|
Post by B.E. on Jul 21, 2020 2:55:19 GMT
YouTuber CalicoSilver, who is a massive Dylan fan, recently posted a video entitled "12 Questions for my YouTube friends...". I stumbled upon his channel during my recent Dylan kick, and I do recommend his Dylan album reviews. He's not very critical, he pretty much loves it all, but there's some great lyrical analysis in just about every review. Anyway, there's nothing special about the video in question but I thought it might be fun to ask the questions here. I dropped a few that were more geared towards YouTubers, and added one that SJS raised recently in a different thread. (We've touched on some of these topics before, but I don't think they're overdone.)
1. When a musical hero dies, do you avoid listening to their music for a while or do you listen more?
2. Do you wince when you hear that one of your favorite artists' music is going to be covered by another (particularly, younger) artist/band?
3. Do you like classical, orchestral, string quartet, or jazz versions of your favorite albums?
4. Should bands with replacement frontmen change the name of their band?
5. Do you listen to bonus tracks often or do you predominantly listen to the original albums?
6. Would you rather those bonus tracks stay in the vault, be issued separately, or included with reissues of contemporary albums?
7. Do you hesitate reading your favorite artists' biographies or autobiographies for fear of losing respect for them?
8. Does narrative, history, or backstories affect your enjoyment of music?
9. Do you ever feel a little bit silly being an obsessive collector of stuff you're never going to listen to?
10. Do you ever get tired of listening to music? If so, what do you do then?
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Jul 21, 2020 3:07:09 GMT
My answers:
1. When Tom Petty died, I couldn't listen to his music for a while. I couldn't hear it in the joyful and life-affirming way that I always had. It was just too sad. Fortunately, as expected, that feeling passed. His music is alive and well and larger than life, again. When George Harrison died, I remember listening to his music heavily. It was cathartic. So, I don't always respond in the same way. Overall, though, I wouldn't say I listen more. If I'm not already a fan, I don't seek out the music of a legend like many others might. (It's quite common to see significant spikes in album sales, for example.)
2. No. I might feel indifferent, personally. But, I welcome it.
3. No. I might have shared this once before, but listening to Symphonic Sounds: Music Of The Beach Boys, was one of those "what am I doing with my life?!" moments.
4. Yes.
5. Obviously, it depends. Some bonus material is great, most isn't. But, in the spirit of the question, I stick to original albums. I don't listen to bonus tracks when listening to the corresponding albums and I don't often listen to alternate versions or bonus material over the original versions or original albums.
6. My preference would be that bonus tracks or non-album tracks be issued separately, but I'd rather have them tacked on to reissues of proper albums than not have them at all.
7. No. If I'm interested in reading the backstory, then I'm already a massive fan of the music. Only the most offensive revelations could potentially alter that, and chances are if such offenses exist, I'd have already heard about it.
8. While I do believe that it's inevitable, and totally beyond our control, that our enjoyment of music is influenced to some degree by...well...everything, I think we can manage how much. The good, and interesting, stuff can definitely enhance the listening experience, but not by that much. The music itself still does the heavy lifting. And, we are actively making those positive associations. The bad, we needn't dwell on when listening to the music. It really comes down to your frame of mind, I think. If you're "listening" beyond the music, you control the narrative.
9. No. I may have a completist mindset paired with a minimalist streak, so I'm unsettled, but not silly.
10. Honestly, no. I listen to music every day. Sometimes more, sometimes less. But, I never need a break from music.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Jul 21, 2020 12:50:55 GMT
My answers:
1. I listen more. It's my own personal tribute. And, sometimes in reading the various tributes in the media, it will lead to a greater appreciation of some songs/material that I might've overlooked or under-appreciated.
2. No, I'm usually happy that another generation is discovering the music. So much, no, all of my favorite artists/music is decades old. When it reaches a younger or different audience, it makes the music - and me - feel validated. Hey, maybe there was something great there!
3. I have purchased those kind of alternate versions CDs in the past. Based on the strength of the music, they are mostly enjoyable, but I don't revisit them often. I'll occasionally pull them out or put selected tracks on a special comp I'm assembling.
4. If it's just one band member replaced, even if it's the frontman, I would not change the band name. However, and not to appear contradictory, I think the surviving Doors should've changed their name after Jim Morrison died and after they decided to continue on. But that was a unique situation. 5. I listen to bonus tracks, but only because I'm listening to the whole CD and they just kind of come on. I mean, I don't make a special effort to turn the CD/album off when the bonus tracks come on.
6. Bonus tracks are nice to have. Who doesn't want MORE music from their favorite artists, especially older, unreleased tracks? However, in many cases, I think the bonus tracks are an insult to the original album. I believe in the album as art. Some albums, no matter how packaged, should end the way the artist originally intended it to end. I think bonus tracks infringe on that, with their main purpose in many cases to make more money. For me, the best case scenario is for the artist/record company to release a separate "bonus track comp CD" of all tracks lumped together in whatever sequence that makes sense.
7. Oh, no, I try to read everything I can about or from my favorite artists. Of course you have to make your own determination on what you think is bullsh-- , what you want to keep and what you want to dismiss. Not ONE SINGLE book will seriously affect how much I respect the artist. That opinion is formed over many years, a little bit at a time, and it would take a lot to change that opinion. A book can influence that opinion, but it's more of a tweaking than a major shift in opinion.
8. Yes, history and backstory does affect my enjoyment of the music. Sometimes it's conscious, sometimes subconscious. I'm one of those listeners who forms some kind of a "relationship" with the artists I enjoy. I think about them both inside the music and outside the music. That usually ADDS to my appreciation of the music...the person behind it. It's fun to vicariously go along with the artist, on the trip, on the ride, even if it's several years ago. Doesn't some kind of emotional attachment to the artist affect the listening experience? When I'm listening to a song or a complete album, many times it's a natural thing to want to know what went on BEHIND THE MUSIC. That's why they have those shows/documentaries!
9. Been there, done that. After I became a certified Beach Boys/Brian Wilson fanatic in the late 1970's/early 1980's, I set out on collecting as much vinyl - singles and albums - as I could. This was pre-internet when communication had to be done via telephone (long distance!) and snail mail. I spent a lot of time and money and built up a pretty large collection including rare albums, bootlegs, clothing, and assorted knick knacks. Now, all of that stuff is literally sitting in a closet collecting dust. I've been threatening to sell the stuff for years now, but due to laziness and sentimentality, I haven't gotten around to parting with it. If I could find someone who is proficient on ebay or other memorabilia-selling areas, someone who I could trust to take the necessary time and effort to sell the collection, I think I would do it.
10. No. My passion for listening to music has not wavered at all. Actually, it's gotten stronger. With the internet and various opportunities to read, write, and listen to more music, it's led to increased listening. It's a broadening of the horizons kind of thing. Many times I think about how listening to music has evolved, and it blows my mind. I came from an era of first listening to 45s, then albums, then cassettes and 8-tracks, then CDs, and finally digital music. It is now so easy to access, listen to, and store music. And the sound quality...jeez. Sometimes when I remember the sound quality of transistor radios, scratchy vinyl, hissy cassettes played at the wrong speed, and trying to squeeze songs on a mix tape (though mine were excellent ), I just have to shake my head. Yet, I enjoyed the songs just as much back then!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Jul 21, 2020 12:54:23 GMT
Good find, B.E. Sometimes these questionnaires can drive conversation (or at least provide a moment of fun).
1. When a musical hero dies, do you avoid listening to their music for a while or do you listen more? This is not one I have a lot of experience with, as very few of my musical heroes have died while I was an adult fan. Many died before I was born or when I was young; and most of those prominent artists who have died, I wasn't such a fan of.
But taking into account especially David Bowie, Lou Reed, and Captain Beefheart, I listened to them a lot when they died. (Michael Jackson and Prince, much less so.)
2. Do you wince when you hear that one of your favorite artists' music is going to be covered by another (particularly, younger) artist/band? No, I think it's great. Doesn't happen very often, but I like to see it even if I won't like the results (which is common). Whatever keeps the music alive...
3. Do you like classical, orchestral, string quartet, or jazz versions of your favorite albums? I love those musical forms, but I almost always hate their treatments of rock music. 99+% of the time, it is garbage.
4. Should bands with replacement frontmen change the name of their band? Depends. Not necessarily. If they're doing new music, especially dramatically different music, maybe. But generally I think it is smart for them to work with established brands.
5. Do you listen to bonus tracks often or do you predominantly listen to the original albums? Beach Boys aside, almost always original albums. Most bands' bonus tracks are not very good.
6. Would you rather those bonus tracks stay in the vault, be issued separately, or included with reissues of contemporary albums? No strong opinion.
7. Do you hesitate reading your favorite artists' biographies or autobiographies for fear of losing respect for them? I don't read most of them, but I don't avoid them for that reason, either. Usually I just don't think they'd be very interesting or be good writers.
8. Does narrative, history, or backstories affect your enjoyment of music? Probably some, though it shouldn't.
9. Do you ever feel a little bit silly being an obsessive collector of stuff you're never going to listen to? I am not really that level of collector. The Beach Boys and Dylan's bootleg series are basically the only ones I dig deeply into, but even then I don't just buy each and every release.
10. Do you ever get tired of listening to music? If so, what do you do then? At any given moment, sure, in which case I read a book, watch a show, go for a walk, meet a friend, or whatever. But for long stretches of time? No. I listen to music every day.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 8, 2020 22:21:12 GMT
Listening to an interview with Axl Rose and Slash from 1987 with a British radio DJ. As they discuss influences, Axl says something I love.
"Anything from Wham! to Motorhead, you can find good stuff ... you can find a lot of things you hate, but the trick is finding what's good in it."
(Earlier in the interview he says they found the only five guys who could be in GnR, and these guys would be in the band until someone dies, and how hard it would be to replace them even then. Oh, Axl, if only you knew your future self!)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 30, 2020 15:01:01 GMT
Sundays, Pitchfork publishes a review of some album they consider a classic (or at least well regarded) that they haven't already reviewed--which typically means older albums, them having not existed prior to their mid-90s launch as an indie-oriented blog before evolving into a robust indie website and more recently a corporate-owned, somewhat tedious juggernaut. (I guess I sound like the "you should've seen the early stuff" hipster! )
Point being, today's was Harry Nilsson's Pussycats, which they give a 7.8/10. Gotta say, I don't hear anything above a 5... What they say about "Subterranean Homesick Blues," and seemingly meant to encapsulate the album, is "It’s good chaos, a productive mess." I think if you remove the two adjectives, you'd be closer to the truth.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 30, 2020 22:45:08 GMT
Thanks for posting. Enjoyable article. I gave it a fresh listen, and as expected, I come in a little lower than Pitchfork at a 7. It's a flawed album for sure, but it has its mystique. The thing is, I like gruff vocals (and so called "muddy" production/mixes), so I can dig an album like this. Even something like "Loop De Loop", which even the author slagged. Surprisingly, I don't recall him even mentioning "Mucho Mungo/Mt. Elga" or "Black Sails". I'm a sucker for the former (a Lennon co-write), but the latter is my least favorite on the album. I'm also not much of a fan of another Nilsson-penned tune, "All My Life". My only real problem with the album, though, is "Old Forgotten Soldier". I love the underlying song, and I like the production of the album version. The backing track and sound effects are good. His vocal even works in that it suites the lyrical content and atmosphere of the song. So, what's the problem? I've since heard the earlier version featuring Harry's pristine voice and what is an absolutely astounding vocal performance. The comparison is striking, and sad. Interestingly, the early version doesn't really serve the song that well, really, he could have been singing any words - the effect woulda been the same. Impressive as hell, but does he sound like an old forgotten soldier? Nah, anything but. (Still, I love it anyway.)
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 31, 2020 0:29:32 GMT
Oh, and now you've reminded me, a few months ago I was watching a TV show called Rectify and the main character slow-danced to "Many Rivers To Cross". His partner even introduced the song by namechecking John Lennon and Harry Nilsson and commented that they made an album together.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2020 13:59:34 GMT
I didn't relisten yesterday but am now. It has some moments, but for the most part I don't think I can agree with the article's praise.
For one, even if Nilsson were singing better, I just am not such a fan of that '70s kind of production, heavily (but not necessarily cleverly or interestingly) arranged, a little corny, almost muzak. More than a touch of Spector, but not the energy, mush is the word that I often return to. The material isn't top notch, by any means. And then of course the voices are bad.
It isn't his worst album, but it's pretty rough going for me.
|
|
|
Post by B.E. on Aug 31, 2020 15:51:53 GMT
It isn't his worst album, but it's pretty rough going for me.
It is rough. And certainly not his worst. Come to think of it, for the rest of his career, did he top it? Maybe Knnillssonn matched it? I don't know. It's been a while since I listened to his later albums. (Actually, according to my 46-song career-spanning Spotify playlist, it's been nearly 6 years to the day since I really dug into those albums.)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Aug 31, 2020 15:55:33 GMT
I have to admit, the only one I've listened to in years was the posthumous one released last year. Before that, I'm guessing I'm in similar territory to you: between five and 10 years. I'll have to relisten and think about that.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Sept 21, 2020 15:58:42 GMT
Big Bruce Springsteen feature from Rolling Stone as something of a preview to his new album. (It also says he's already got another new album in the can, too!)
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 1, 2020 22:43:34 GMT
An interview by Rick Beato with Joe Satriani. I'd recommend the latter half or third in particular as being especially interesting, about coming up in the '70s, taking lessons from jazz genius pianist Lennie Tristano, the changes in the industry, and the changing of musical styles (being a legacy artist as new forms develop, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by kds on Oct 5, 2020 16:52:52 GMT
Somehow I missed this.
1. When a musical hero dies, do you avoid listening to their music for a while or do you listen more? Sometimes, I'll make a point to listen right after one passes, as was the case when Ronnie James Dio passed ten years ago.
2. Do you wince when you hear that one of your favorite artists' music is going to be covered by another (particularly, younger) artist/band? Depends on the young artist.
3. Do you like classical, orchestral, string quartet, or jazz versions of your favorite albums? Not really
4. Should bands with replacement frontmen change the name of their band? I don't think so, there are plenty of examples of bands who've done very well with different lead singers.
5. Do you listen to bonus tracks often or do you predominantly listen to the original albums? Original albums.
6. Would you rather those bonus tracks stay in the vault, be issued separately, or included with reissues of contemporary albums? In a perfect world, rarities only collections would be welcome.
7. Do you hesitate reading your favorite artists' biographies or autobiographies for fear of losing respect for them? No, I love reading that stuff
8. Does narrative, history, or backstories affect your enjoyment of music? No
9. Do you ever feel a little bit silly being an obsessive collector of stuff you're never going to listen to? Somewhat, but not really
10. Do you ever get tired of listening to music? If so, what do you do then? Never
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Oct 22, 2020 17:57:23 GMT
I was reading an interview with Wilco's Jeff Tweedy and his son Spencer (who is also a drummer with credits ranging from his dad's solo material to Mavis Staples and Norah Jones...not too shabby!), and it mentioned that the writer who, in 2007, criticized Wilco's laid back album Sky Blue Sky as being "dad rock," had since walked back that statement.
Interesting because I always liked Sky Blue Sky most among Wilco's albums, and thought it was more interesting than the "experimental"--a word I hate in rock because almost nothing "experimental" is experimental, and even when it is, that's not a synonym for "good"--stuff that got some attention. So at that time, 2007, I thought "if dad rock means good songs instead of squealing feedback or electronic blips and bleeps or songs with no structure to speak of, I'll take dad rock."
Here is Rob Mitchum's "apology" for using the term, written about a year ago for Esquire. He hits on some points I think it would do everyone well to keep in mind. Basically, don't get too snotty in your youth, because it passes. Quickly. "Hope I die before I get old?" God forbid.
|
|