Clams wrote: I get your point, but saying stuff like he "hasn't done anything even slightly worthwhile in nearly thirty years"
i think magic is one of his best albums! great writing (minus radio nowhere)... long walk home, girls in their summer clothes killer tunes!!! that album is rite behind darkness and btr to me! love the writing on that album! working on the dream did suck... but i think it was rushed out.
Elvis Costello does not appeal to me in any way, shape, or form. I have a couple of buddies that are big fans & have tried to turn me on. Just don't get it.
Given to Fly wrote:Elvis Costello does not appeal to me in any way, shape, or form. I have a couple of buddies that are big fans & have tried to turn me on. Just don't get it.
seconded. one of the worst voices in rock. I can't even listen to his duet on Lucinda's album
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever
Given to Fly wrote:Elvis Costello does not appeal to me in any way, shape, or form. I have a couple of buddies that are big fans & have tried to turn me on. Just don't get it.
seconded. one of the worst voices in rock. I can't even listen to his duet on Lucinda's album
Yikes. One of my all time favorites. (although he hasn't done anything worthwhile in twenty years)
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
Given to Fly wrote:Elvis Costello does not appeal to me in any way, shape, or form. I have a couple of buddies that are big fans & have tried to turn me on. Just don't get it.
seconded. one of the worst voices in rock. I can't even listen to his duet on Lucinda's album
This is the blasphemy thread. This is the blasphemy thread. This is the blasphemy thread. OK, another 300 deep breaths and i'll be fine.
Cowboy, we can't possibly agree about this, can we?
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The reason he came to mind was I just heard the other day that he was married to Diana Krall. Didn't know that.
I remember watching Friday Night Videos back in the day When I saw/heard him for the first time. It was the video for "Everyday I Write the Book". Left quite the impression.
Given to Fly wrote:The reason he came to mind was I just heard the other day that he was married to Diana Krall. Didn't know that.
I remember watching Friday Night Videos back in the day When I saw/heard him for the first time. It was the video for "Everyday I Write the Book". Left quite the impression.
He was already past his peak by then.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Tequila Cowboy wrote:Clams, why do I lose credibility? Am I not entitled to my opinion? Listen I love early Bruce. Asbury Park is for sure one of my top ten albums of ALL TIME. I just bristle at the fact that people still think of him as great when he hasn't been for so long. If it makes you feel better I feel the same way about the Stones and you know how I feel about them.
The first 10-15 years of Springsteen's recording career have allowed him to whatever the fuck he wants and still be considered great. He could fart into and a microphone, record it, and sell it as an album, and it wouldn't change anything he did then.
Well ok, I think he did great stuff for nine years and started with the crapola wit Born In The USA but I get your point. Don't the years and years of mediocrity diminish his legacy? I think so just as I think its true for the Stones and others. When you have a thirty seven year career and produce for only nine of the that has to mean something. Just one man's opinion.
Born in the USA is a great album. "Goin Down" is one of the best songs he ever wrote.
The production blows, but the songs are great. He absolutely nails the rare feat of writing absolutely great songs that are extremely accessible to Joe 6 Pack.
So while we're talking Elvis and X and sucking doggie dicks, we've got the Macy's parade on in the background and Carrie Underwood (who I've carefully avoided up till now) was singing some song called (I think) "Undo It", and I thought (rather than said, since my mom and my daughter are the rest of the audience), "That doesn't suck doggie dicks. In fact," and here I spoke aloud, "that was pretty good." Am I insane, or full of good feelings for the holidays, or did the silly-ass format of American Idol actually turn up someone worth listening to?
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be
John A Arkansawyer wrote:So while we're talking Elvis and X and sucking doggie dicks, we've got the Macy's parade on in the background and Carrie Underwood (who I've carefully avoided up till now) was singing some song called (I think) "Undo It", and I thought (rather than said, since my mom and my daughter are the rest of the audience), "That doesn't suck doggie dicks. In fact," and here I spoke aloud, "that was pretty good." Am I insane, or full of good feelings for the holidays, or did the silly-ass format of American Idol actually turn up someone worth listening to?
She's got a helluva voice, I'll give her that. A lot of Uncle Tupelo's music sounds more like a genre exercise than authentic.
Given to Fly wrote:Elvis Costello does not appeal to me in any way, shape, or form. I have a couple of buddies that are big fans & have tried to turn me on. Just don't get it.
seconded. one of the worst voices in rock. I can't even listen to his duet on Lucinda's album
I always skip that one too. EC is way too overdramatic on that song and ruins what should have been a great song. I haven't been into any of his music since Blood and Chocolate. And I think he peaked with Almost Blue and Imperial Bedroom. Both of those albums were released in my senior year of high school.
I have nowhere else to go. There is no demand in the priesthood for elderly drug addicts
beantownbubba wrote:I think it's pretty clear that almost all rock artists have a relatively short burst of peak creativity. It can vary at the margins as to just how long it is, and is obviously longer for the greater artists, but by any "lifelong career" type measure it's awfully short. It sort of follows that an artist's reputation will/should be based on that period of peak creativity. After that, the question is more did they burn out quick, hang around trying to milk their reps, or try to continue to make serious music for a longer period of time, rather than did they continue to produce A+ music for an extended period? As always, the exception is Bob Dylan (if u believe that the Modern Times/Love & Theft era is worthy of consideration alongside his acknowledged masterworks). BTW, conceptually, this is very similar to Bill James's work on ranking baseball players by peak v. career value. Don't know if that helps the discussion, but i thought i'd throw it out there.
There are not many artists who have tried to make serious, real music after their peak period. Springsteen is one. Neil Young and Van Morrison come to mind. So does John Mellencamp (whose peak is lower than the others but the point remains). Tom Petty probably qualifies. The Stones qualified for a while but that ended a long time ago. The Who were never in that category. Those who try deserve some credit, I think, and those who succeed (relatively speaking, remember we're already assuming they arent at their peak) deserve a lot of credit.
how does one discern when an artist is just coasting, or when they are making 'serious' music?
i would say that these artists still make worthwhile music 30+ years into their careers:
Robyn Hitchcock Tom Waits Thurston Moore Rick/Alan Bishop Steve Albini The Church J Mascis Howe Gelb John Doe Robert Pollard Lemmy Julian Cope Wire
sure there's more. obv these are not household names, but are still doing interesting music well into their 3rd or more decade.
The unstated assumption was that we were talking about major popular acts. Perhaps i should have stated that expressly. But for sure, there are plenty of musicians working in smaller niches who have had fine lengthy careers. I'd say Richard Thompson is sort of the bridge - he's definitely got the long, creative career and he kind of straddles the popularity line.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
beantownbubba wrote:The unstated assumption was that we were talking about major popular acts. Perhaps i should have stated that expressly. But for sure, there are plenty of musicians working in smaller niches who have had fine lengthy careers. I'd say Richard Thompson is sort of the bridge - he's definitely got the long, creative career and he kind of straddles the popularity line.
i guess i got to re-calibrate my thinking to only include major acts when typing posts here
actually, the point you bring up is an interesting one...does success (and the attendant commercial benefits) subvert or modify the artist's intent?
beantownbubba wrote:The unstated assumption was that we were talking about major popular acts. Perhaps i should have stated that expressly. But for sure, there are plenty of musicians working in smaller niches who have had fine lengthy careers. I'd say Richard Thompson is sort of the bridge - he's definitely got the long, creative career and he kind of straddles the popularity line.
See but doesn't that damn the major artists that have a 6-10 year "peak" even more? Obviously not every offering from the lesser selling artists (great list of those btw Tinnitus) is great, but it does seem that they just write, put out there wares and some are gems. Some of they major acts seem to quit trying and release stuff that they know damn well is shit, and expect people to buy it. Now Neil Young, on the other hand, seems to follow the pattern of the smaller acts despite being a mega seller. He just throws stuff out there and some is bad, but some is great. I, personally, have not noticed age or longevity changing this pattern one bit. Le Noise is Neil at a very high level but you just never know when those gems come from the man.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
The unstated assumption was that we were talking about major popular acts. Perhaps i should have stated that expressly. But for sure, there are plenty of musicians working in smaller niches who have had fine lengthy careers. I'd say Richard Thompson is sort of the bridge - he's definitely got the long, creative career and he kind of straddles the popularity line.
By this criteria DBT may never achieve greatness (as Richard Thompson is known in broader circles). Sustained greatness is rare and debatable. A consensus on who (or what) is great is damn near impossible. I've had various musically astute buddies express open disdain for such rock giants as the Beatles, Bruce Springsteen, Bob Dylan, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Led Zeppelin and even Neil Young (who if we're keepin' score, does have the longest run of good-to-great material). On various threads here, I've seen lesser luminaries like the Smashing Pumpkins, Nirvana, The Doors and Rush ripped mercilessly. On this very page Elvis Costello is dismissed rudely (Watching the Detectives by itself qualifies him for a least a little love, I would think). bubba, that a musical genius and mainstay like Tom Waits doesn't make your cut for what would be popular enough to be considered great; proves to me that a consensus on greatness can never be achieved. I love all these bands (and 50 dozen more). I was weaned on one-hit wonders. I tend to enjoy the fringe acts almost as much as the Supergroups. I've always had respect for just how hard it must be to crank out even one song that has universal appeal. To me, any band that has 8-10 good-to-great songs (over any period of time) is a great band. Other people I'm sure need more to consider a band elite. That's where it gets fuzzy. Music has too many apples and oranges and much hair splitting for even the most objective of evaluators to properly determine where the threshold of greatness is. It would be harder still to decide who is the greatest of them all.
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light
Tequila Cowboy wrote:I do not understand the Cee Lo love at all. it sounds like music designed for people to like it.
Before yesterday, I didn't know a Cee Lo from J-Lo. I caught him mid song on the Colbert show and I gotta say I was groovin' to his vibe. He had a hot all girl band behind him and has a nice voice. It's funny but I thought I was watching Gnarls Barkley the whole time and felt bad enough thinking I liked him.
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light
Slipkid, as you were posting, i was writing and deleting a post that was very similar to yours in many ways, especially re the achievement represented by a "one hit wonder." But i don't know how i got to be on the "it has to be popular to be great" side of the argument, or how i somehow got on the anti Tom Waits side.
The original question, i thought, was "does a long period of lesser work diminish the achievements of a musician's peak work?" To me that discussion can only be about the biggest, most popular musicians; it doesn't really relate to the careers of a robert pollard or a tom waits. A more relevant comparison would be someone like david byrne, who was hugely popular (in the talking heads context obviously) and remade himself into something different and less popular but certainly artistically vital and interesting. But like i say, i'm not sure what the discussion's about at this point.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The original question, i thought, was "does a long period of lesser work diminish the achievements of a musician's peak work?"
Oh. I guess I subconsciously missed that part. The answer to that would be determined by how high was the high and how low was the low (and for how long). That too becomes debatable.
A thousand clusterfucks will not kill my tiny light
Tequila Cowboy wrote:I do not understand the Cee Lo love at all. it sounds like music designed for people to like it.
Of course it is.
Personally, I like music designed for people to hate it.
Well, for instance, I don't think Patterson or Cooley sit down and write songs that we the fans want to hear. Some years ago I remember Kiss, possibly the most crassly commercial rock band of all time, taking a survey to see what kind of songs their fans wanted to hear on their next album. That's not only crass, it's cheating.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
beantownbubba wrote:The original question, i thought, was "does a long period of lesser work diminish the achievements of a musician's peak work?" To me that discussion can only be about the biggest, most popular musicians; it doesn't really relate to the careers of a robert pollard or a tom waits.
Why does the assertion only pertain to the most popular musicians? why doesn't Pollard or Waits qualify? Is it how one defines 'peak work'?
