Unpopular music opinions

[LizzieMaine]

The thing is, though, that too often today being an "outsider" seems to be the conscious goal --- I may be a Philistine, but I simply don't get the idea of creating any kind of art with the deliberate idea of it appealing to only a very small group of people -- the Elite, The Insiders, The Self Appointed Betters. All that comes across to me as is playing music with one hand, so to speak -- and what it creates is a body of work that's considered art *because* it's unpopular. Florence Foster Jenkins was an outsider too, but I wouldn't call her records art.

 

[JimWagner]

Unfortunately, making art and making a living are not always compatible. Or maybe I should say, making your living through your art is not always possible.

It's sad when a great artist can't do so, but sadder still when "artists" with all the right connections and publicity can.

 

[Fletch]

For "playing music with one hand" to really be the point - the only point - you'd have to be doing pure parody of another musical style. Once you start a new style - even if it's a mix of existing styles or a "take" off them - that becomes the point.

I really do believe that most of the time the "eliteness" is a pose. Maybe an unconscious pose, maybe a deliberate pose to provoke and shake people up - but a pose. Because if the composer, performer, etc., isn't doing it for the music itself, it's going to tell. It will be false and shoddy and lack musicality. It won't get any respect worth getting.

 

[Rundquist]

True as far the drugs are concerned, but then again, it also seems that art has been an introduction to drug use (Parker, Davis, Charles, Gordon, Coltrane, Calloway, etc, etc, etc...) I could be wrong, and I really wish I could find a source to back this up with, but I recall hearing that it wasn't uncommon for Hollywood to introduce and control certain actors with drug addiction. Does anyone know of this?



Also true about the commercialized popular music trend. This is why the last decade has seen the rise of the "Indie" (independent) music, due to the fact that record companies don't want to take the risk of producing music that breaks the formula of popularity. (...There's also the whole "sellout" vibe...different story...)

Also, with statistics like this http://artandavarice.com/2010/03/27/music-industry-profit-pie-chart/ you can't blame artists for wanting to work outside of a major label.

Drug culture does permeate the music world and they are a temptation. One does perpetuate the other. I would say that originally though, it started for the reason I stated earlier (under appreciation), as well as social issues. You didn’t have to be a musician to have society dump on you for racial and social issues. But many jazz musicians in the early days were dealing with all of that. It’s easy to understand why one would want to escape all of that, even for a few hours.

 

[Rundquist]

For many artists, being a “fly in the ointment” is part of their art. Then there are those that do it just for publicity and economic gain. There is a distinct separation between the two, though it might be hard for some to see the difference and at a point, who cares what the difference is? You either like the art or you don't.

 

[LizzieMaine]

for the music itself[/i], it's going to tell. It will be false and shoddy and lack musicality. It won't get any respect worth getting.

The thing that bothers me -- and has, for a long time -- is the way we determine *whose respect is worth having.* Who, exactly, gets to decide what is "good music?" Whose judgements do we allow to dominate what *we ourselves* consider good music?

Personally, I've always resented the way in which serious discussion of the popular music of the 1920s and 1930s has been utterly co-opted over the past forty years or so by jazz fandom. I don't dislike jazz of that era, by any means, but I do dislike, very intensely, the conclusion that all music of that era must be judged, accepted, or rejected on the basis of how close to any particular authority's definition of "real jazz" it is. It's this crowd that compiles the discographies, dominates the discussion lists, shapes the discourse -- mostly white, mostly male, mostly very dismissive of anything that falls outside their own particular cultural values. I think it's worth asking *why,* and worth questioning the assumptions that group makes.

Jack Denny, to throw out a random example, didn't *try* to lead a swing band or a hot jazz group -- but he did lead an elegant dance orchestra with a distinct personality, which did a fine job interpreting the popular songs of the time, works by many of the towering figures in American songwriting. So why should Denny be dismissed as "no musical interest" for not doing something he didn't have any interest in doing in the first place? Why should he not, instead, be judged for the quality of what he actually did do, by those with an understanding of the context of what he was doing? Why should the opinion of jazz critics carry any weight at all in discussing his music? Would you send an opera critic to review a hip-hop show?

 

[Fletch]

This music has been skipped over and read out of the culture for all kinds of reasons - none of them justified by its lack of quality. Most have to do with artistic territories (is it jazz? is it theater? is it songwriting?). Some have to do with a perception that it's not socially relevant, even to its own era.

Some just have to do with the passage of time. Even a lot of sophisticated musicians will tell you that's reason enough: the stuff obviously hasn't made itself memorable, and good riddance to it. But that's facile. History isn't a perfect process. The good stuff doesn't always last; time doesn't always tell.

The upshot is that there's really no place for this music to live, or to discover it, except where people like you and me make a place. Your mythical reviewer has to have some respected credentials, but listening to this stuff doesn't earn you any.

 

[Magnus Pym]

Hi folks, I hope you don't mind me butting in.

LizzieMaine, I think I understand how you feel and can only say that the way I deal with the predicament is by simply ignoring music journalism and instead judging music solely by its own merits.

I pay absolutely no heed to what journalists or experts declare real jazz, or good music, because the reality is - over time their opinion will shift, back and forth as though forever in search of some ultimate truth where in actuality, only opinion exists.

Sorry but there's a whole lot of rambling in the following, which you'd all probably be better off ignoring:

<ramble>
That shifting back and forth of opinion, to me is perfectly represented by the reaction to Shostakovich's 7th symphony, "Leningrad".

When I heard it for the first time, I enjoyed it. But I knew nothing beyond that, so afterwards I decided to research the history of the piece and read the following fairly predictable sequence of events:

On its debut it was described as , "for the slow witted" and could "eventually disqualify [Shostakovich] for consideration as a serious composer".

"Disdainful remarks about the symphony being nothing more than a bombastic accompaniment for a bad war movie were voiced immediately after the London and New York premieres."

"It was considered a strange, ungainly hybrid of Mahler and Stravinsky—too long, too broad-gestured in narrative and overly emotional in tone."

Now.. to me, these criticisms are verging on the bizarre. It's a piece written in the midst of his country being invaded and potentially defeated. So to describe something written in that context as "overly emotional", well, what exactly constitutes "overly emotional" when your very existence is at stake?

But I digress... so it was panned by critics and fellow composers in the West after its debut, but was quite popular with audiences, however gradually falling out of favour in the post war period.

Until, with Glasnost the "anti-totalitarian" content of the piece was written about and corroborated by friends and contemporaries of Shostakovich.

Whereby the 7th became rehabilitated and become more popular because it's "viewed as a condemnation of both Nazi and Soviet totalitarianism."

So - is it a good piece, or is it a bad piece? Apparently it was considered a piece of junk, but now at the very least, is considered "okay".

Through this shift, the music itself has not changed.

The only thing that has, is the perception of the context in which the music was created.

To me though, that's... well... I find that difficult to follow.

I just go back to when I first heard it - what did I think then? I liked it.

What has reading about the history of the piece changed? Absolutely nothing.

So is it a piece of junk or is it good?

Don't ask me, I just know that I like it.
</ramble>

 

[Rundquist]

Music criticism is an arbitrary sport. There is no rhyme or reason to it beyond the fact that some people make a living at it. Yes some critics review music that they aren’t really “qualified” to review. On the other hand, you could have a critic that absolutely understands the genera of music that he is reviewing and yet the reader of the article is out in deep space with regard to his understanding/appreciation (or lack of) of the music.

“Writing about music is like dancing about art”, as I once heard.

 

[LizzieMaine]

This music has been skipped over and read out of the culture for all kinds of reasons - none of them justified by its lack of quality. Most have to do with artistic territories (is it jazz? is it theater? is it songwriting?). Some have to do with a perception that it's not socially relevant, even to its own era.

Some just have to do with the passage of time. Even a lot of sophisticated musicians will tell you that's reason enough: the stuff obviously hasn't made itself memorable, and good riddance to it. But that's facile. History isn't a perfect process. The good stuff doesn't always last; time doesn't always tell.

This is exactly the problem -- I ignore modern music journalism, because I have no interest in modern music, and I *know* modern critics aren't going to have any use for the music I advocate. So they're only going to irritate me. But what seriously bothers me is that *even among people who ostensibly have an interest in the music of the Era,* there's a preconceived prejudice against anything that falls outside the accepted canon. Sometimes it's veiled in terms of "that's not real jazz," but sometimes it's put much more baldly -- "that's too commercial, that's too *white* to be 'good' music." In other words, "too many people liked this, too many of the *wrong kind of people* liked this, for it to be 'good music.'" I submit that the judgement being made in such cases has nothing to do with music at all -- and those are the kinds of judgements and attitudes that ought to be seriously questioned.

 

[vitanola]

Anyway, I get the idea of liking a period were everything was “just right” (to an individual). Mostly my comments were just stating that I don’t agree with the popular view that everything was aesthetically “just right” during the swing era. Music hadn’t evolved to the point where I thought it was “just right”. Of course once you reach that point (at whatever point it is to you), music then devolves lol.

I agree.

The Swing Era stuff does not, to my beknighted ear, sit at the apogee of musical development. Music began it's inexorable decline when string bass and guitar replaced brass bass and banjo...

 

[vitanola]

The thing is, though, that too often today being an "outsider" seems to be the conscious goal --- I may be a Philistine, but I simply don't get the idea of creating any kind of art with the deliberate idea of it appealing to only a very small group of people -- the Elite, The Insiders, The Self Appointed Betters. All that comes across to me as is playing music with one hand, so to speak -- and what it creates is a body of work that's considered art *because* it's unpopular. Florence Foster Jenkins was an outsider too, but I wouldn't call her records art.

Perhaps not, but her Melotone releases were beautifully pressed.

 

[RadioWave]

I don't dislike jazz of that era, by any means, but I do dislike, very intensely, the conclusion that all music of that era must be judged, accepted, or rejected on the basis of how close to any particular authority's definition of "real jazz" it is.

This is exactly the mindset I've recently been trying to break away from. So many listening recommendations for "early jazz music" are pinned upon the artists who were ultimately deemed to have played the most important roles in the foundations and evolution of the modern jazz genre (Armstrong/Beiderbecke, Ellington/Basie, Hawkins/Young, etc.). While their contributions were great, there are so many other accomplished artists that don't appear to receive mention simply because they don't fit into the evaluation criteria. It's a shame how preconceptions can really warp perception, e.g. "if no one's talking about them, they probably weren't that good."

The collective contributions of the Lounge have been most helpful with providing recommendations.

 

[martinsantos]

The comments of certain critics are terrible in this way you put. I always remember some comments by Leonard Feather about Glenn Miller... I really don't know how Feather stayed writing musical critics!

As today jazz is something "cool", "refinate", there are a lot of critcs - but most of them should go to the hihop show instead. Anyway, they make usually the same error than classical music critics. The music is judged not for the beauty, but only because it would bring something new in harmony, etc. I have my doubts if any critic, when arrive home, put to play an Alba Berg record; but he is told as one of the most influential, important, etc, etc, etc.

At the same time, Saint-Saens was almost forgot; "too academical"... The same about the only one really good brazilian opera composer, Carlos Gomes - if you want to know both, or get an old record and start learning the piano... You won't listen then so easy.

The thing that bothers me -- and has, for a long time -- is the way we determine *whose respect is worth having.* Who, exactly, gets to decide what is "good music?" Whose judgements do we allow to dominate what *we ourselves* consider good music?

Personally, I've always resented the way in which serious discussion of the popular music of the 1920s and 1930s has been utterly co-opted over the past forty years or so by jazz fandom. I don't dislike jazz of that era, by any means, but I do dislike, very intensely, the conclusion that all music of that era must be judged, accepted, or rejected on the basis of how close to any particular authority's definition of "real jazz" it is. It's this crowd that compiles the discographies, dominates the discussion lists, shapes the discourse -- mostly white, mostly male, mostly very dismissive of anything that falls outside their own particular cultural values. I think it's worth asking *why,* and worth questioning the assumptions that group makes.

Jack Denny, to throw out a random example, didn't *try* to lead a swing band or a hot jazz group -- but he did lead an elegant dance orchestra with a distinct personality, which did a fine job interpreting the popular songs of the time, works by many of the towering figures in American songwriting. So why should Denny be dismissed as "no musical interest" for not doing something he didn't have any interest in doing in the first place? Why should he not, instead, be judged for the quality of what he actually did do, by those with an understanding of the context of what he was doing? Why should the opinion of jazz critics carry any weight at all in discussing his music? Would you send an opera critic to review a hip-hop show?

 

[LizzieMaine]

This is exactly the mindset I've recently been trying to break away from. So many listening recommendations for "early jazz music" are pinned upon the artists who were ultimately deemed to have played the most important roles in the foundations and evolution of the modern jazz genre (Armstrong/Beiderbecke, Ellington/Basie, Hawkins/Young, etc.). While their contributions were great, there are so many other accomplished artists that don't appear to receive mention simply because they don't fit into the evaluation criteria.

The supreme irony of all this, of course, is that the musicians themselves tended to be much more eclectic in their view of what constituted "good music." I always think of Louis Armstrong himself as the ultimate example of this -- for his entire adult life he was *the* towering figure in jazz, yet two of his all-time favorite artists were Enrico Caruso and Guy Lombardo. Yet how many thousands of records by these two have the jazz fundamentalists tossed aside as having "no musical interest?"

The comments of certain critics are terrible in this way you put. I always remember some comments by Leonard Feather about Glenn Miller... I really don't know how Feather stayed writing musical critics!

If you think Feather was a blowhard, try reading Rudi Blesh sometime. He, perhaps more than any other critic, codified the prejudice against sweet bands that has become received gospel down to the present day -- but he was so militant about it that he dismissed Ellington himself as playing "ridiculous and hybridized" pretentious tea-dance music little better than than "the theatrical corn of Ted Lewis." He also accused Armstrong of selling out to "a dark romanticism foreign to jazz," and that due his surrounding himself with the evil influences of Don Redman and Earl Hines, Armstrong never played jazz again after 1928.

 

[Spitfire]

Want an unpopular music opinion?
I think Tom Waits is fantastic!

 

[vitanola]

The supreme irony of all this, of course, is that the musicians themselves tended to be much more eclectic in their view of what constituted "good music." I always think of Louis Armstrong himself as the ultimate example of this -- for his entire adult life he was *the* towering figure in jazz, yet two of his all-time favorite artists were Enrico Caruso and Guy Lombardo. Yet how many thousands of records by these two have the jazz fundamentalists tossed aside as having "no musical interest?"



If you think Feather was a blowhard, try reading Rudi Blesh sometime. He, perhaps more than any other critic, codified the prejudice against sweet bands that has become received gospel down to the present day -- but he was so militant about it that he dismissed Ellington himself as playing "ridiculous and hybridized" pretentious tea-dance music little better than than "the theatrical corn of Ted Lewis." He also accused Armstrong of selling out to "a dark romanticism foreign to jazz," and that due his surrounding himself with the evil influences of Don Redman and Earl Hines, Armstrong never played jazz again after 1928.

The pinched, narrow view of Twentieth Century popular music espoused by the likes of Blesh, Feather, Lees,
Morganstern, Marsalis et. al. appears to be shared by one or two who occasionally post here. Thirty-five years ago, as a young collector, I too put away my "ricky-tick" and "hotel music" discs, and replaced them with "worthy" sides, as determined by the experts. It took years for me to trust again my own ears

 

[martinsantos]

I will try to read him. This is the kind of guy we would call as a "purist", I think.

Better yet, I would like to know Br Blesh's personal discotheque with all his preferred records. All four records... (if he blames Ellington, and Armstrong after 1928, he wouldn't have much more to apreciate)

If you think Feather was a blowhard, try reading Rudi Blesh sometime. He, perhaps more than any other critic, codified the prejudice against sweet bands that has become received gospel down to the present day -- but he was so militant about it that he dismissed Ellington himself as playing "ridiculous and hybridized" pretentious tea-dance music little better than than "the theatrical corn of Ted Lewis." He also accused Armstrong of selling out to "a dark romanticism foreign to jazz," and that due his surrounding himself with the evil influences of Don Redman and Earl Hines, Armstrong never played jazz again after 1928.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Blesh wrote a book in 1946 called "Shining Trumpets," which pretty much sums up the ultrafundamentalist view of jazz in the mid-forties: he's absolutely brutal in his views on Ellington, who he contends led a "society band" that "has never played jazz at all." Basically, his argument that the only real jazz is "primitive" jazz, depending entirely on improvisation, and that any attempt by anyone to arrange jazz destroys it. He also displays the unsettling combination of racial progressivism and fetishization of "the extreme, natural musicality of Negroes" that characterized pretty much all white jazz scholarship of the time, and which is not uncommon right down to the present day.

 

[Fletch]

You mention Leonard Feather. In his early swing years at least (writing for the Melody Maker) he wasn't nearly so much of a true believer. He wrote an enthusiastic profile of Joe Haymes and his band in 1936 that verged on the "fanboy," including visiting the band in their hotel late one night to find Haymes doing his old Boy Scout circus act - hanging by his toes from a transom. lol