smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | rob@splitsville.com |
| Subject | =?US-ASCII?B?UkU6IFJlOiBUaGUgR3JhdGUgRGViYXRl?= |
| Date | Tue, 15 May 2007 19:09:00 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (6.3 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I just can't see the lines being that clearly drawn. There's lots of grey areas.
There have been multiple strings on this site about everyone's love of the Monkees. But what were their first two or so CD's but blatant commercial cash ins (if not rip offs) of the Beatles?
Let's give the kids A Hard Day's Night every week and put out albums to promote the show.
The studio/Kirshner heard Paperback Writer, knew they needed a song that began with a riff, and came back with Pleasant Valley Sunday.
Many early Monkees tunes are great songs that have stood the test of time (at least in groups like this) but let's face it- money was driving that enterprise.
As for the Bopp question, I don't know if he wanted to simply 're-create' anything, a la Splitsville's 'Complete Pet Soul' (which was blatant and intentional). I think that does him a disservice. I see him as an artist who wears his influences on his sleeve, but if he's not as clever as a Supergrass, it's not his fault.
>Meaning the burning, internal desire to create
>something -- music, whatever -- that accurately
>reflects who YOU are, as a person/musician/artist,
>deep down inside. Something that, if created with
>an
>open heart coupled with a thinking mind, will last
>forever, that won't become disposable (like so much
>of
>the pop music in my not-unconsiderable collection).
Plus, who's to say that Bopp didn't create Eartsnop with
>an
>open heart coupled with a thinking mind" ?
How do we know he didn't sweat over every track, wrote, rewrote and rewrote again his lyrics, sweated over musical bridges, etc. It's not his fault he didn't create a Revolver or Sell Out.
Again, I feel this angle sells him (and others) short.
>----- ------- Original Message ------- -----
>From: :audities@smoe.org
>To: audities@smoe.org
>Sent: Tue, 15 May 2007 -0700 (PDT) 15:08:34
>
>I wrote:
>
>>>I believe that lasting art is created
>from desires of the heart, not the needs of the
>pocketbook (get a day job!).<<
>
>Splitsville Rob responded:
>
>>Desires, meaning what, exactly?<
>
>Meaning the burning, internal desire to create
>something -- music, whatever -- that accurately
>reflects who YOU are, as a person/musician/artist,
>deep down inside. Something that, if created with
>an
>open heart coupled with a thinking mind, will last
>forever, that won't become disposable (like so much
>of
>the pop music in my not-unconsiderable collection).
>
>The desire to stand out as a unique artist, one
>willing to create what they WANT to create,
>regardless
>of the laughable financial rewards, regardless of
>whether it "fits" certain stifiling genre
>classifications. The desire to have people KNOW
>it's
>YOU when they hear your changes or read your
>lyrics.
>
>It boils down to desiring the establishment of a
>musical presence you can truly call your own. It's
>a
>lofty goal, but it's do-able, with a LOT of
>self-editing and a LOT of hard work. And, even
>then,
>chances are 99.9% of the music-loving population is
>
>going to HATE you for even TRYING!!!
>
>My favorite artists have always been able to skate
>freely among multiple musical genres, like, for
>instance, Andy Partridge, who is more than capable
>of
>seamlessly blending traditional Beatle-based pop
>with
>jazz (ie. "Ladybird" from the Mummer album, or
>"Miniature Sun" from O&L), to stunning effect. Or
>the
>way Mike Keneally throws everything into his
>musical
>soup, but, you know, when you STUDY his stuff you
>realize the man possesses an incredible gift for
>songcraft (as well as a playful heart). Or the way
>Joni Mitchell doesn't give a shit if you like her
>jazz-pop-experimental leanings, or the way Steely
>Dan
>crafted a rock/fusion vibe, or the way ELP
>rocked-up
>some seriously classical changes (which STILL move
>me
>deeply to this day).
>
>Tell me any of these artists aren't utterly,
>undeniably unique. I've always -- apparently
>naively
>-- assumed that this was the goal of ALL artists,
>even
>pop songwriters.
>
>When I first joined this list ten years ago
>(gasp!),
>Andy Bopp's Myracle Brah was THE SHIZZIT (cue Gene
>"Cornbread" Pillsbury rap beat) with the album
>"Life
>on Planet Eartsnop". Remember that?
>
>I've gotta ask this question of the old timers: how
>
>many of you still play that album on a regular
>basis?
>
>Now, this is NOT an attempt to slam Andy Bopp; I
>will
>say right here and now that the dude knows how to
>craft a fucking song, no questions there. In fact,
>"She's So Young" from the album in question is an
>amazing feat, in my opinion. I love that tune,
>especially, it's SO "Something New"-era Lennon,
>it's
>just scary.
>
>I remember enjoying "Life on Planet Eartsnop" for
>maybe five, six spins. By then, the hooks stopped
>standing out and the overriding influences began to
>
>become obvious (something I try to avoid at all
>costs), and I started looking at the album as more
>of
>a Rutles-type statement rather than the unique,
>individual voice of a passionate original artist. I
>
>ripped "She's So Young" for my MP3 player (along
>with
>"Whisper Softly", which has always nailed my ass to
>
>the floor), but, as a whole, I've never gone back
>to
>the record for second helpings; once was enough to
>get
>the gist, to reveal the motivation. IMHO, of
>course.
>
>Has this record -- espoused so heartily by this
>list a
>decade ago -- stood the test of time? Is it A) an
>incredible artistic statement by a unique artist,
>or
>2) the product of a rabid, intelligent,
>exceptionally
>talented fan who was driven to re-create the music
>that moved him as a young lad?
>
>I'd venture to say it's #2, and, while there is
>absolutely nothing inherently wrong with trying to
>re-create music that moves you, it IS artistically
>wrong to flat-out co-opt someone else's vision (in
>this case, the Beatles) and call it your own. There
>is
>no real lasting value in a knock-off, but there is
>real, lasting value in an original. Sure, the
>knock-off might be a blast, and a well-crafted
>knock-off might even approach the original, but,
>for
>me, I want the original vision, not a watered-down
>version.
>
>Okay, now, let's see if this post is too long...
>
>kErrY
>www.myspace.com/kompost
>
>
>
>
>___________________________________________________
>_________________________________
>No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go
>with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.