smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Josh Chasin" <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> |
| Subject | Re: Well, this should keep the McCartney Thread alive for another 1200 posts... |
| Date | Sun, 24 Jun 2007 10:42:58 -0400 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (1.7 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
I would challenge the more rockish artists here... Ray Charles and Clapton
for sure. I love Ray Charles, but I saw him circa '96 and it was a Vegas
lounge act. And I think a spin of Blonde on Blonde and then Modern Times
would dispel the "Dylan is as good as ever" myth (and I liked Modern Times.)
And Stevie Wonder, BeeGees, James Taylor-- not a one of them put out work 40
years on that anyone confuses with their best stuff.
To expect a 65-year-old rock musician to put out stuff that can stand side
by side with his early work is just unrealistic, and I think betrays the
expectation of the listener more than the work of the artist. Oh, and when
that artist's early work was BEATLES RECORDS... well, I doubt I need to
finish that sentence.
----- Original Message -----
From: "bob" <segarini@rogers.com>
To: <audities@smoe.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: Well, this should keep the McCartney Thread alive for another
1200 posts...
> Frank Sinatra
> Tony Bennett
> Ray Charles
> Marvin Gaye
> Sarah Vaughn
> Ella Fitzgerald
> Judy Garland
> The Dorsey Brothers, (Tommy and Jimmy)
> The Staple Singers
> James Taylor
> The Persuasions
> Johnny Cash
> Bob James
> Randy Bachman
> Segovia
> Stevie Wonder
> Eric Clapton
> The Bee Gees
> Dylan
> ...probably a lot more...this is just off the top of my head, but there
> certainly aren't many rock artists in there.
> Maybe David Bowie
> Ray and or Dave Davies
> Peter Townshend
> ...who else?
>
> bob
>
>
> Josh Chasin <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, who has made great records in their 20s and then
> was
> nearly as good 40 years later?
>
>
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.