I suppose you’ve earned the treat of hearing one of Patsy’s hits. Dead at 30. Another flame snuffed out much too soon.
And, on the other side of the musical spectrum, how about American jazz and pop singer, songwriter and composer, Peggy Lee, whose career spanned six decades? Interesting to hear three versions of the same song (1 , 2 , 3), sung years apart. She’s mostly forgotten these days, and that’s a shame.
I guess my point is: many of us get too focused on a particular type of music, when we’d be better served keeping an open mind to other types. I was narrow focused years ago, and I’m sorry I was. I wish I’d opened my mind to all types of music from an earlier age.
I think that one of the reasons the rock music of the late 60s and early 70s was so good is that the musicians weren’t focused on a single genre, but taking influence from so many styles.
Peggy Lee was also one of the first famous singers to write her own songs - not all of them in her case, but many of them. “Fever” was a song written & recorded by someone else before she tackled it, but she added a bunch of lyrics to it, and they’re the lyrics people remember most, like the “Romeo loved Juliet…” part. She also entirely wrote the song “Mañana,” which was a number one hit in 1948.
My problem with this is, how are we defining “genre”? Almost all the prominent (American) popular musicians of the late '60s and early '70s were firmly in the rock/country genre or R&B/Soul/Funk genre, whatever else they flavored their music with.
Meanwhile, look at Frank Sinatra. He sang jazz, show tunes, blues, Brazilian, French songs, Spanish songs, and eventually rock (albeit unconvincingly). Peggy Lee also sang an incredible variety of material. Ella Fitzgerald sang everything from Cole Porter to Cream (the rock group). It just seems to me that if you think genre-bending or mixing of styles is something the rock generation did best, then maybe you haven’t heard enough music from before the late '60s.
This is ridiculous. You just described the “limitations” as 5 different things going on. And even that is a reduction ad absurdum. There was so much cross pollination and rediscovery it is still creating new genres today. They also explored early/Pre Bach music (See my last post), folk, avant garde, classical newer and older.
Lyrically it was an even bigger revolution than that.
For me I have been listening to everything I can. I listen to as much Jazz as rock now. There must be more variety in Franks music than it sounds like (;0). (All edited through the gatekeepeer of his arranger and record company) You could play it all on the same station and always know who and when you were listening to. He was a musical conservative when it came to lots of things, and a big rock hater. He felt very threatened.
I love Peggy Lee, but if you think her version of fever is better than Willie Johns you can’t be listening to much of the music that’s relevant to this discussion. C’mon man give it a spin.
There was also huge Bluegrass, and swing influence in the era. You can see all this in my 1971 list posted earlier.
And the most important influence of all: JAZZ. It might even be said that Rock ran away with Jazz’s improvisational thunder.
Frank hated Folk and Country music too. He was a real urbanite. He sure appreciated the vast variety of the music of a number of neighboring European countries though. (I’m not a Frank hater but it’s true)
Gawd! Say it ain’t so. I just listened to Peggys version. Another white cover of a great R and B song, with hackneyed finger snaps. A modulation is what you do when your record doesn’t maintain interest without it. Changed the lyrics for caucasian consumption and airplay. Just listening to it feels corny. Not quite Pat Boone but halfway there.
I’ll go for Is that all there is.
Little Willie isn’t OK. He’s the original, and that counts for a lot. Not to mention AN original. Was only like 17 when he made that, and All around the world, need your love so bad. One of the great singers. You sure you listened to the original version? There is another one there too.
Well teach his own…
Them’s fightin’ words, son. We’re just going to have to settle this in the back alley with a broken Schlitz bottle and a shiv. Here, I’ve got my lucky coin, you call for who gets first stick.
Peggy oozed cool jazz and pop for 6 decades; Little Willie bebopped around the stage for a few years, then…bebopped off for good. Had a couple of good tunes, but…he was no Peggy Lee.
I’ll grant you he was a badder-ass than Ms. Lee offstage, though.
…and, most importantly, there remains that problem of Little Willie being a dude and I prefer to be wooed by a chic.
Let’s just agree to disagree.
We all have our favorite artists. Some people choose clearly hack acts that can be made fun of, but I can tell you like quality. Then it’s just a matter of taste. I like to choose from column A; you prefer to choose from column B, but it’s from the same 5-star Chinese restaurant.
OK Tib but it must get limiting just listening to chicks. I don’t see what gender has to do with music. Unless you’re talking about Arnie “woo woo” ginsberg, WMEX, Boston
And this is the crux of the problem - you are elevating classic rock beyond all.
I’d put Kanye West up there against any of those names (aside from the combination of Lennon and McCartney, but that’s sort of cheating), and yes, I’m 100% serious, and I believe music history will bear that out.
But if you want a “classic rock” type analogue than Jack White or Thom Yorke come close.
(If we expand to bands, of course, Daft Punk and Arcade Fire head the decent sized list of innovative acts that are just as impressive as anything from 65-75).
A study recently completed at Imperial College, London analyzing music since 1960 and at which periods there were the most novel and broad harmonic “topics” employed (link).
From the Economist’s summary:
So, alas, not that conclusive in terms of the OP, but still interesting.
It fits my perspective that genres like hip hop did bring something fresh to music, even if it will never get the respect of certain demographics (and that the 2000s and 10s have been a little flat by comparison).
Variety in Harmonic and lyrical topics? I don’t see hip hop having that. Rarely any harmony at all, not part of the thing, and lyrics are forced rhyming, no?
The study doesn’t recognize significant change during 65-80? that’s strange. I would question the method.
The 80s were nothing to get dewy eyed about. Most of it didn’t age well, regardless of scientific measures. It’s campy and ironic now but that’s not stellar.
Well hip hop tends to have relatively simple melodies, but that’s not quite the same thing as harmony, and this study and others suggest that hip hop and rap do present unique harmonies from other forms of music.
As for lyrics, no, there’s rather more to it than just rhyming. When you look at how rappers flow with the music while making use of metaphor, play with language such as using homophones, while conveying meaning and/or humour…it’s a lot like writing poetry. Interesting that society holds poetry in such high regard, and rap in such low regard…at least among some groups, as I say.
I think what they’re saying is that there was a wave of new styles that came in the early 60s. It may well be that the best music of that style was in the late 60s, as part of the wave, but the real change had come earlier.
Harmonies are melodies that are simultaneous. If its limited in melody then its also limited in harmony. But beyond that melody is rare, and harmony is not even existent in most of it.
Poetry isn’t popular at all. Ask a poet. Rap is highly touted by many, and it hasn’t had a strong critical scrutiny for how artistic it may be. It’s way overdue. It seems like some themes get repeated an awful lot and some things, that poetry is concerned with, I have never heard of in hip hop. But enough. Hip hop and poetry don’t belong in the same paragraph. If youre listening for music, to me hip hops a yawn. Maybe that’s just me.
I think that wave your talking about was so big it lasted well over 10 years. That’s one big wave.
I don’t think though that any scientific study is going to solve this issue. Good taste is timeless. Statistics may not even be real when they’re brand new.
Well, no, that’s not true, at least not how most musicians I know use the term “melody.” You can have a song that is full of complex chord changes and still be melodyless.
As to The Economist’s report, that seems pretty correct from my perspective in terms of Top 40 music.
Melody is a horizontal series of notes. Harmony is different melodies occurring at the same time. Such a song might also be harmonyless. But I don’t know of the complex chords of which you speak, unless you give an example.
For me this report is vague to meaningless. I have no idea of what it measured or how it was accomplished. Pop music is fads and will change over time. Such a study will find points of disjuncture, in good times and bad. But that doesn’t address the topic convincingly for me. It may be that the disjunct points are less interesting or have less “quality” than the intermediate points. That isn’t relevant to the topic either though. Anyone here have a degree in it?
It can be any chord progression. Banging out vi7-ii7-V7-I on a piano or guitar does not produce a song that most musicians would describe as “having a melody” on its own. I would not really describe harmonies as simultaneous melodies. They are simultaneous pitches, yes, but individual lines are not what are commonly thought of as melodies (although they can be in contrapuntal work, for instance.)
Anyhow, for me, the big popular music revolutions of the 1900s onwards are probably blues/jazz, rock, hip-hop, and perhaps electronica. One of the reasons the late 70s/early 80s is particularly interesting to me from a popular music perspective is because all these influences were present. Rock was an established art form by now, hip-hop was the exciting, revolutionary new kid on the block, and electronica was worming its way into pop music. The hip-hop and electronica was the most interesting for me, creating new sounds and new ways of structuring music. Although, to be honest, after hip-hop, I can’t really say I’ve heard anything quite as revolutionary and culturally influential musically. I wonder if it possible to have some great new sound take over, the way hip-hop and rock did. I do hope so.
