Unpopular music opinions

[Blackjack]

Well…I disagree with the sentiment that jazz/popular music reached its zenith in the 40’s. However, music in general (across the board) has gone down hill since the 60’s (just my opinion).

Jazz AS a popular music most certainly did reach it's peak in the 40's. When Be-bop replaced swing as the new kid on the block in the 50's jazz stopped being for the masses and began to become the snobbish music you could only appreciate if you were "hip' or a swinger. The popular music was rock.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I call them gimmicks no matter who does them, because I don't consider gimmickry a negative thing at all. Musicians are entertainers above all else, and if putting on a funny hat or playing stylized arrangements entertains the crowd, they're earning their money. It doesn't much matter to me if the clowning vocalists are Kay Kyser and Ish Kabibble or Don Redman and Harlan Lattimore -- they're gimmicks either way, and they're both very entertaining. What matters is that they don't take the gimmicks too seriously to *be* entertaining.

I'll also argue that there was often a lot of talent back of these gimmicks or whatever one chooses to call them -- the Kemp typewriter-trumpet routine was created by John Scott Trotter, who was talented enough to spend twenty years working with Bing Crosby, a man who did not suffer musical fools. Kay Kyser's arrangements were done by George Duning and Van Alexander, neither of whom were hacks, and Alexander, especially, was a man of some reputation in jazz circles (not that "jazz" and "talent" are necessarily synonymous.) Warren Covington, Jess Stacy, Irving Fazola and Bill Finegan all worked for Horace Heidt. And on and on -- some pretty talented people there, I'd think. Or are they only talented when they work for "acceptable" bands?

As far as The Miller Sound goes, as I've said, that keening clarinet lead just cuts right thru my head. And then Ray Eberle starts singing -- so to speak -- and I'm done for. (If Miller had *really* been a musical genius, he'd have hired Harry Babbitt to do his vocals.)

 

[RadioWave]

Lizzie - you certainly know your stuff. Lately, I've been trying to expand my knowledge of teens-through-40s music... Any specific artists/recordings/reading that you'd really recommend? I tried to send you a PM last week, but your inbox was full : (

 

[Rundquist]

Jazz AS a popular music most certainly did reach it's peak in the 40's. When Be-bop replaced swing as the new kid on the block in the 50's jazz stopped being for the masses and began to become the snobbish music you could only appreciate if you were "hip' or a swinger. The popular music was rock.

No doubt. But I never said jazz reached its zenith of "popularity" in the 50's and 60's. All I said was for me, music peaked in the 50's and 60's. That's all I was trying to say. Again, everything is perspective. I guess that one could call bebop and modal jazz music for snobs, much in the same way that rock & roll lovers could call swing & jazz aficionados snobs.

They’re just labels. Maybe I should have chosen my words better. I didn’t realize that my use of the words “hip” and “juice” would get me labeled a snob (lol).

PS- I’m fine with this thread, but when you call out music, you run the risk of insulting people that happen to like that music.

 

[Blackjack]

Or are they only talented when they work for "acceptable" bands?

As far as The Miller Sound goes, as I've said, that keening clarinet lead just cuts right thru my head. And then Ray Eberle starts singing -- so to speak -- and I'm done for. (If Miller had *really* been a musical genius, he'd have hired Harry Babbitt to do his vocals.)

No no, don't get me wrong talent is talent, and there were some really talented cats in Kyser's band. I'm not putting his band or the talent of the players in it down by any means, he's just not my cup of tea but it's all personal taste. I agree with you on Eberle.

 

[Blackjack]

I guess that one could call bebop and modal jazz music for snobs, much in the same way that rock & roll lovers could call swing & jazz aficionados snobs.

They’re just labels. Maybe I should have chosen my words better. I didn’t realize that my use of the words “hip” and “juice” would get me labeled a snob (lol).

Most jazz aficionados "are" snobs...lol but then again aren't we all in one way or another.

 

[Fletch]

I agree with you on Eberle.

On his earliest recordings with Miller, Ray was terribly uneven (listen to And the Angels Sing, which he barely makes it thru). He eventually got it together, but he never learned to add anything to a song.

 

[LizzieMaine]

*Bob* Eberly, on the other hand, wasn't a bad singer at all, despite being stereotyped as "the guy who does all those duets with Helen O'Connell."

 

[LizzieMaine]

Lizzie - you certainly know your stuff. Lately, I've been trying to expand my knowledge of teens-through-40s music... Any specific artists/recordings/reading that you'd really recommend? I tried to send you a PM last week, but your inbox was full : (

Best place to start is the "What Are You Listening To?" thread elsewhere on the forum -- there's a lot of good stuff batted around there on a regular basis.

 

[MissMittens]

(If Miller had *really* been a musical genius, he'd have hired Harry Babbitt to do his vocals.)

"The only bandleader I envied was Kay Kyser" - Glenn Miller

Lizzie, have you thought about your own College of Musical Knowledge???

 

[Undertow]

Oh, and Johann Sebastian Bach is better than Mozart.

Blasphemy! lol

No, I think there are some pros and cons for both composers. I must admit, I have an album by the Hilliard Ensemble where they do some JSB pieces, and it is unbelievably mesmerizing. On the other hand, I have always loved Mozart's piano solo pieces.

I will say that Beethoven is relatively boring compared to Mozart, IMHO.

 

[MissMittens]

Blasphemy! lol

No, I think there are some pros and cons for both composers. I must admit, I have an album by the Hilliard Ensemble where they do some JSB pieces, and it is unbelievably mesmerizing. On the other hand, I have always loved Mozart's piano solo pieces.

I will say that Beethoven is relatively boring compared to Mozart, IMHO.

They're both better than Strauss - whose music can be described as "Musik fer Marschieren über Europa in den Aufladungen" - Music for marching across Europe in Jackboots

 

[Undertow]

I'd had previously dismissed metal as nothing but screaming and noise up until the last two years, when I really started listening. Some of these players are extremely talented, and it's not uncommon for some groups to draw influences from the classical and jazz genres. I think metal is mostly about 'drive', and the machine-like speed and precision of some of these musicians is amazing...I'm always amused by how easy they make it look.

Precisely! I realize Heavy Metal is an acquired taste, but I would argue that it's far more complex than what meets the eye. Very often, it's lumped into a teenage-angst category, but I've been listening to metal for decades and I've really come to appreciate the time and effort that goes into not only composition, but also execution.

If any of you ever have a wild hare, I would recommend researching bands like Nile or Behemoth (among so many others). Nile is an extreme metal group from South Carolina who centers their music around ancient Egyptian culture. Their lead singer, Karl Sanders, provides extensive background and research in their linear notes regarding the song lyrics/titles. Just reading those notes is like reading from the pages of Archaeology magazine!

Behemoth is also an extreme metal group from Poland and their music is centered in "heretical" culture, including paganism (in the narrow "Church" sense), as well as the occult. The lead singer, Adam Darski, also provides extensive linear notes and provides great research material, including notes on Greek religion and mythology, Roman religion and mythology, and various pagan religions and mythologies.

Overall, the musical talent required to execute some metal music is astounding. I grin when someone mentions John Bonham, or Neal Peart, as the best drummers of all time; and I can't hide a smile when I hear about "great guitarists" from various rock bands. Granted, many musicians are highly talented, but there is an entire underground of prodigies who simply eliminate competition in technical performance.

bluestone120 also mentioned the classical and jazz influences. I can't stress enough to what extent many of these musicians are inspired by said genres. Many of the metal musicians are, themselves, classically trained and are obsessive sticklers about their compositions. You often read interviews in which these artists go into great length about their classical inspirations or their attempts to infuse jazz into their rhythms. Another good example of this is a group called Meshuggah from Sweden. Their precise, and often staccato, performances are so mechanically amazing that it's a wonder how they ever acheive it at all!

 

[Undertow]

They're both better than Strauss - whose music can be described as "Musik fer Marschieren über Europa in den Aufladungen" - Music for marching across Europe in Jackboots

Haha, I thought that was Wagner?

 

[martinsantos]

I believe that so many think about 30s-40s as the apex of popular music because in any other era there was something so strange. Refinated, complex music, made for $$$. And getting so huge sucess. Elements that usually don't walk together. Stan Kenton being "popular", for example - and this isn't a dance band (if I try to dance with it, it's possible the lady will be dancing a rumba and I'll be in fox-trot). For us, now, Artistry in Rythm is just great. But when released probably was quite different from anything else.

There's something special when you think about teenagers listening Sam Donahue with Dorsey's orch - and just thinking this beautiful and exciting!

Well….I did say that there were obvious exceptions. Ellington, Basie, and others made good music, regardless of the era. Blanket statements are hard to defend.

Anyway, dance music doesn’t have to mean corny. In fact, much of my favorite music could be considered dance music. It should also be pointed out that when I say “hip”, I mean good. There’s only two subdivisions of music, good and bad (as Ellington would say). I don't care what others like, just what I like.

Ellington also said that music was there for the next generation of musicians to use and build upon. While I agree with the popular sentiment of this board that later generations failed (in general) to use the previous generation’s music as building blocks, I disagree with the sentiment that jazz/popular music reached its zenith in the 40’s. However, music in general (across the board) has gone down hill since the 60’s (just my opinion).

 

[MissMittens]

Haha, I thought that was Wagner?

You're 100% correct....always mix 'em up. Richard Strauss and Richard Wagner

 

[JimWagner]

Haha, I thought that was Wagner?

You rang?

Oh, you meant Richard Wagner.

 

[jamespowers]

Haha, I thought that was Wagner?

No, you get married with Wagner and Handel.

 

[Fletch]

I believe that so many think about 30s-40s as the apex of popular music because in any other era there was something so strange. Refinated, complex music, made for $$$. And getting so huge sucess. Elements that usually don't walk together. Stan Kenton being "popular", for example - and this isn't a dance band (if I try to dance with it, it's possible the lady will be dancing a rumba and I'll be in fox-trot). For us, now, Artistry in Rythm is just great. But when released probably was quite different from anything else.

There's something special when you think about teenagers listening Sam Donahue with Dorsey's orch - and just thinking this beautiful and exciting!

Absolutely, Martin. I think here in the USA we have trouble recognizing this anymore - because our pop tradition does not cross generations (as Rundquist noted), and also because much of the music was so close to jazz that it could be accused of "cashing in" on jazz, which makes it harder for some people to respect.

 

[martinsantos]

We have this here in Brazil too. As it would be "wrong" to make a living with music - a kind of sacrilege. A very wrong argument, I think. Shakespeare was thinking about money and public when he wrote his plays. Ever Armstrong needed to pay his bills. The origin about the "elitism" of bebop? I think so.

The problem is always how much you can give to the public to make sucess until you start to produce bad music. For me in the 60s all recording companies discovered that to make pure junk is cheaper and easier - and more profitable.

Absolutely, Martin. I think here in the USA we have trouble recognizing this anymore - because our pop tradition does not cross generations (as Rundquist noted), and also because much of the music was so close to jazz that it could be accused of "cashing in" on jazz, which makes it harder for some people to respect.