Posted on 07/16/2009 7:11:34 AM PDT by mattstat
Paul McCartney has once again crept upon our shores. He was, of course, vanguard in the original “British Invasion”, which occurred in early 1964. Now, an invasion is something to be resisted, to be fought off, to be repelled. Sadly—quite, quite sadly—we had no Winston Churchill on our shores to boost our morale with stirring words like these:
'We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in New York, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Culture, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender";
and so the invasion was a success, our surrender quick, our cultural defeat total. All that is left is rebellion.
Here is the first of many examples of what appeasement and acquiescence has wrought. Try not to sit too close to your screen when reading the ride-hand column. There is a danger of, what they call on the professional eating circuit, a reversal...
(Excerpt) Read more at wmbriggs.com ...
The interesting insight from your comment, dmz, is that each of those parents is quite correct in their admonitions given that the quality of music has been in retrograde for several generations now.
_________
I don’t quite get folks who idealize the past. Cole Porter wrote some great stuff. There were many others writing crap.
There is a lot of crap being written today, but there is also stuff that will surely stand the test of time.
Mozart was not the only classical era composer, as Beethoven was not the only Romantic era composer, and Bach was not the only Baroque era composer.
Each era has its standouts and the also rans that no one remembers.
Of course, for me the bottom line is this, objective statements (music has been in retrograde) on entirely subjective topics (quality of music) yield entirely meaningless conclusions. JMO.
Yes, exactly, your pasting of the dictionary definition is correct. But not when applied to me.
Because I have better taste does not make me older than you. I also complain about music like one who is educated, not like, to use your considered phrase, “an old fart.”
I still await your defense of the lyrics. That you choose not to make one indicates your surrender on this point.
Frank, BB, Ella, Nat, Buddy, Elvis, Ray to name of few of the master recording CDR burns. Great music and sound quality on master tapes is amazing using those old tube mics
The "boys", although not the most gifted in technical terms, will always be #1 to me.
Why would I need to defend the lyrics to that particular Beatles song?
They aren’t questionable, in poor taste, or ineffective.
They are what they are FOR A POP SONG.
I always laugh when someone claims to have “better taste”.
More often than not, those who profess that are mistaken and even more often deluded.
Your point, dmz, is a good one. To idolize the past because it is the past is silly. But in this case, it happens to be that it is in the past when popular music was, on average, better than it is now. We are admiring what was better not because it is old but because it was better.
It is also impossible to idolize the future, a place where we can hope things will improve.
>> I strongly disagree with you that none of the Beatles could sing worth a darn <<
So? A great singer does not a great lyricist make.
Not me but my computer got a case of the hiccups...lol.
Don’t look for brilliance in pop music. Even when a little bit happens, it is just a little bit. However, music at least has a market driving it, unlike pop art, which has been in the doldrums for most of the 20th Century, and continues to be lame.
But at the same time, if you look beyond pop music, you see some truly extraordinary and lasting innovation. I like to point out that Frank Zappa produced music in the US that for most people was close to chaotic and grotesque. But at the same time, his reputation in Europe was as one of the great 20th Century composers of chamber music.
I also like to cite the eclectic group Dead Can Dance, whose very name was a multiple play on words, as their music was a strange blend of ancient and modern forms, highlighting their vocalists, a contralto who at times sang in glossolalia, and a baritone. The furthest thing from pop music, yet their music transfixed young audiences who normally listened to punk, Goth and other such simplistic shrieking. They couldn’t say why it had such a hypnotic effect on them, just that it did.
Other groups, like Tangerine Dream, have assumed the mantle of classical composition, at least in complexity and depth, going beyond traditional instrumentation, leaving the more traditional classical style compositions to become more pop oriented, with things like movie soundtracks.
Years ago, I asked the question to some Beatles fans that, comparing the Beatles to Mozart, which do you think will be remembered in 200 years? Even then, they knew that Mozart will still be appreciated, but the best they could hope for is that the Beatles wouldn’t have been completely forgotten.
Forget Sinatra, then. “Something” is a beautiful song.
Mick Jagger, screaming into the mike, isn’t my definition of talent.
The Who, however, remains (in my mind) as the greatest rock band of all time ;)
I’ve even got my 7 and 9 year-old daughters to agree with me ;)
The thing that bugged me is that he compared a Cole Porter song to I Want to Hold Your Hand. Admittedly, it wasn’t one of the Beatles’ finest tunes, although the melody has been recorded as an instrumental by the Hollywood Strings, and it sounded just beautiful.
Well that article was a waste of internet digits.
It’s a known fact that “BC” is inaccurate by 4-6 years.
I hope your spell checker failed you. My word was idealize, not idolize. Very different animals.
I read you statement as “I admire what I like, not because it is old, but because I like it better than the current stuff”. It’s a statement about you and your preferences, not a objective statement.
Way back when, before he fell off the edge of the earth, we had a poster here named wideawake (I ping him now in case he lurks) with whom I’d have spirited arguments about this objectivity/subjectivity thing.
LOL. Eric Clapner is apparently a member of the Log Home Builders Association. Too funny.
Cocaine, the song I believe you are speaking of, was, for the record written by JJ Cale.
Clapner?
This blog could have been written by my late father, who was a professional musician. He liked to predict that in 40 years nobody would even remember the Beatles. He was very obsessed with his opinions about popular music of the day.
errrrrgggg
That you like what you like is not reflective of anything close to resembling ‘I have better taste’.
You belie your claim to being educated by confusing your likes and dislikes with “that which is objectively good or bad”. Somewhere in your education you seem to have missed the class wherein the subjective/objective distinctions were drawn.
>> the melody has been recorded as an instrumental by the Hollywood Strings, and it sounded just beautiful <<
With due respect to your opinion, let’s remember that Dr. Briggs and his alter ego, Mattstat, are making a point about LYRICS, not about melodies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.