Jump to content
aberdeen-music
Sign in to follow this  
Stripey

Received wisdom

Recommended Posts

Are people like bob dylan, johny cash, the beatles, the rolling stones, etc etc so hugely rich and famous and widely revered because they have some kind of actual worth and value to humanity, or have they achieved this quasi-religious status through what amounts to a process of record-label and media driven cultural indoctrination?

You always hear people talking about bob dylan as if he's some kind of revolutionary master poet, but he isn't by any stretch of the imagination. Why is this irritating harmonica playing simpleton a cultural icon? Has anyone listened to his radio show and not felt like smashing his face in?

The same broadly applies to johnny cash and the beatles, why are these people seen as being important when they have no relevance whatsoever to this current generation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It doesn't really matter if strangers like - or dislike - music. Don't cry into your cheerios over it.

Well thanks for your input but try to stay on topic please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everybody likes music and musicians for different reasons. Some like Dylan due to some image of some folk hero being forced down their throats by the media, others genuinly like his songs.

Does it matter why people like different bands?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies old friend.

I personally believe that many of these musicians are relevant. Bob Dylan has written some fantastic love songs for example, and the plain truth is that people relate to them, because emotions like that don't really change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apologies old friend.

I personally believe that many of these musicians are relevant. Bob Dylan has written some fantastic love songs for example, and the plain truth is that people relate to them, because emotions like that don't really change.

I find it impossible to believe that anyone who isn't at least in their 50's can truly relate to any of that shit. These groups and artists are revered by younger people just because there is a history which is rammed down their throats constantly by the recording industry and the music media. I cannot take seriously anyone in their 20's who claims to be a huge bob dylan or johnny cash fan.

Where are the dylans and lennons of this generation? If that is a hard concept to grasp maybe it's because the original dylan and lennon weren't the fucking second coming either and are infact the same kind of media creations that dominate the top of the music industry right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it impossible to believe that anyone who isn't at least in their 50's can truly relate to any of that shit. These groups and artists are revered by younger people just because there is a history which is rammed down their throats constantly by the recording industry and the music media. I cannot take seriously anyone in their 20's who claims to be a huge bob dylan or johnny cash fan.

Where are the dylans and lennons of this generation? If that is a hard concept to grasp maybe it's because the original dylan and lennon weren't the fucking second coming either and are infact the same kind of media creations that dominate the top of the music industry right now.

The main thing you have to understand is, you do not understand rock music in the same way I do not understand what you like. Dylan and The Beatles mean nothing to you in the same way the things you like mean nothing to me. You're very much a fan of the 21st century and the things modernity has to offer. To me the best music is that which appreciates the groundwork that was laid before.

You can say whatever you like about old artists, but if you havw the faintest idea about the evolution of popular music, you'd understand that were it not for the ground made by these artists you would not have the music you love today. Do you think the music you enjoy would have popped out of knowhere without the popular music of the 50's and 60's?

I dont like every 'legendary' band, I find both The Beatles and The Doors almost entirely unenjoyable, but I love Dylan and Elvis. However, unless you are a complete moron (which you are not), you have to appreciate the groundwork these bands laid. You can kid yourself that because you hate Elvis and Dylan that the Drum and Bass you listen to would exist without them, but follow the chronology of music and you'll realise it's not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't particularly like The Beatles, Johnny Cash nor Bob Dylan.

The majority of music I do listen to, however, was still released prior to my birth.

If a piece is strong enough and can cater for mood and give satisfaction to more than it's present day when written, it'll be enjoyed regardless of relevance to generation I guess. :)

To your original question you posed in the first sentence, I don't know to be honest. I've never looked into what the hype is regarding those artists. A culmination of simpleton appeal, press hype, general public praise by word of mouth and being in the right place at the right time doing the right thing I suppose has given them such positions.

It does nothing for me, personally.

Each to their own. :up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First off, considering the social, economic and political climate at the time, all those artists had something to offer so that accounts for their initial appeal (with a fair bit of hype and marketing thrown in no doubt).

Their continued appeal though, mostly I'd put it down to their parents/friend's parents record collections. Before people have their own disposable income they are influenced by what they hear around them and apart from TV and radio it's what's lying about at home. A lot of people have Stones, Beatles, Dylan etc albums at home so a lot of kids are going to hear those artists in an environment where they are liked, maybe even revered.

I've seen this a lot with young bands, they'll play covers (and sometimes originals that may as well be covers) of bands and you just know what their parents record collections are like, sometimes the parents even turn up at gigs wearing the T-shirts which confirms my suspicions.

(I should maybe add, this is maybe going to change now we have the internet. The parents record collections are going to become less relevant. Patience Stripey, in another 15 years the Beatles, Dylan etc may be a distant memory)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Extremely good point. I knew what Bob Dylan and Talking Heads sounded like (and enjoyed them) before I knew what a record company was.

Again, I don't think subjects such as love change all that much. Doesn't matter if it's tackled with a harmonica or a synthesiser.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, you like what you like and if enough people like what you play, you sell records, if they hate it, you don't. It's always been a simple to understand concept. People still like and listen to music that was composed hundreds of years ago. Stupid arguement really and an indication that deep down you don't understand music beyond a very narrow genre.

All this wailing and screaming about people like James Blunt for example, is just childish tantrums. I hate Blunt's music and voice but I'm adult enough to know that many other people actually like it. Dylan himself doesn't do much for me but I like some of his songs and I actually like Johnny Cash.

Talent, put in the right place at the right time and with the right support will find a market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*hates himself for taking the bait, but never the less...*

First of all, I love all those artists. I take particular issue with your comment about Dylan's radio show. Just one of the best things I've ever heard. Loads of amazing tracks, old and new (although mainly old), and his spoken interludes are frequently hilarious. You can download them all here, and I would urge you to do so. Expecting Rain • View topic - A-Z thread

Secondly, I've mostly sought out these artists myself, my parents had/have pretty crap music tastes (Mum: Cliff Richard, although some decent stuff like The Everly Brothers and The Walker Brothers. Dad: Highly dubious country stuff like Don Williams and Susan McCann, although some decent stuff like Johnny Cash and Willie Nelson).

PS I'm 30, but it's not my fault that all new music is shit. Can't remember the last time I bought a "new" album.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The main thing you have to understand is, you do not understand rock music

hahahahahaaaaaa

...

You can kid yourself that because you hate Elvis and Dylan that the Drum and Bass you listen to would exist without them' date=' but follow the chronology of music and you'll realise it's not possible.[/quote']

You've got that misconception from watching too many documentaries about 50's/60's rock and roll in secondary school music lessons. Music is not some kind of linear progression of innovation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First off, considering the social, economic and political climate at the time, all those artists had something to offer so that accounts for their initial appeal (with a fair bit of hype and marketing thrown in no doubt).

Their continued appeal though, mostly I'd put it down to their parents/friend's parents record collections. Before people have their own disposable income they are influenced by what they hear around them and apart from TV and radio it's what's lying about at home. A lot of people have Stones, Beatles, Dylan etc albums at home so a lot of kids are going to hear those artists in an environment where they are liked, maybe even revered.

I've seen this a lot with young bands, they'll play covers (and sometimes originals that may as well be covers) of bands and you just know what their parents record collections are like, sometimes the parents even turn up at gigs wearing the T-shirts which confirms my suspicions.

(I should maybe add, this is maybe going to change now we have the internet. The parents record collections are going to become less relevant. Patience Stripey, in another 15 years the Beatles, Dylan etc may be a distant memory)

Agreed, before I started buying music I did listen to my parents tapes and lp's, but to be honest that's why I now can't stand pink floyd, donovan, the eagles etc. It would be great if the internet and music sharing over it managed to dismantle some of the wierd baseless reverence people have for these artists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this wailing and screaming about people like James Blunt for example, is just childish tantrums. I hate Blunt's music and voice but I'm adult enough to know that many other people actually like it.

Oh I see, we shouldn't discuss things or express an opinion because many other people have a differing opinion. Brilliant logic. Many people like smoking crack, but I don't see anyone suggesting there shouldn't be a debate about the problems it causes society simply because it's popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, before I started buying music I did listen to my parents tapes and lp's, but to be honest that's why I now can't stand pink floyd, donovan, the eagles etc. It would be great if the internet and music sharing over it managed to dismantle some of the wierd baseless reverence people have for these artists.

I think most people end up going their own way with musical taste, but if, for example, 30% of people who grow up listening to dylan, the stones etc continue to like them into adulthood that's still a lot of people considering the amount of albums they've sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were all at the forefront of a cultural revolution and continue to influence popular culture today. The musical output and the story of these artist's lives and careers continue to fascinate many people. They have worth and value to the millions of their fans around the world who adore them. This is what makes them the cultural icons that they are. That is an undeniable fact whether it is as a result of a record-label and media driven indoctrination or not, which itself is a matter of opinion. I doubt that answers your questions but there you go......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what is your continued problem of younger people liking music from past generations? there is no global conspiracy pushing the likes of Dylan or Lennon unto us young uns.

I'm in my 20's and a huge Dylan and Beatles fan, as well as countless other acts that were around long before i was born. What about that means you can't take me seriously? Because they are not at the forefront of a contemporary musical revolution? I can understand your love for music that is cutting edge and modern, but in a decade that will sound extremely dated also. Does that mean you won't be able to enjoy those records? I guess you won't be able to to the same degree and that is fine, but really, is it such a hard concept to grasp that other people get something completely different out of music? Something that isn't tied down and dictated by the era they are from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only reference that could make me bite is the Stones, and there it was, so; The reason the Stones are still revered is very easy to comprehend, mainly that they wrote upwards of 50 really good songs. Now given how monumentally difficult it is to even write one really good song (hereafter RGS), to come up with that many is on a par with painting the Sistine Chapel. Not withstanding their Golden Age 68-72 when everything they officially released was unquestionably Grade A material (excepting their fuck off to Decca, 'Cocksucker Blues'), before and after this they could still come up with the odd classic track on almost every album all the way up to 1984 ('Undercover... is a great song). That sort of consistency is awe inspiring, but with the Stones there is so much mythology which can get in the way of a personal relationship with the audio itself, and although some of it is entertaining, all of it is, ultimately, superfluous. The same for the rest of the legends, people love the stories, and the slices of cultural history imbued within classic rock albums, but the truly great need none of this, quality will always out.

And you're wrong, musical development does move in a mainly linear mode, building on preceding currents in the art and the technologies of the art. This is true for music as it clearly is for the visual arts, and indeed the cumulative histories of humanity. A proof lies in painted representations of nature; the natural world, it is fair to say, looks very much the same now as it ever has, things exist in 3 visible dimensions, chlorophyll is mainly green etc, yet naturalistic depictions of nature were quite missing from many phases of Western Art, because culturally realistic depiction was not valued, and when it became so again, during the Renaissance, it took until the 17th Century for naturalism to actually look natural.

Or look at the development of pyramids, stuff moves along, whether we care to recognise it or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WHEN a piece of music is composed is completely irrelevant. Much music is timeless, and only music that has very little real worth can be accused of being "out-of-date". The music of Mahler, Beethoven and Shostakovich still has as much relevance as that of any contemporary artist. Why? Because music is about emotion, and how it affects the human listener. Every new piece of technology becomes obsolete eventually, so it is foolhardy to dismiss music just because it is created with a guitar rather than a computer.

The reason that Cash, Dylan, The Beatles etc have become such icons is only partly to do with political/cultural reasons. Some people say they were great innovators. They weren't really, they just became the most famous of those musicians practicing new techniques in the 50s/60s era. Certainly, the subsequent media hype about their impact on music has enhanced their profile to almost god-like status, and I depise people who decide that they are a huge Johnny Cash fan just because he's dead, for example. But what you must remember is that this did not occur for no reason. These artists and many like them had to make timeless music that resonated with a great many people in the first place before all this mythologising happened, otherwise they would have just been drops in the musical ocean. They weren't selected for deification at random. And because this music has such universal appeal, it's not unusual that young people today who don't shackle themselves with the bonds of fashion should enjoy the same music their parents did.

There are compelling arguments to be made for a linear progression of musical development throughout history. And while it's not as straight-forward as some amateur music historians would have you believe, there is nonetheless a discernable pattern. A much-cherished (although possibly apochryphal) example is of the 14th century composer Palestrina writing a mass that convinced the Pope not to outlaw polyphony in music. Polyphony has been a fundamental element of all western music for the last 600 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple, the music The Beatles and The Rolling Stones created during their peak years was ace! It's a pity that you can't enjoy the mercurial beauty of Child of the Moon or the sweet dreamy feel of Across the Universe.

A whole host of old music has positively enriched my life and inspired me musically... that makes that music completely relevant to my life.

Ps: cheer up yeh grumpy bugger! :love:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps: cheer up yeh grumpy bugger! :love:

X 2

Music is created to be enjoyed not sneered at. Certainly don't sneer at people who like something genuinely. I think your problem is with the media and the hype generated rather than the groups or individuals that made the music. In some cases the hype is justified anyway.

There have definitely been distinctly different social/political climates over the past century and more often than not the music represents the mood of the youth of society in some way or other. From earlier post, you could claim that music has represented social changes since it has meant anything to anybody. On top of that, often colourful characters responsible for changing tastes and views can draw the attention of the media so nothing changed there.

I discovered most of my early taste in music through other people rather than hype of the media, I never bought music magazines or watched too much TV. I did listen to mix tapes full of songs I didn't even know (at the time) who was on them and a spot of late night radio 2 ... for me it has and always will been about enjoying the tunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think the funniest thing about this thread is the fact so many people have taken the bait yet again, why bother? We all know how this thread is going to go;

stripey says i hate all music, except for what i like,

heaps of posts defending music,

stripey calling people morons for defending music,

big bad dark destroyer dave comes and closes the thread.....

same shit, different week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×