don't see what's wrong with a well-reasoned, informed, empassioned argument for the value of something. I like arguements like that. I learn from them even when I don't in the end agree with them.

Of course, that doesn't mean you have to agree with me about that.....

L.

 

But what about their champions, be it David Bowie, Patti Smith, R.E.M., U2, and virtually anyone else making records in the post-punk era? Certainly they weren't just name-checking the Velvets to score cool points?

I remember hearing the Velvet Underground for the first time -- ten years after the fact, of course -- as a teenager and I was blown away with how raw and real they sounded, even in 1979. I can't imagine how revolutionary their music would have sounded to someone during the height of Flower Power, much less what the public would have made of the debut had it been released in a timely manner, even earlier than it was.

Moreover, the band produced four solo careers that were likewise critically acclaimed, so there had to be genuine talent at work. I only recently listened to Nico's solo trilogy (DESERTSHORE, MARBLE INDEX, THE END) and it's about the most uncompromised stuff I can think of ever marketed under the "rock" umbrella. Even John Lennon's PLASTIC ONO BAND sounds cheerful next to a German ice queen intoning "The End"/"Deutschland Uber Alles" over a harmonium!

 

I haven't had the chance to read through this thread. So I am sure what I am going to say has been said in so many words.

I think it is all a result of marketing and simple economics. There is only so much shelf-space in the "store", and so many positions in your brain. If some groups made it to the highest of plateaus, then they promote them more with reissues, box sets, etc. The end result includes concerts played by septuagenarians rather than new up and comers.

The only reason theses forgotten bands are forgotten is because they are no longer played on the radio and you don't see "new" product. On the other hand, there are bands who still generate buzz. Part of it is consumer driven, of course this must be so. But a lot of it is decided for you by what is available.

I think the saddest result of this "problem", if indeed it is one, is that young groups and musicians don't stand a chance in achieving large audiences.

 

By that measure nobody can be 'outside' the modern environment. The very fact that people are discerning the difference between urban and rural is the primary point. They were, and are, emblematic of that tension in modern society, where the urban environment overcomes the last vestiges of ancient rural lifestyles. Whether the Band was 'pure' folkways or not is not the point. No one said they are.

 

I didn't mean political disruption, primarily--and I agree that some of the folk music of the early '60s was more potent that way than any punk music--even the most overtly political. But punk music was an aesthetic and cultural disruption, and the music--at least for me--does still have some pretty disruptive psychological effects. It's part of what I like about it. It's disruptive of a set of decora, a set of ideas about how music should "behave" that had settled-in over the course of the early '70s, but that still have some power. This is why the music remains indecorus, even though the Remones way of doing things has become one accepted way of doing things. My son--again--loves the way "Beat on the Brat" makes his mom uneasy and cracks up his stubornly indecorous father. And there's rupture (the ironic kind) right in the way the lyric is delivered, rolled "r's" and all. It hasn't gotten old for me. It's still just so "wrong," which of course makes it right for when I need that feeling. In some ways it's gotten more potent for me as I've gotten older. The irony is richer--after all it's one thing for a 15 year old to bounce around the living room to a song like that and quite another for a 52 year old. And that's just how I like it.

L.

 

So, to stir things up a bit, James Brown had greater impact than many of the bands discussed above. He effectively created a genre of music, and biographical stories don't get a lot more chaotic/dramatic, but I wonder if funk has been so generally subsumed into popular music that JB risks becoming a footnote within 20 years of his death, despite the biopic.

Is his status being damaged by the late-career mediocrity? Or something else?

 

Once Dylan mustered a new standard pop/rock album, which he hadn't released since sometime in 1970, the masses of older and younger Baby Boomers, encouraged by his touring in 1974 were ready to take him to number one. In the interim, far beyond maintaining relevance, Dylan connected to the most popular franchise in music history by performing with two Beatles, the performances of which were broadcast to the world in the name of charity. He maintained sales relevance through moderately successful singles and lackluster albums, but hadn't offered any LPs of chart topping Beatle quality to sell to Baby Boomers. Again, we're talking about the LP era, not the singles era. Relevance is ultimately determined by making good albums. If you assume that Dylan hit number one in 1974 without the help of younger fans who hadn't been around to help him get his first taste of almost hitting number one in 1965, that would be an incorrect assumption. If you assume, however, that The Beatles maintained a strong hold on United States' cultural relevance (especially in the wake of their breakup) until KISS exploded in the mid-1970's, you would be correct. Bob Dylan was right there after they broke up and they all tried to help Bangladesh in the process. Bob Dylan has a reputation as a man who does it by himself. The reality is that Bob Dylan needs other people to boost his popularity to number one record status when it counts.

Connecting to two Beatles directly did more for Dylan than anything else he could do, save touring. People still paid attention to The Beatles after they broke up. People wanted to know what they were up to, who they were hanging around with, when they were going to reform, etc. They knew that it was fab that Dylan and The Beatles were on the same page as far as Bangladesh and music were concerned.

It's OK to look at the Beatles' breakup as a development with benefits. Harrison released a great triple solo album. Ringo did "Back Off Boogaloo". Harrison did a concert for Bangladesh. He and Ringo helped Dylan's career vis a vis Bangladesh. When Harrison and Ringo weren't busy attending to the overwhelming needs of Lennon and McCartney's need to dominate Beatles album with Len/Mac originals, they really were able to help Dylan move forward into the 1970's with epic promotional opportunities and terrific Beatles inspiration for Dylan originals.

Regarding one of the album tracks: "You Angel You" is quite sing-songy in Beatles fashion. This was somewhat unique for Dylan up to this point to do something so pop oriented. Obviously he wrote this song after playing with two Beatles and may very well have performed the tune on the tour to support the album. Dylan has a cool exterior, but even he would be excited playing with two Beatles and playing pop songs inspired from that very band. The Dylan consciousness started to extend beyond Dylan starting with the Bangladesh concert. How could it not, given that he shared the stage with two Beatles?

 

I think his status is greater than ever. Were we to measure artistic impact by what people were actually listening to, as opposed to what music geeks like us are talking about on the interwebs, I'd wager his influence hangs heavier over the contemporary musical landscape than that of the Beatles.

Rap was literally built on samples of his music, and the CD era replaced a shoddy, almost absent catalog on vinyl with a near-complete reissue, including huge swaths of unreleased music, thematic compilations, the complete singles and perhaps the most eye-opening box set released. His public persona of a self-sufficient entertainment entrepreneur overseeing a roster of like-minded collaborators finds itself replicated by everyone from Dr. Dre to Jay-Z.

 

You've explained it better - my reference was generally punks influence within art rather than on wider social / political culture. Even though art, politics, and social sciences all connect with each other at various levels. The disruptive aspect has its artistic charm at times. Again you hit the nail on the head when I said earlier that post-70's punk/new wave/et all is congruent with modern urban life and its inherently disruptive structure (everything from the well lit nights to the 24 hour cacophony of sounds, time rhythms, & personalities that inhabit it).

 

If you are pulling my leg, that's just brilliant. If not, I'm not sure what to say.

L.

 

I'm not sure there's enough room to do justice to the wrongness of this post.

Dylan needing help from two ex-Beatles? I doubt that very much.

Planet Waves went no #1 on the basis of advance sales coming off the back of the ticket sales for the tour with The Band. The idea that this is somehow connected with a concert from two years previously is pretty far-fetched

I can't be certain but it looks like the only song that he played on that tour from Planet Waves - which I thought you said you hadn't heard - was "Forever Young".

Edit - apparently they played quite a few early on but most got dropped from the set and were left with only Forever Young by the end.

 

Exactly. For example here in the UK there are plenty of folks you see walking around town wearing Ramones t-shirts.
I bet they could not even name a Ramones song.

 

Well I suspect he at least rivals them worldwide. However, a year or so ago I was reading an interview with a South African hip hop artist who was lamenting the over reaching or dominating influences not only of Brown but of US hip hop generally as it relates to 'home grown' artists trying to break the strait jacket. He said something like: "...look, I love James Brown and give him his due and all, but there is so much more to the international hip hop world than just this one American guy from so many decades before. Theres only so many times you should cite the guy as an influence. Its like people are afraid to move past the past and forward...."
Thats not an exact quote but the gist of what he was saying, as I recall it. Anyway, made me think differently about the subject one and how we tend to be so culture-centric in our music interests.

 

Don't forget that the US isn't the center of the musical universe. Other countries rank and value different things. There are acts that are highly revered everywhere but in the US.

 

I'm the only one discussing the album. I've only heard the versions of "Forever Young" and "You Angel You" from Biograph.

The idea that you would downplay people connecting the Beatles with Dylan in a long lasting and meaningful way is remarkable. You mention a tour with The Band being a great promotional opportunity for Dylan album sales, but doubt that playing with two Beatles would help Dylan's career in a stratospheric and upward Beatle type of fashion? You believe that Dylan would emulate and draw inspiration from the Stones in his dramatic and monumental 1965 electric transformation, but disbelieve that Dylan could ever appropriate the energy of the Beatles some years later? He's his own Beatle, totally apart from them except when he gets on stage with them? He is his own planet Dylan that sometime approaches the planets Ringo and George, but then hurtles back into its own separate Dylan universe?

 

The very idea of Jimi making Saturday Night Fever style music is just ridiculous and utterly hilarious!!

 

Should have been "accepting," of course.

L.

 

I suppose I should attach this this to various posts but my head is spinning from the way this thread seems to have gone off the rails. It appears someone is adamant that Dylan's continued relevancy in history is due to The Beatles (am I even understanding this correctly?), that Uriah Heep has received more print space in the history of this forum and that at least a vocal block of folks don't seem to be willing to acknowledge that, at least for micro moments in time, there were very popular bands other than Led Zeppelin, The Eagles and Fleetwood Mac. (The Velvet Underground is yet another sub-thread).

As to Dylan's popularity, I'm dumbfounded. George Harrison spent time with Dylan and The Band, prior to the Get Back sessions and was absolutely enthralled by the music that was being made and the manner in which it was being made. I guess that doesn't address how Dylan continued to be relevant, and just shows the Harrison-Dylan connection prior to Bangladesh. But Dylan was huge prior to Harrison's triple album. If I recall correctly, Dylan got an entire side of one album. That wasn't to promote Dylan. It was to sell records in order to help the charity and Harrison knew Dylan could pull in the money.

The OP himself came back onto the thread to talk about REO Speedwagon. By this time I, personally, had moved onto to different music interests, but I know they were a big name band...at the time! For whatever duration. Just like Heep and the Steve Miller Band. And GFR. I cannot believe that folks can't even acknowledge that. There has to be other bands that can be considered to have been "big" in order to even fit the base premise of the thread!
Now someone's gonna jeer that Frampton wasn't "big". Ridiculous, of course he was. Then the question becomes, which is the blooming point of the thread...why (or has) history been kind to him.

 

George Harrison, Peter Frampton, and Bob Dylan are not bands.

 

Trust me, that's true in the USA, too. I'd wager the band (or its heirs) made more from licensing their logo to t-shirt companies than they made from actual royalties.

I wonder if their relative commercial obscurity helps in this regard? I think of the Ramones shirt sitting there on the display table in Kohls, saying to the teenager perusing his choices, Here's the logo of some cool band from the past other people don't really know about. Maybe you don't know, either, but that can stay our little secret.

 

Aren't you the one who brought Dylan and the Concert for Bangladesh into this thread? Or at least have gone on and on about it?

 

Substitute Steve Miller Band for Frampton, then, if it'll make you feel better.

 

Btw people, both Machine Head and the legendary live album Made in Japan came out in super deluxe 40th (ish) editions recently. Zep are great no doubt, but so are many, many other hard rock/prog bands from the early to mid-70's.

I'm 38 years old btw, so wasn't around to experience it first hand (wish I was)

 

Dylan entered this thread much earlier.