Re: My Generation/Who vs Zep/Pagey/Brainwashed

[mleaman@sccoast.net (Mark Leaman)]

>Then you weren't listening to Stern two weeks ago (I thought my hint 
>would give it away). 

Ian:

I get up at 8:30, and therefore don't hear any Stern earlier than that. So I
must assume that the skit you mention was on before I awoke.
See, my store opens at 11. And, while we're on the subject, I'm running my
first radio ads next week...during the Stern show (not by Stern,
though...not yet). The background music will be the LAL version of MG.

>Well, you were telling me that Ragtime was the most published of all 
>black music before 1940(?).  I think you were trying to tell me that 
>since Ragtime was more prominent commercially that it was around before 
>the blues, or the blues as we know it?? The author you quoted was claiming 
>"black" music.
>As for the jazz vs blues argument I don't really want to go in circles anymore
>because I know from audio evidence that the blues was around LONG before jazz
>If you're trying to break it down into another name like spirituals, fine.  
>But it's still considered the blues.  

Ian, Ragtime was the most published music since the mid-1800s. I think you
get my drift here very well, in regard to Blues VS Jazz being around first.
That is pretty damned strong evidence for ya. Blues, in the form we're
talking about as a possible influence on MG, just wasn't around at that time.

>Mark, are you going to tell me that you can't say "Charlie Parker's music 
>was influencial for jazz" and claim that jazz didn't exist before Parker?

What? You are indeed talking in circles here.

>You are going by an author who has defined in his own mind what the blues 
>is.  Think of it in rock, Berry, Holly, etc is prehistoric rock/Who, 
>Beatles, Stones LZ etc is classic rock aka "the golden age".  What you 
>call the blues is the golden age, an advanced blues, you can make the 
>claim for be-bop in jazz.  The standard blues form was in place by the 
>time Bessie Smith sang "St. Louis Blues", count the bars!  It's 12 bar blues.

When we began this discussion, we were talking about MG's origins. Which
would put it in the mid-60s. And you attempt to devalue his opinion, despite
the fact that I have not attacked YOUR source. We must assume that he is
equally valid, or this turns into a "my dad can beat up your dad" discussion.
Besides, for ME the golden age of Jazz was in the 50s, when Brubeck was king.

>If this author thinks of the blues as Albert King and his electric 
>guitar, fine.  However it existed LONG before that.  Just like jazz 
>existed before Miles.

No, he (like me) sees Blues as Leadbelly, Johnson, etc. The present form.
Which is what we were talking about: form and structure. And from where you
keep drifting away.

>My point was that Marsh didn't need a musical background (just like you) 
>but he does to realize the gut instinct on his opinion.  Where Marsh screws 
>up is when he's trying to write something clever or appealing to the eye.  His 
>WSO notes are appaling (even though his opinion of the album is a "where 
>have you been" feeling). 

Marsh, like many music writers, suffers from an unbalanced background in
music. He knows just enough about some aspects to get by, but I would never
look to him for a genre definition. His main strength (in BIGO) was
knowledge of the Who history details. He is a lazy writer (I think you'll
agree with me there) and tends to generalize. He might label Cream a Blues
band because they did some Blues, and King Crimson a "Progressive Rock"
band, lumped in with Yes and ELP. Know what I mean?




                   Cheers                   ML

"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."  L. Long