Re: American Music - Shallow?

Mark L wrote:

> It seems that there are surges of creative music, which degenerate into more
> passive entertainment over time. I'd say the cycle runs: `56-59, `63-`73,
> `77-82, and most recently `89-94. Please note the dates with relevance to
> The Who's work...whether there's a connection or not, who can say? But we
> see their best period (`65-73), their end (`82), and their first reunion
> (`89) are all in there.

Hmmm. I think you're right about the cycles. There are a few things in the 82 - 
89 period I would regard as worthwhile, but there always exceptions to any rule.

> Davy Jones. Ooof! Started out as an child actor in musicals, didn't he?

I believe that's right. Interestingly enough, Steve Marriott and Phil Collins 
were child actors. 

So, if you were a roadie with the Allmans, were you perchance in that big group 
photo in the "Brothers and Sisters" album? Anyway, I'd be interested to know 
more about your roadie experiences.

> Motorhead, Status Quo...Spinal Tap.
> I think that ELP and Yes (and King Crimson) were trying to take Rock music
> farther by combining it with classical (and jazz) influences, with varying
> degrees of success (few band were as successful at that as were The Who).
> They should get points for that. They had their earlier period where they
> were great, then dropped off sharply. I wouldn't have used them to argue the
> shallowness of music; there are better examples. Empty from beginning to
> end, like Duran Duran or Asia (oh, Carl...why didja do it?).

I mentioned ELP and Rick Wakeman (solo) because I believe they're talented 
British musicians who struggled in the content department, perhaps because they 
were trying to stretch it too far. They were also viewed quite contemptuously 
over here after punk happened (and by a lot of people beforehand!). I have a 
little more respect for Yes and King Crimson who don't lack content IMHO, 
although neither are to my taste. Duran Duran are surely more in the nature of 
The Monkees, i.e. totally talent/content-free, but well packaged. Spinal Tap 
were of course the complete opposite of Duran Duran, i.e. hugely talented, but 
badly packaged.

> I was thinking back farther with the tradition and history. Like Classical
> and Dancehall. We had Folk, then Blues, then Rock And Roll. British music
> had that one more element of quality. Or so it appears to me.
> But look how much The Kinks (for instance) took from Dancehall! And they are
> definitely a quality band.

Actually, I think you're right about the Dancehall/Music Hall element. I hadn't 
thought about that at all. The Kinks are indeed a fine example, as perhaps is 
Steve Marriott with the Small Faces. There's a lot of cockney "knees-up" in both 
of these acts' work. Is that what you were getting at?

> Amazing as it may seem, I can sell all of the REO,
> Lynyrd Skynyrd, Kansas, Chicago, Bolton, etc etc. I can get. It's the
> college and British newer music that goes slow (because people are unaware
> of them, given the crappy radio in this area). Oh yeah, and Robert Plant and
> Palmer (both British, you notice).

I suppose that at least gives you more time to check out the good stuff for 
yorself. Could the lack of awareness of the new stuff be in part due to an 
inadequacy of American music magazines? I've not heard of the Wildhearts, so 
maybe our mags aren't doing too good a job either!


Cheers,
Mark T.