Re: American Music - Shallow?

>I tend to believe that almost everything good we hear today still has its
roots 
>partly in the Delta. There's very little I've ever heard in the Blues which
I >would consider shallow. Some of the greatest Blues songs, while lyrically
>simple, have a lot of hidden layers of meaning - sexual and political
innuendo >or whatever. Robert Johnson is a great example of this.

Mark T.:

Actually, I was thinking post-50s. I mean, all music was fairly shallow
until Dylan came along. "Venus if you will..." and stuff like that.

>I don't want to forget the late Steve Marriott either, even though he lost
the >plot way back in the 60's.

I didn't know that he had died. What a shame.
And I don't know that I agree that he lost it in the `60s. Some of the
Humble Pie stuff is pretty good. Have you ever heard TOWN AND COUNTRY? SMOKIN'?

Mark, you've gone off in a completely different direction than I was
thinking of. Let me state my opinion here, and then comment on yours:
When listening back (I didn't notice it at the time) to `60s-`70s Rock
music, I have found that there is an element of timelessness in a lot (or
maybe I should say more) of the British music, as opposed to the American
bands. Britian had bands like The Who, Beatles, Kinks...whereas we had Grand
Funk, Chicago, The Monkees...bands whose music hardly echoes down the halls
forever, although they were all fairly well at the top. 
So to me, British music seems to have a bit more depth than the American
counterpart. For example, look at the return of The Who as opposed to the
current Monkees tour (and The Monkees were a LOT more popular over here than
The Who ever dreamed...believe it or not, they were considered the number
one or two band in the country against The Beatles, depending on what week
it was).
Anyway, my favorite North American bands back then, Mountain and The Band,
hold up better than most. But neither of them were on the level of the top
British bands.


>Another, later, Brit I would cite is Paul Weller - he may not be as well
known >in the US, but his writing is superb and full of angst, very Pete
influenced.  >Then there's Elvis Costello and Ian Dury - does Ian Dury mean
anything in the >States?

I am a big Jam fan, but as popular as they were in Britian they never made
much of an impression over here. A shame, that. I can't say that I like
Style Council much, but oh well.
As for Dury: "Hit me with your rhythm stick/Now hit me, hit ME!" Those of
who picked up on the Nick Lowe/Stiff Records scene were aware of him. Was he
well known? No.
Cosello was very popular.

>From the American side, I'd put some 
>people I greatly admire: SRV, Allman Bros (dare I mention them, Mark :-)),
>Carlos Santana etc right into the same camp although their priority has
always >been instrumental rather than lyrical expression.

Nothing is universal, of course. I could mention The Sweet, for instance.
I have nothing against The Allmans other than that Gregg narked out his road
manager on a cocaine charge to save his own ass and that he changed his
hairstyle and grew a goatee in order to look more like me. 
I worked for them in `74 (before it happened), and they were a good band,
especially live (even without Duane). But it was a limited concept, even as
with The Stray Cats. I'd say that their first four albums were great, the
next one (BROTHERS AND SISTERS) pretty good, and then the rest pretty
bad...except for the recent BACK WHERE IT ALL BEGAN, which surprised me as
being their best since B&S.

>Hiatt wrote a song you may have heard called "Memphis in the Meantime".

I must confess to never having heard that one. I think the Little Village
album put me off Hiatt. Have you heard that one? Complete rubbish, despite
an all-star band including Ry Cooder and Nick Lowe.

>Everyone is now expected to be EmptyVee, or at least VH-1 friendly. Maybe
the >American market finds British eccentrics more acceptable than domestic
ones?

There was a time, early on, when MTV was a great thing. They played unknown
bands for the most part, and had three videos per commercial. Then the
"giants" of the time (who saw no need to make videos, as opposed to the
unknowns who needed the exposure) saw what was happening (the money being
made), and started making videos...and now the whole thing is crap.
But there were some classics...like Dog Police, if you ever see that one.
British bands just seem to put more into their songs, rather than rattling
off another formula song. Journey, Kansas, Styx, Van Halen...all have good
to great musicians in them, but their songs are empty as Hell.

>America has mould-breakers like Dylan (great songs, shame about the voice)
and >Hendrix.

I think Dylan's voice was perfect for what he was trying to put forth...it
was no-nonsense and urgent, and left no room to dismiss it. You HAD to pay
attention, not dance.
Hendrix had to "make it" in Britian after years of trying here. So that says
something, too.
Anyway, it's my thinking that the British bands, with more history and
tradition behind them than the American ones, just put more into their music.



                   Cheers                   ML


"For three generations, Pepsi has trying to make people to believe it's `The
Pepsi Generation.' This is the first one dumb enough to believe it."
                                                                    Unknown