The Prosecution Rests Your Honor

landtuna · Nov 19, 2014

I keep saying that the Rock music of 1955-1984 has no equal and will remain popular long after the current dismal junk is forgotten. Here is yet another example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/led-zep...reer-chances-of-reunion-tour/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

Note this little tidbit:

Page has just remastered Led Zeppelin "IV" and the band's 5th album, "Houses of the Holy" both of which are near the top of the charts again -- 40 years after they were recorded.

Avid Listener · Nov 19, 2014

landtuna said:
I keep saying that the Rock music of 1955-1984 has no equal and will remain popular long after the current dismal junk is forgotten. Here is yet another example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/led-zep...reer-chances-of-reunion-tour/?ftag=YHF4eb9d17

Note this little tidbit:

Page has just remastered Led Zeppelin "IV" and the band's 5th album, "Houses of the Holy" both of which are near the top of the charts again -- 40 years after they were recorded.

Classic example of a true statement being supported by totally bogus evidence.

TheRover · Nov 22, 2014

I would speculate, that 100 years after everyone that ever heard any of the bands during the second half of the 20th century, are dead, that people listening to the rock music of the second half of the 20th century, but without the hype of relatives to influence their choices, would indeed favor the period 1955-1984 over other periods. 30 years is a generation. Actually, a generation might be more generally be considered as 25 years, or even less. So, I would be tempted to constrain the time period even more, to 20 years, 1955-1975, as being superior to 1976-1996, for example.

A band like U2 gets more attention than it deserves, because it's a big fish in a "pond" without other contemporary 'big fish'.

IF U2 had come along in 1970, I doubt they would stand as tall, amongst their contemporaries, of that hypothetical time for them to have started in: Led Zeppelin, The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Rolling Stones, The Who.... you get the picture....

The 70's were so rich with incredible talent, that there was no stand out, 'head and shoulders' above the rest.... More like shoulder to shoulder then. But, by the 80's, U2 was 'head and shoulders' above their contemporaries, and so have achieved Iconic stature. But, as I said, that stature is relative, in the Big overall picture of the half-century of rock in the 20th century.

Avid Listener · Nov 22, 2014

And I would disagree. If anyone a century from now were to hear a truly random selection of all of the recorded rock music recorded between 1950 and 2015, they would say that it all sucks. And, they'd be right. In the period from 1950 to 1975 (using even quarter centuries), the technology for making a technically good recording was expensive enough that only the better artists got access to studio time to make recordings. And, with the limited varieties of radio formats for airplay, only the best managed to get the sort of airplay exposure needed to get record sales and therefore audience familiarity. Our memories of the music from the third quarter century are therefore usually only of the best of the entire collection of rock music.

But in the fourth quarter century, it became increasingly easy for acts to make recordings that were technically good sounding, even if the material recorded was second-rate. Couple that with the introduction of even more varied radio formats, and music that would have never been exposed to the public through airplay is now available on the radio. Then throw in the transition from music being selected for airplay by human beings with a knack for recognizing quality to a committee of suits who relied on pseudo-scientific "testing" instead of good taste, and songs that would have never been heard in the third quarter are now filling the airwaves in the fourth quarter. To that, you can throw in the huge increase in third and fourth rate recorded music created in home "studios" and distributed on self-published CDs.

All of that makes the music of the fourth quarter of the 20th century seem inferior to the music of the third quarter. The trend in the first quarter of the 21st century is more of the same, so it will continue to get worse.

Nevertheless, the best rock music of the fourth quarter of the 20th and the first quarter of the 21st centuries is easily equal to the best rock music of the third quarter of the 20th century. The problem is finding that great music. In the old days, the cream rose to the top so it was easy to find. Today, things are so homogenized that finding the cream takes diligent searching.

Anyone who is willing to look at rock music objectively (and not many people fit that description) would acknowledge that the best work of Grace Potter and the Nocturnals is equal to the best work of Big Brother and the Holding Company. True, the "filler" songs on the recordings of the former aren't very good. Neither are the "filler" songs on the albums of the latter. But we forget those forgettable filler songs from the past, and only remember the best, which creates a false memory of what things were like in the past. Or, compare the best work of European acts like Within Temptation, Nightwish, Delain, and other bands who cannot get any airplay in the US with the best work of bands like Genesis, ELP, or King Crimson. The same comparisons apply.

landtuna · Nov 22, 2014

I have often told my children that it was perhaps the greatest shame of historical timing that the best musical innovation happened at a time when the recording technology was still in its infancy. Musicians today have amazing resources at their disposal yet their music is disposable. Nothing more than one copycat artist after another in the pop and country genres anyway. And worse, a host of so-called "artists" doing not much more than covering past hits.

We haven't discussed what video has done to the radio star but the song is correct.....it killed it. What would the so-called "stars" of today be if video were not a part, a major part, of their presentation? What if we had to judge a song or artist solely by their sound? How many would make the cut?

And in any comparison you need some parameters and in my statement I am assuming that we are gauging the music we hear in the USA. I had no easy way of judging foreign music back in the 50's, 60's or even 70's. It is possible to do that today without much trouble but historically it wasn't so comparisons can only be made in a historical context.

Avid Listener · Nov 22, 2014

landtuna said:
I have often told my children that it was perhaps the greatest shame of historical timing that the best musical innovation happened at a time when the recording technology was still in its infancy. Musicians today have amazing resources at their disposal yet their music is disposable. Nothing more than one copycat artist after another in the pop and country genres anyway. And worse, a host of so-called "artists" doing not much more than covering past hits.

We haven't discussed what video has done to the radio star but the song is correct.....it killed it. What would the so-called "stars" of today be if video were not a part, a major part, of their presentation? What if we had to judge a song or artist solely by their sound? How many would make the cut?

And in any comparison you need some parameters and in my statement I am assuming that we are gauging the music we hear in the USA. I had no easy way of judging foreign music back in the 50's, 60's or even 70's. It is possible to do that today without much trouble but historically it wasn't so comparisons can only be made in a historical context.

You sound like a grumpy old fart who is bitter about getting old. The disposable crap pop music today is no more dreadful that the disposable crap pop music of the teen idol era. Justin Beiber is no more or less an artificial construction than Fabian Forte was. Were would Fabian, Bobby Rydell, or any of the other teen idols be if they didn't make teenage girls wet their knickers from seeing their pictures on the cover of Tigerbeat?

If we were to judge most of the rock and pop music from the era between '55 and '85 by artists like Steam (Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye) or the Archies, our era would also come across as full of dreck. How is Little Peggy March any different from Katy Perry, except that Perry has larger breasts? Would Shelley Fabares have had a hit record if she wasn't on one of the sitcoms of the 60's and looked good in a tight sweater? Are you really going to defend the 1910 Fruitgum Company?

I won't argue that there isn't a big load of crap out there today. But don't go pretending that we didn't have plenty of crap back in our day.

landtuna · Nov 22, 2014

Avid Listener said:
You sound like a grumpy old fart who is bitter about getting old.

You and Fred L. must be sharing an ID but no, you don't know me nor how I feel about aging. Actually I am quite comfortable. I have reasonable health, a good marriage and more money than I have ever had in my life. Radio music sucks but otherwise I am quite happy.

Avid Listener said:
The disposable crap pop music today is no more dreadful that the disposable crap pop music of the teen idol era. Justin Beiber is no more or less an artificial construction than Fabian Forte was. Were would Fabian, Bobby Rydell, or any of the other teen idols be if they didn't make teenage girls wet their knickers from seeing their pictures on the cover of Tigerbeat?

If we were to judge most of the rock and pop music from the era between '55 and '85 by artists like Steam (Na Na Hey Hey Kiss Him Goodbye) or the Archies, our era would also come across as full of dreck. How is Little Peggy March any different from Katy Perry, except that Perry has larger breasts? Would Shelley Fabares have had a hit record if she wasn't on one of the sitcoms of the 60's and looked good in a tight sweater? Are you really going to defend the 1910 Fruitgum Company?

I won't argue that there isn't a big load of crap out there today. But don't go pretending that we didn't have plenty of crap back in our day.

Except that I have never maintained that the older era didn't have its share of crap. It most certainly did. But at least, unlike today, it didn't all sound alike.

Avid Listener · Nov 22, 2014

landtuna said:
You and Fred L. must be sharing an ID but no, you don't know me nor how I feel about aging. Actually I am quite comfortable. I have reasonable health, a good marriage and more money than I have ever had in my life. Radio music sucks but otherwise I am quite happy.

Re-read what I wrote. I said you "sound like a grumpy old fart". I didn't say you were one, but if you aren't one, you're doing an excellent job of sounding like one. However, you are correct about radio music sucking. Fortunately, there are lots of alternative venues to find good modern music other than the radio.

landtuna said:
Except that I have never maintained that the older era didn't have its share of crap. It most certainly did. But at least, unlike today, it didn't all sound alike.

But that's a totally unsubstantiated allegation, at variance with reality. At most, one could say that all the fragmentation of the radio landscape into so many narrow format niches means that most of the songs on any one radio station tends to sound alike. Overall, the music scene today is more varied than it has ever been. The only problem is that to hear what's out there today you cannot rely on OTA radio.

TheBigA · Nov 22, 2014

landtuna said:
Except that I have never maintained that the older era didn't have its share of crap. It most certainly did. But at least, unlike today, it didn't all sound alike.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Have you had your hearing checked lately? Or do you just lump everything you don't like into the same pile? I can say a lot of things about today's music, but it doesn't all sound alike.

landtuna · Nov 22, 2014

Avid Listener said:
Fortunately, there are lots of alternative venues to find good modern music other than the radio.

"good modern music" is a mutually exclusive statement - at least as far as pop and country are concerned.

Avid Listener said:
But that's a totally unsubstantiated allegation, at variance with reality. At most, one could say that all the fragmentation of the radio landscape into so many narrow format niches means that most of the songs on any one radio station tends to sound alike. Overall, the music scene today is more varied than it has ever been. The only problem is that to hear what's out there today you cannot rely on OTA radio.

You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I was not complaining that radio stations or genres sound alike, rather that artists sound like each other. No significant differences. No unique sounds. Blahhhhhhhhhh.

Think back to the Beatles (as only one example) and the number of very different sounding songs they produced. Although the Rolling Stones were more focused they too, especially in their early days, had significantly different sounds. That range of differentiation is what I am talking about. You hear one song by Taylor Swift and it sounds just like another with different lyrics. And she is far from the only example.

Radio can only play what is being produced (or has been produced in the case of classic genres) - it doesn't invent anything. So, I am not blaming radio but since it is the transport mechanism it is the first to suffer. And in my house, it has.

JeffM · Nov 23, 2014

TheBigA said:
Have you had your hearing checked lately? Or do you just lump everything you don't like into the same pile? I can say a lot of things about today's music, but it doesn't all sound alike.

I can only agree. I am pushing 60 now myself but I am happy to say I have never suffered from hardening of the eardrums. Do I like everything today? No. Did I like everything 40 years ago? Also no. But is/was there music I liked both then and now? Yes, and at all points in between.

This sort of thing here is nothing new. Not long ago, while looking for something else of course, I found an old Billboard or Cashbox interview (1958 or 59) with a jukebox operator kvetching about "those Mau Mau records the kids listen to" (instead of some nice Teresa Brewer or Frankie Laine.) He concluded that David Seville (the Chipmunks guy) had it figured out, "nobody can understand a word he sings, so they play 'em over and over"...which of course was good for his business.

There's a book on the market titled "I Hate All New Music - The Classic Rock Manifesto." Some of these guys must have it memorized...

Avid Listener · Nov 23, 2014

landtuna said:
"good modern music" is a mutually exclusive statement - at least as far as pop and country are concerned.

Then make up your mind what this thread is about. Your topic sentence of your launch post is "I keep saying that the Rock music of 1955-1984 has no equal and will remain popular long after the current dismal junk is forgotten." (My emphasis added) And as I've pointed out, even if you want to change the subject to pop and/or country, you're apparently only talking about listening to what they put on the radio, which is such a tiny, tiny portion of all of the music that's out there.

landtuna said:
You completely misunderstood what I wrote. I was not complaining that radio stations or genres sound alike, rather that artists sound like each other. No significant differences. No unique sounds. Blahhhhhhhhhh.

I totally understand what you wrote. I get what you are saying, but what you are saying is wrong.

landtuna said:
Think back to the Beatles (as only one example) and the number of very different sounding songs they produced. Although the Rolling Stones were more focused they too, especially in their early days, had significantly different sounds. That range of differentiation is what I am talking about. You hear one song by Taylor Swift and it sounds just like another with different lyrics. And she is far from the only example.

The modern examples you name are no different from core artists of the 1955 - 1985 era like the ones I mentioned. Of course you cannot compare Taylor Swift to the Beatles. She's more like today's Linda Ronstadt or Joni Mitchell.

landtuna said:
Radio can only play what is being produced (or has been produced in the case of classic genres) - it doesn't invent anything. So, I am not blaming radio but since it is the transport mechanism it is the first to suffer. And in my house, it has.

The problem is that the modern radio industry ignores most of what is being produced and cherry picks songs that "test well", meaning songs that sound like all the other songs. That means that artists who are in show business to sell recordings tailor their output to conform to what the radio stations want, a technique they learned from record producers like Phil Spector back in the "golden era" you're waxing nostalgic over. It also means that just like in the 1960's and 70's, artists would include radio-friendly hits on their albums alongside works of musical art that they knew Bill Drake would never approve for airplay.

One of the main reasons why music seems to imitative and dull today is the fact that there is no modern equivalent of free-form, album-oriented rock radio stations around to stretch the envelope. Radio is not the victim of a lack of exciting and innovative new music, nor the lack of well-produced new music created in the classic style. The great music is out there. It's the suits at the radio stations that refuse to play it. The suits ruining radio are the ones making modern music seem inferior.

landtuna · Nov 23, 2014

I am guilty of generalization but aside from a very long listing of specific songs there is really no other way to describe how popular music has descended into an abject sameness. There are, of course, some worthwhile songs (IMHO) but the majority are not (again, IMHO). That is what makes it different from the Golden Age of Rock/Pop Music (my definition). All of you have your own opinions and we all appreciate music in our own way so I have no argument with that - especially those of you whose livelihood depends upon new music. But I will continue maintaining that the evidence continues suggesting that 1984, or thereabouts, is the Day The Music Died.

TheBigA · Nov 23, 2014

landtuna said:
I will continue maintaining that the evidence continues suggesting that 1984, or thereabouts, is the Day The Music Died.

Interesting choice of phrase there, given there are some who pick a much earlier year.

My view is that music is constantly changing and evolving. Every time it changes, there are people who grab on to the new music, and those who cling to the past. For those who hear music a certain way, the point of change is when the music stopped growing. That rule can be applied to all people and all music. But it doesn't make the new music any less alive to the people who enjoy it.

It can also apply to radio. I moderated a panel once made up of people who were part of radio in the 1930s. To them, radio died in the late 1940s. That was when radio stations stopped hiring musicians and instead played recorded music. Somehow, radio has managed to attract and audience every time it has changed and evolved, regardless of what the pioneers think.

DavidEduardo · Nov 23, 2014

Avid Listener said:
The problem is that the modern radio industry ignores most of what is being produced and cherry picks songs that "test well",

Wrong. When a station adds a song, there is no testing to justify the play. In fact, there have been debates going back to the 70's about when it is useful to test a song. The general wisdom is that testing before a station has had over 100 plays on a station is futile... although with so many alternative ways to have a song exposed today, that thinking is constantly being adjusted.

When a station adds a song, it is simply because the program director or music director believes the song fits the format and will be a "hit" among the station's target audience. There is nothing beyond gut feel to support such a decision... even though stations have used trade journals like The Gavin Report going back to the late 50's to try to spot what songs are hot "out of the box".

meaning songs that sound like all the other songs.

For a song to be added it only has to belong on a station's format. Most of the time, stations are looking for variety within the format in the playlist, not sameness.

That means that artists who are in show business to sell recordings tailor their output to conform to what the radio stations want, a technique they learned from record producers like Phil Spector back in the "golden era" you're waxing nostalgic over. It also means that just like in the 1960's and 70's, artists would include radio-friendly hits on their albums alongside works of musical art that they knew Bill Drake would never approve for airplay.

Radio stations play songs they think listeners want to hear. If any of those "works of art" you claim don't get airplay were really mass appeal songs, they would have gotten airplay. The fact is, while some may appeal to the ultra-core fans of a particular artist, those songs are simply not mass appeal no matter how much they are exposed.

One of the main reasons why music seems to imitative and dull today is the fact that there is no modern equivalent of free-form, album-oriented rock radio stations around to stretch the envelope.

You are forgetting why those free form stations died off en masse: the emergency of Lee Abram's "Superstars" version of album rock with tight playlists and a hit driven approach. The listeners defected from the free form stations quite rapidly, forcing them to either adapt or change format. Listeners did not want the eclectic, deep playlists and when given a choice of all hits or an occasional hit in a field full of duds, they knew what to do.

Radio is not the victim of a lack of exciting and innovative new music, nor the lack of well-produced new music created in the classic style. The great music is out there. It's the suits at the radio stations that refuse to play it. The suits ruining radio are the ones making modern music seem inferior.

You are reversing the cart and the horse. Stations play what gets listening. When a more hit-driven playlist station kills the one with deep cuts, guess what station owners are going to do?

DavidEduardo · Nov 23, 2014

TheBigA said:
.I moderated a panel once made up of people who were part of radio in the 1930s. To them, radio died in the late 1940s. That was when radio stations stopped hiring musicians and instead played recorded music. .

Ah, where is James Petrillo when you need him?

landtuna · Nov 23, 2014

Avid Listener said:
Then make up your mind what this thread is about. Your topic sentence of your launch post is "I keep saying that the Rock music of 1955-1984 has no equal and will remain popular long after the current dismal junk is forgotten." (My emphasis added) And as I've pointed out, even if you want to change the subject to pop and/or country, you're apparently only talking about listening to what they put on the radio, which is such a tiny, tiny portion of all of the music that's out there.

Not changing the subject but I think the same statement properly criticizes both genres (although I fully admit not to being a huge listener of Country).

Avid Listener said:
The modern examples you name are no different from core artists of the 1955 - 1985 era like the ones I mentioned. Of course you cannot compare Taylor Swift to the Beatles. She's more like today's Linda Ronstadt or Joni Mitchell.

I purposely took the most popular band of back then and the most popular singer of today - and it is fair to compare them and their music.

Avid Listener said:
The problem is that the modern radio industry ignores most of what is being produced and cherry picks songs that "test well", meaning songs that sound like all the other songs. That means that artists who are in show business to sell recordings tailor their output to conform to what the radio stations want, a technique they learned from record producers like Phil Spector back in the "golden era" you're waxing nostalgic over. It also means that just like in the 1960's and 70's, artists would include radio-friendly hits on their albums alongside works of musical art that they knew Bill Drake would never approve for airplay.

I have no argument with what you wrote although I also have no background except as a listener to qualify it. It seems to me even in the old days there was a somebody (call it a suit or PD or owner) who decided what would play on any one station. In those days there was a variety of music which you don't hear today except on the very rare Oldies outlets (and even on them, not much). It is as if we have returned to the days of Frankie and the Bobby Soxers where the total output of pop music is destined to favor one very narrow and specific demo and everybody else be damned.

Avid Listener said:
One of the main reasons why music seems to imitative and dull today is the fact that there is no modern equivalent of free-form, album-oriented rock radio stations around to stretch the envelope. Radio is not the victim of a lack of exciting and innovative new music, nor the lack of well-produced new music created in the classic style. The great music is out there. It's the suits at the radio stations that refuse to play it. The suits ruining radio are the ones making modern music seem inferior.

I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area during the time when AOR stations popped up on FM and played the long tracks of very obscure music but I don't fully agree that the lack of those station types are responsible for the current state of lousy music. The AOR tracks appealed to a specific demo who tended to listen to it while toking on a bong and beating bongo drums. It was never mainstream and as that demo aged out (or overdosed) those stations went away. Most new popular/rock music was introduced via mainstream stations like KYA, KFRC, KLOK and pre-news KEWB and not the "underground" stations out of Berkeley.

I think an analogy can be made here: The Monkees. They were originally a figment of TV whose music was second to their visual appearances and antics. That they went on to become a lasting member of the 60's rock genre is notwithstanding. Today's music acts (and I use that term instead of 'music) are much the same way. Prepared by and for TV and production suits for visual antics and not for any musical talents they might have. And that seems to have begun with Madonna (at least as far back as I remember). Once barely clothed females hit the videos it was all over for those performers who were serious musicians. 60's and 70's musical acts tended to be just that - music. Now a stage act has to have the pyrotechnics of the Olympic Games opening and the music is almost a background to the lights and dancing. Gene Krupa could do a hell of a show in that format.

landtuna · Nov 23, 2014

TheBigA said:
Interesting choice of phrase there, given there are some who pick a much earlier year.

I am not nearly as familiar with the music of the 20's and 30's as I am with subsequent years and that is why I tend to focus on those later years. But even if I was I would still pick the same years and for the same reason. In those early years there was largely orchestra music which evolved into Big Band and a smattering of jazz. Not all the music sounded the same but it did largely belong to one genre....until the breakout in the mid-50's.

There were significant factors that were the reasons why of course - the Great Depression, WWII and the music unions wanting to keep live music alive and kill recorded music.

TheBigA said:
My view is that music is constantly changing and evolving. Every time it changes, there are people who grab on to the new music, and those who cling to the past. For those who hear music a certain way, the point of change is when the music stopped growing. That rule can be applied to all people and all music. But it doesn't make the new music any less alive to the people who enjoy it.

Except my whole point is.....there isn't any "new" music. You have vocalists remaking old classics and teeny-boppers displaying their *ahem* personal wares while warbling some off-key crap with electronic back markers. Now, remember, we're not talking about every genre here. There is definitely new music in some genres, just not pop.

TheBigA said:
It can also apply to radio. I moderated a panel once made up of people who were part of radio in the 1930s. To them, radio died in the late 1940s. That was when radio stations stopped hiring musicians and instead played recorded music. Somehow, radio has managed to attract and audience every time it has changed and evolved, regardless of what the pioneers think.

Except the main issue with the advance of recorded music was the unions who wanted musicians to keep their jobs. It wasn't related so much to how the music was broadcast. I'm not sure it made much difference to the average listener either as it sounded pretty much the same recorded or live. I am just old enough to remember some of those broadcasts in the faint flow of the old Atwater-Kent floor model.

landtuna · Nov 23, 2014

DavidEduardo said:
Ah, where is James Petrillo when you need him?

Thanks! Just learned another tidbit about that period.

DavidEduardo · Nov 23, 2014

landtuna said:
I have no argument with what you wrote although I also have no background except as a listener to qualify it. It seems to me even in the old days there was a somebody (call it a suit or PD or owner) who decided what would play on any one station. In those days there was a variety of music which you don't hear today except on the very rare Oldies outlets (and even on them, not much). It is as if we have returned to the days of Frankie and the Bobby Soxers where the total output of pop music is destined to favor one very narrow and specific demo and everybody else be damned.

I think much of your argument fails because you are using the wrong metrics to judge the variety of music styles.

In the era when Top 40 stations played everything from Perry Como to Chuck Berry to Ferlin Husky, there were few competitive stations in even the larger markets and they tended to focus on the most mass appeal formats.

My favorite example is Cleveland, Ohio. In the late 50's and early 60's it was still a Top 10 market, and there were 8 radio stations.

Over that same late-50's to early-60's period, a few stations flip-flopped in format, but generally there were three Top 40's, three MOR's and two r&b stations.

The Top 40's played everything in the range I mentioned. And the younger listeners knew to switch between stations when the "old fart" music came on, and I suppose the older listeners would sometimes defect to the MOR stations if something to teen oriented came on.

Yes, people got a lot more variety than today on a CHR station. But that was because stations could not take subsets of a genre and get the big ratings that they needed to compete. So for most listeners, out of any three songs, one was a biggie, one was so-so and one was downright repugnant. It was not until the forced separation of FM simulcasts in '67 that we got more segmented formats and the broad Top 40 approach (as well as the broad MOR approach) started to die or be modified.

The Prosecution Rests Your Honor

landtuna

Avid Listener

Guest

TheRover

Avid Listener

Guest

landtuna

Avid Listener

Guest

landtuna

Avid Listener

Guest

TheBigA

landtuna

JeffM

Avid Listener

Guest

landtuna

TheBigA

DavidEduardo

Moderator/Administrator

DavidEduardo

Moderator/Administrator

landtuna

landtuna

landtuna

DavidEduardo

Moderator/Administrator