I don’t think music will penetrate well at all anymore if it’s free, and there’s nothing to seek out, no rarity, no thrill.
Nobody said a music was good because it was distributed efficiently. False premises.
Nobody said complex was inferior or superior.
Different music makes different people cry at different times of their listening career. I hope someday to be able to cry when I hear a classical piece. You can be a musician and not understand all music. Lennon hated Jazz.
"The metric of Rock & Roll being better than other genres of music? No. It’s not. Being more popular doesn’t make it better. "
All music will circle the globe instantly now so therefore 70s music wasn’t as good as it sounds? It’s false premises and conclusions.
Nobody claimed superiority against other forms based on popularity. The golden era is superior to other pop genres maybe: It has legs where others have fallen or been forgotten, even though they benefited from the same distribution systems. The artists of that era earned the right to take risks, have spontaneous recordings etc because of all the people who were buying records at the time. The record companies could let artists develop and nurture new ones. That opened the whole game for lots of people who never would have been heard in other eras. That is the definition of progress to me. It’s wide open now but since it’s free theres no reason to do or listen to anything. It’s just taking you away form the other thing you wanted to do.
“The London (and burbs) musicians were the most technically advanced musicians in the world? Not when you compare them to the LA session musicians.”
I would never say that. The London boys who wrote the tunes had soul though. I’m not a guitar hero worshipper. I care about songs. And they wrote them. And that’s all that matters. I don’t give a fig about clapton, and just enjoy beck. Its Davies and townshend that matter.
The conversation has turned on technical virtuosity a lot here, but never by me. This is folk music, not as complex as some but certainly competing with all the other folk music forms made by people without perfect pitch (All the longhairs considered masters had perfect pitch, how fair is that? Waaah)
Classical music didn’t usually have lyrics. So comparing Dylan to Mozart is impossible. You can’t favor either one. They’re just doing different jobs.
There are no modern or 80s or 90s analogues to Dylan, Lennon, McCartney,Wilson, Joni, Neil, Marvin, Stevie, Bowie, Jagger, smokey.
Thanks for reminding me of a lot of great bands I forgot for a minute there but cmon guys: none of those comes even close. (Except Robyn Hitchcock I’d say is in the pantheon)
I’m reading a book about peter Gabriel right now and I’m stopping after his third LP. I’m listening to old Genesis and I love the chords but I gotta say it can be a little silly. Somehow They got better when PG left Hmm. Too pretentious for me on the whole. Gave up after album 2. When Steve Hackett was in Genesis it was good, then…
Kate Bush is on my list of people to explore. Thanks.
Roxy music: Just read a book on them too. I listened to some recently and I thought that all the songs sound like the other RM songs. Try it and see. They’re on my overrated list. That’s me.
Well The reason I get worked up about this is I listen to radio stations that play deep and off center music from this time period (Boston college Radio stations) and I have been impressed over the years at how much there is to explore and uncover. That is my measure of greatness. The incredible variety, and imagination. I haven’t found it in other forms.