|
Post by Kapitan on Feb 24, 2021 22:36:52 GMT
Every once in a while, somebody at Pitchfork more or less gets it right. The specifics in this case don't matter much, so don't worry if you're not a fan of the Hold Steady, but I think the basic point is a huge one--and one that many, many musicians screw up when they achieve some semblance of fame. (Sometimes even before that, just as they want to organize their output.) Their review for the new Hold Steady album discusses the importance of departed-then-returned keyboardist Franz Nicolay. It says:I agree whole-heartedly and have beaten this drum for years. Even the greatest auteurs--Dylan, Prince, Bowie, Zappa--put out a LOT of garbage. Artists tend to do better work when someone else is a foil. It can be two primary voices in a quartet, it can be four people out of seven, whatever. That doesn't matter for the point. The point is, one person, all the time, rejecting input tends to follow both good and bad instincts. Great for his or her creative freedom, but usually bad in the end in terms of the music.
Creative tension, someone to bounce ideas off, someone to question you and tell you no sometimes, even just another voice to add contrast and color: these things are essential.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 6, 2021 0:28:39 GMT
Watching a 1988 interview with George Harrison from "Aspel & Co.", he is asked:
Interviewer: "Didn't someone suggest that you should get a sort of 'oldies group' together?"
GH: [smiles] "ah, I think that's sort of an idea that's been bubbling about. Maybe in Elton's mind, I don't know. It's sort of a good idea because everybody enjoys playing together."
They move on after a quick joke from the host. ("You should call yourselves Methuselah.") But it struck me, in that the Traveling Wilburys started very soon thereafter. In fact, considering sessions for the Wilburys had begun by the spring, he might even have had the project underway already by the interview. (Not sure the date of the interview in '88.)
But it did strike me that the conversation seemed to be in the context of British musicians from the '60s, and of course the Wilburys were 60% Americans.
|
|
|
Post by Sheriff John Stone on Mar 6, 2021 1:10:43 GMT
I always wished there would've been more of those All-Star groups or "Super Groups" like the Traveling Wilburys and The Highwaymen and the like. It's probably too late now for most of my favorite artists...
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 6, 2021 14:40:14 GMT
I always wished there would've been more of those All-Star groups or "Super Groups" like the Traveling Wilburys and The Highwaymen and the like. It's probably too late now for most of my favorite artists... I agree in theory, at least. I think there are some pretty good reasons there haven't been many, as well as some pretty good reasons a lot of the ones that do exist don't really do much of any substance. But the idea of a supergroup is tremendously appealing!
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 8, 2021 14:54:47 GMT
This Rolling Stone article talks a little bit about gender disparities in the music industry. A study reviewing "900 top songs in the last nine years" showed that females comprise 21.6% of all artists, 12.6% of all songwriters, and 2.6% of all producers.
I'm surprised especially that the percentage of artists is so low, as it seems to me that women are the most prominent artists of the era. That said, I don't pay a lot of attention to chart positions or radio airplay, so my sample may be unusual. (I'd also add that the songs being considered might be an unusual sample as well.)
I do wonder whether or how much of this is active discrimination, as well. There is the possibility that fewer women try to enter these fields. For example, about 92% of daycare workers are female. Is this discrimination against men, or is it simply that more women choose to enter the field? Not every disparity is discrimination.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Mar 8, 2021 15:09:11 GMT
This Rolling Stone article talks a little bit about gender disparities in the music industry. A study reviewing "900 top songs in the last nine years" showed that females comprise 21.6% of all artists, 12.6% of all songwriters, and 2.6% of all producers.
I'm surprised especially that the percentage of artists is so low, as it seems to me that women are the most prominent artists of the era. That said, I don't pay a lot of attention to chart positions or radio airplay, so my sample may be unusual. (I'd also add that the songs being considered might be an unusual sample as well.)
I do wonder whether or how much of this is active discrimination, as well. There is the possibility that fewer women try to enter these fields. For example, about 92% of daycare workers are female. Is this discrimination against men, or is it simply that more women choose to enter the field? Not every disparity is discrimination.
I know that women seem to dominate pop music of the last decade or so, but it seems far less so in rock music in particular. I do feel like sometimes women in rock are still treated as a bit of a "novelty" at times. I don't really think there's any discrimination there. I honestly think that rock music appeals more to men than women.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 8, 2021 15:17:51 GMT
Everything I'm about to say is a generalization and ought not be taken TOO seriously, or as if it would apply in every case. Obviously it would not. These are broad strokes...
I think you're completely right about women in rock. The music skews masculine. A person could argue whether that's a natural thing or a cultural thing or a mixture of the two (which is my guess), but regardless, it does seem to be true.
And while I hadn't thought of this before, you could argue that modern pop skews feminine in its sensibilities. So why isn't it dominated by women? Because the (generally female) audience also wants to hear men performing, whether it's teen idols or adult heartthrobs.
Conversely, I don't think men have a similar desire to hear women singing rock to them. Rock seems more like mostly "by men, for men," while pop seems like "by women and men, for women."
All of this said, I think most people are now mostly over old stereotypes as to whether women can be great musicians and artists. Of course they can! We all know some of the greatest songwriters and musicians in history were/are women. I hope that the article isn't evidence that there are doors still being intentionally held closed to women. But it certainly didn't give any evidence of that; rather it just showed the numerical disparity.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Mar 8, 2021 15:42:27 GMT
The odd thing is that I honestly thought pop was dominated by women. Some of the biggest pop stars of the last decade are Katy Perry, Lada Gaga, Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, Megan Trainor, Billie Eilish, Dua Lipa, etc. Maybe I'm just ignorant to the amount of males in the genre (which is very very possible).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 8, 2021 15:59:42 GMT
The odd thing is that I honestly thought pop was dominated by women. Some of the biggest pop stars of the last decade are Katy Perry, Lada Gaga, Taylor Swift, Ariana Grande, Megan Trainor, Billie Eilish, Dua Lipa, etc. Maybe I'm just ignorant to the amount of males in the genre (which is very very possible). Similar reaction here. I guess the fact is I probably just missed most of the male artists, since they're not really targeting me as audience... But as I think about it, there's Bieber, Drake, the Maroon 5 guy, that famous K-pop boy band whose name I forget but is initials, Harry Styles, that boy band he came from, Adam Lambert, Sam Smith, Ed Sheeran...
But I would have thought something more like 60-75% of successful pop artists were female. Or at least of successful pop songs. How many would Beyonce, Taylor Swift, and Katy Perry alone account for!?
|
|
|
Post by kds on Mar 8, 2021 16:02:22 GMT
The only thing I can figure is maybe male songwriting or production credits are skewing the numbers a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Mar 8, 2021 16:05:09 GMT
The only thing I can figure is maybe male songwriting or production credits are skewing the numbers a bit. They are definitely far, far higher than the female equivalents. But the article even did break it down by each job, and I think it said that in pop (the highest representation of female artists), females were still only about 32% of artists (meaning performers, not counting those other jobs). That is surprising, and why I was wondering about their sample.
|
|
|
Post by kds on Mar 8, 2021 16:19:22 GMT
The only thing I can figure is maybe male songwriting or production credits are skewing the numbers a bit. They are definitely far, far higher than the female equivalents. But the article even did break it down by each job, and I think it said that in pop (the highest representation of female artists), females were still only about 32% of artists (meaning performers, not counting those other jobs). That is surprising, and why I was wondering about their sample. OK, so I did read that right. I don't know. Like I said, I'm probably discounting the Sam Smiths and Charlie Pluths of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on Apr 14, 2021 18:25:15 GMT
60 Minutes did a feature on Prince's vault in conjunction with the upcoming release of his new (archival 2010) album, Welcome 2 America. Some interesting aspects even for non-Prince fans just in terms of how these sorts of things happen.
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 19, 2021 0:11:47 GMT
Cool local story about a newly released rarities set from an obscure early 80s local power pop band called The Jacks (of whom I'd never heard) that just so happened to include a few tracks featuring performances from future legends like Bob Mould (Husker Du) and a very, very young Tommy Stinson (The Replacements, GnR).
|
|
|
Post by Kapitan on May 19, 2021 14:05:08 GMT
Pitchfork demonstrated its over-the-top incorporation of pop politics du jour in its review today of St. Vincent's new album, Daddy's Home. They've rated most of her work highly, with her solo albums typically between the mid-7s and 9s. This got a 6.7 despite their review saying: What's the problem with the record? If anything, that paragraph would suggest it's antiseptic: too perfect, too clean, no soul. But the review never goes that route. Instead, the problem is what Pitchfork's reviewer considers not even quite bad politics, but a failure to "read the room," as annoying people online like to say to keep people from saying anything outside of the party line. A song can't reference calling police because there have been protests against police brutality? A white musician can't appreciate traditionally black music or hire black musicians because...because why, exactly? And she especially can't do this in music about a white person's crime? What the fuck is this nonsense?
The coup de grace?
"Why wear a mask at all?"
I'm sorry: the "real" problem here is that St. Vincent is playing a character? You mean, the exact thing for which she is praised in that first quoted paragraph above? The thing that Madonna, David Bowie, George Clinton, Prince, and any number of other musicians have been praised for again and again over the years? Intentional reinvention, like Miles Davis did probably more often and better than any musician, is off limits because you're "wearing a mask"?
This at least strongly hints at allegations of cultural appropriation, which, within music, is nonsensical (as we've discussed). Would the reviewer prefer that Ms. Clark exclusively write and perform European traditional classical or folk music? To what degree should that be restricted? If she's of English heritage, for example, must we seek out and criticize any incorporation of Bach or Beethoven and insist she stick to Purcell? Why wear a mask, Ms. Clark!?
Singing in character is probably just about as old as singing. Borrowing from other traditions is as old as traditions. It is what fuels cultural and artistic development.
Criticizing art is fine. Fun, even. But it's so goddamn tedious for the criticism to be so shallow and enmeshed in pop politics.
|
|