Sign In Sign Out Subscribe to Mailing Lists Unsubscribe or Change Settings Help

smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de

Message Index for 2007044, sorted by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Previous message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Next message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)

From "bashpop" <bashpop@earthlink.net>
Subject Re: All Things Must Pass (or else they'll create intestinal blockage)
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:37:42 -0000

[Part 1 text/plain ISO-8859-1 (6.9 kilobytes)] (View Text in a separate window)

Hi William,

This was one of the most eloquent posts I've seen on Audities in the 
11 years that I've been a member.  Thank you very much for the 
insights.

Best,

David Bash

--- In audities@yahoogroups.com, William Rabeneck <largro13@...> 
wrote:
>
>   Hi John,
>    
>   I agree whole heartedly.  There's something in the way that we 
are wired that makes our earlier memories more important to us for 
some reason.  Several years ago when my grandma was in her late-90s 
(and in the process of dying), and not in her completely right mind, 
she seemed to have the most lucid memories of things that happened 
before she was 40 years old.  And it was like nothing happened after 
she was 40.  But you could have the most fantastic conversations with 
her and learn so much about her personal history, as long as you got 
her on subjects about things that happened early in her life.
>    
>   And in my opinion, we are all much that way with music.  While 
it's possible to develop an appreciation for some newer sounds, I 
believe that nothing is actually going to hit most of us, like the 
stuff we heard before we were, say, 25 years old.
>    
>   I don't know what everyone's personal musical history is here at 
audities.  But I started as a big Paul McCartney fan in about third 
grade (1975).  "Listen To What The Man Said" was my first single.  
And I moved on to several Wings' album, and backed into the Beatles.  
I also had a big KISS period, what kid didn't like their superhero 
look in the 1970s.  I think that this also helped prepare me for the 
popularity of Glam-Rock/Hair-Metal during my high school and college 
years.  So while listening to Hair-Metal during my early adult years, 
I still always held a sweet tooth for McCartney's melodicism.
>    
>   While he's been very inconsistent since the breakup of the 
Beatles, almost every Paul McCartney album has something worth having 
on it whether it's two songs, or whether you luck out like 
on "Flowers In The Dirt", "Tug of War", "Venus & Mars", or "Band on 
the Run" and it's a quality album all the way through.
>    
>   And back to the idea of your early influences and early songs you 
liked being important to you; I've just finished reading Chuck 
Klosterman's book "Fargo Rock City".  And if any of you were into the 
Hair-Metal scene, like I was, "Fargo Rock City" is such an amazing 
book.  Klosterman has the ability to point out what was good about 
Hair-Metal, laugh at the stupid stuff that came with HM, and actually 
give a pretty accurate portrate of the scene (or at least he and I 
seem to feel the same way about the scene, nowadays).  After 
reading "F.R.C.", I had to get out all of the old cassette tapes, and 
the few albums, and greatest hits that I bought on CD.  And it's 
amazing how much of it still sounds good.  And a lot of it sounds 
like:  "What the hell was I thinking?"  And the pretty funny thing is 
that he and I mostly agree (probably 95 percent) on what fits the 
still sounds good, and the "what the hell was I thinking" categories.
>    
>   But I believe you're right John, if I'd have grown up in the 80s 
and 90s, instead of the 70s and 80s, I might be nostalgic for Rap and 
Punk, instead of Wings, Beatles, and Hair Metal.  With many of the 
people who came of age in the 60s, it's hard to talk to them about 
other music, because they were there with the Beatles, and the 
Beatles were great.  But I will agree that it's disappointing that 
they don't give some of the Beatles influenced band the credit they 
deserve.
>    
>   Another thing that happen with age too (and might be the reason 
that most of us get stuck in our musical youth) - I don't know if 
others here are experiencing this or not - is that it gets harder to 
learn new music, for it to get into your head and into your blood.  
In my teens and twenties, I could hear a new song twice, and sing it, 
if I really liked it.  Now in my late 30s, I can hear something that 
I think is good five times today, and I can't remember what the heck 
it's like tommorrow if I wanted to try to sing it.  Now it takes 
probably fifteen listens over two weeks, to get a song to the point 
where I can just recall and sing it.  And I'm too busy with my 40-
hour a week job to listen to most songs that many times anymore.
>    
>   Peace,
>    
>   W.D.
>    
>   p.s. I suffer from writer's block every day..
>    
>   Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 15:47:47 -0400
> From: "John L. Micek" 
> To: 
> Subject: Re: All Things Must Pass (or else they'll create intestinal
> Message-ID: <011601c7883b$c446c9d0$6501a8c0@...>
> 
> >
> > I do think part of it was being there when it all happened.I am 
old enough 
> > to have experienced the entire British invasion as it 
happened.Talk about 
> > good and exciting times.The Beatles were the buzz at that time 
and "Sgt. 
> > Pepper" blew everybody away."Pet Sounds" had a huge impact as 
well.
> > I do love FOW and Supergrass .I'm a huge pop fan.But they can't 
take the 
> > place of hearing all the early Kinks albums.
> 
> But I don't think that's anything to do with the *music* 
necessarily.
> It's all to do with the age of the listener and the intensity of 
the memory. 
> And that goes to an earlier argument about Pepper's effect on the 
pop 
> culture zeitgeist.
> When you're a teenager or in your early young adulthood, you just 
feel 
> *everything* more intensely -- because it's new and because it's 
exciting 
> and because you just don't have anything to compare it to. 
Obviously, that 
> feeling diminishes some as you get older (but not when it comes to 
falling 
> in love -- that rush remains the same no matter what) for a lot of 
stuff, 
> music included. That's because you're able to draw lines between 
records and 
> realize that this band was influenced by this band, who were 
obviously 
> influenced by this band. You start to appreciate music along a 
continuum, 
> rather than have those "Holy Shit!!!!" moments you had when you 
were a kid.
> I feel the same way about hearing U2 and R.E.M. for the first time. 
Those 
> records, because they were the first ones I heard during my musical 
coming 
> of age ("Under A Blood Red Sky," and "Reckoning" respectively) 
remain more 
> vital and intense for me because they were the first. They were the 
ones 
> that inspired me to become addicted to Pop music and to start 
playing and 
> writing my own music. It's pretty safe to say I probably would 
never been in 
> bands or made records without having heard them.
> But I wouldn't be so vain to say that everything that came after 
them was 
> inferior or were pale imitations. And that's the essence of the 
argument 
> that's being made in other posts, and it's the one I object to 
heartily.
> 
> john
> (who really needs to get some work done today, but has writer's 
block, and 
> cannot) 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>        
> ---------------------------------
> Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>




Message Index for 2007044, sorted by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Previous message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)
Next message, by... (Author) (Date) (Subject) (Thread)

For assistance, please contact the smoe.org administrators.
Sign In Sign Out Subscribe to Mailing Lists Unsubscribe or Change Settings Help