I spend all day spinning wax in a store, and honestly it's terrible for ones depth of listening, or depth of knowledge for that matter. Having all this music in front of me and talking to people who love it has encouraged me to devote some listening time to almost anything, in an effort to understand the appeal, and have some frame of referance. Which is great, but also pretty superficial. Someone will tell me about a favorite record of theirs, I'll listen to it two or three times in a row, form an opinion on it, and then it will sell and I might not see it again for months, if that. It's wonderful to have access to all this great music, but I've been listening to hip-hop for 15 years, and to soul (at least with any degree of seriousness) for about 7, and I can still get schooled[/b] on either in a hot second. And now I'm trying to fit in some degree of perspective on Sonic Youth b-sides and second tier Stone's immitators? Both of which are fairly mainstream anyway as far as young adult tastes run.
It's a beautiful thing when I simply can't fit in all the music I want to have heard a thousand times. But when I catch myself wanting to know[/b] everything just for familiarity's sake, it's kind of vain, and pretty said.
In the interest of being constructive, though, I???d be interested in hearing how folks feel about the trade-offs that come with this diversification of taste. By which I mean, unless you work at a record store, or don???t work at all, or are unconventionally employed, or aren???t seriously sharing your time with a significant other, getting into a wider range of music pretty much necessarily means sacrificing some depth, whether it be depth of acquisition or depth of listening. How do y???all feel about that?
I find I crave different sounds at different times/moods, etc. more than another take or interpretation of a given genre, so by sacrificing the depth of listening, I get variety in exchange. There is also a natural chain that seems to happen, music that I really like leads to other music I really like....follow the liner notes... I find I get into artists more than I do genres, that is where I???m more interested in being completist, even if I don???t love everything they???ve done musically, it???s interesting to hear the progression/development of someone???s art (sorry if that sounds corny). I feel the same about directors and authors.
Sacrificing the depth of acquisition ??? like you said, there???s isn???t enough time ??? I don???t get to spend enough time listening to what I do have and more would mean even less time to spend really hearing a record (chew your food).
I feel like I???m into a lot of different types of music, but more and more I realize, they have the same things in common even if they are different genres. That???s the other thing, I guess this diversity we???re referring to is about genres, but there are other aspects of music that one can be really deeply into (vocal style, instrument, era, etc.) that cross genres.
missbassie, that was beautiful and I can completely relate to many of the things you said here.
getting into a wider range of music pretty much necessarily means sacrificing some depth, whether it be depth of acquisition or depth of listening. How do y???all feel about that?
i absolutely agree. why waste time on mediocre, why dilute ones experience?
However, the corellary, in my experience anyways, is how certain tracks rise up in your conciousness and stick there hard, demanding attention because they really speak to you. So while i plow thru 4 foot stacks of recently aquired LPs looking for something fresh to excite me (and thus wasting hours i could have been further appreciating what i already know i like and should get to know better), the occasional discovery of a new fave track (or whole album or artist if i really get lucky) i guess is worth it, because its that new fave track ill listen to 45 times on a mix cd in the car or whatever over the ensuing 6 months, to the point where that song is deep inside for good.
I listen to evrything. I'm a big fan of shuffle on my ipod. You never know what you are going to get next. I know I will like it though since it's on my ipod. Great for the car.
I listen to evrything. I'm a big fan of shuffle on my ipod. You never know what you are going to get next. I know I will like it though since it's on my ipod. Great for the car.
that's exactly where I am at.
And I hear you missbasie on the subject of following artists. It is less about genre for me, more about qualities that a lot of different music shares.
I like to listen to everything - I started small back in the day, only listening to a handful of artists and genres, and being completist about it, and digging DEEP into a genre. The more I dug, the more I found that the genre would invariably branch out into other areas as some point...there would be a point where an artist would collaborate outside their genre/style with another artist, a remix, or a side project that did something entirely different.
I just read an interview with one of the members of KLF. He smashed his Strawberry fields forever 45, the first record he bought and loved, because it didn't have anything to offer him anymore. He's just sick of music and thinks every genre is predictable and boring. Now he's doing these choir pieces with 17 strangers that aren't recorded ever, just so they'll never turn into consumer products. That's the only way he can enjoy music right now.
Like the Animals once said (in their song "Story Of Bo Diddley"), "that is the BIGGEST...LOAD OF RUBBISH...I ever heard in my life."
Just listen to the damn music and if it makes you happy, keep on.
I too suffer from "too much good music"/"too little time to absorb it" syndrome. Yes, there are albums I acquired two years ago that I still haven't gotten to know even though I know it's a classic. But I don't go doing mental cartwheels over it.
Seriously though, this is an intersting posts and James is very right on - you cannot get that deep into one genre of music if you have diverse tastes. It's not possible. If you do not agree with this then I challange you do spend, let's say 3 months, seriously devoting yourself to one specific genre. Your mind will be blown, I promise. That said, I get totally board focusing on one thing when it comes to music. And I'll admit that, as far as accumulating a scholarly understanding of any given type of music, I get nowhere. But, I have fun getting nowhere. And, i am way more interested in athstetic than purity of sound, so in my own mind I do not see as large of gaps between some things as most would, I suppose. If that makes any sense...
I'm sorry but you, James and everyone who hold this theory are wrong.
I spent several years seriously devoting myself to jazz--selling almost all of my non jazz collection to buy more jazz. I supplemented that experience with reading, videos, concerts and my own sorry ass playing. So I can say I got deep. I've bought a lot of that non-jazz stuff back and have gone deeper into Jamaican, Hip Hop and Brazilian musics. It's not that hard people. I'm just as ADD/OCD/Stoned as the rest of you cracktards.
(...) I???d be interested in hearing how folks feel about the trade-offs that come with this diversification of taste. By which I mean, unless you work at a record store, or don???t work at all, or are unconventionally employed, or aren???t seriously sharing your time with a significant other, getting into a wider range of music pretty much necessarily means sacrificing some depth, whether it be depth of acquisition or depth of listening. How do y???all feel about that?
Good point James. I have been considering the depthlessness of diversification recently. An example:
My dear friend Nathan whom I've known for years (and who, paradoxically, credits me as "the reason [he] got into country music") has dove headlong into the pool of country while I remained a fan on the edge of its depth. Before a few weeks ago I considered myself an "avid fan of country music" as I have hundreds of country records, I listen to Willie Nelson more than many other artists, I go to country shows, I read the books, etc. Sure, I'm a country music fan, totally. Avidly.
Then I had a conversation with Nathan about Kris Kristofferson (there was a time in my youth when I would push the music I loved into the lives of those I loved regardless of their willingness to receive. 99% of the time my Comprehensive Look At Death Metal or Absolutely Everything You Need To Hear By Merle Haggard mixtapes ended up in the trash, but with Nathan they were welcomed) and he told me that after I made him sit through a listening of The Silver-Tongued Devil and I in its entirety he went and got a copy out of the dollar bin for himself, particularly for the intro on "The Pilgrim -- Chapter 33."
If you're not familiar with that slice of genius, get familiar. Kris namechecks all the cats on the scene at the time:
I started writing this song about Chris Gantry. Ended up writing about Dennis Hopper and Johnny Cash, Norman Norbert, Funky Donnie Fritts, Billy Swann, Bobby Neuwirth, Jerry Jeff Walker and Paul Siebel... Ramblin??? Jack Elliott had a lot to do with it.
During this discussion with Nathan, he said, "I had to get a copy of that record for myself so I could figure out who all those people were." Nathan replayed the intro to that song, wrote down all the names he heard, and then bought all their records. He told me that with a sense of mirrored understanding on my part, You know how it is, right? But all I could think of was how many times I'd listened to that song and not paid attention to those names. Nathan ran down the list and told me what he thought of all the musicians Kristofferson cites. I sat dumbfounded, listening to this, considering what I missed by being interested in too much other shit.
It was at that moment I realized I shouldn't consider myself an "avid fan of country music."
I understand the position mesh described, shuffling through my record collection and seeing a wonderful mix of all things, but as I get older I realize how I miss that singlemindedness, that total lack of objectivity that kept me leaving no stone unturned. It is in that depth that I found so many wonderful records. Or say as the French say: Lis tes ratures.
Seriously though, this is an intersting posts and James is very right on - you cannot get that deep into one genre of music if you have diverse tastes. It's not possible. If you do not agree with this then I challange you do spend, let's say 3 months, seriously devoting yourself to one specific genre. Your mind will be blown, I promise. That said, I get totally board focusing on one thing when it comes to music. And I'll admit that, as far as accumulating a scholarly understanding of any given type of music, I get nowhere. But, I have fun getting nowhere. And, i am way more interested in athstetic than purity of sound, so in my own mind I do not see as large of gaps between some things as most would, I suppose. If that makes any sense...
I'm sorry but you, James and everyone who hold this theory are wrong.
I spent several years seriously devoting myself to jazz--selling almost all of my non jazz collection to buy more jazz. I supplemented that experience with reading, videos, concerts and my own sorry ass playing. So I can say I got deep. I've bought a lot of that non-jazz stuff back and have gone deeper into Jamaican, Hip Hop and Brazilian musics. It's not that hard people. I'm just as ADD/OCD/Stoned as the rest of you cracktards.
See, but you admit that you gave up other genres to focus on Jazz while you were focusing on Jazz.
I agree with Fatback.....it is possible to get pretty deep into a variety of musical genres, it just takes time, patience and access.
Of course this depends on how you define "deep" ....if you define it as knowing the letters etched into the dead wax of every record of a specific genre ala some nut in the film "Vinyl" then obviously it will be hard to get that deep in more than one genre.
But if it means hearing and appreciating the majority of the important and semi-important artists within a genre then it is very possible.
As a kid I was in to Top 40 rock and soul and by the time I was in my late teens I knew just about every/anything in those two genres that were sold in your average record store.
Then I was lucky enough to have an older collector show me the ropes of Rockabilly & Doo-Wop and after a few years I was doing a 6 hour a week radio show of these genres with a dash of Blues thrown in. After a few years of doing this I was pretty deep into both styles.
Next I discovered the Garage 45 and through digging and experts like Barry Wickham, David Shutt and the many comp LP's that were out there I was able to get pretty deep into that genre.
In the early 90's I bought 6,000 LP's from a Country Radio station in Iowa and spent the next year doing nothing but listening to bluegrass and hard core country. This collection had about every significant country LP released between 1954-67 and since there aren't too many "private press" country LP's it represented a crash course deep into the genre.
And finally I drifted into the private press/obscure/psych and rock genre and got to exeprience that music to the deepest of levels.
Certainly there are MANY people out there who know a lot more than I do in each of those genre's but my point is it is possible to journey deep into various genres, especially if you enjoy the music of each one.
So it took me 30 years to get deep into 3-4 different genres.....like I said it takes patience and access.....and becoming an old fuck in the process.
But you are talking about a level of dedication that a lot of people even on Soulstrut are not going to put in. An like you've both admitted - getting "deep" into a genre has taken years of focusing just on that genre. A lot of the people on here have not even been collectiong records for 5 years period. Not to knock soulstrut too much, but I've noticed that when "musical diversity" is discussed here it's mostly guys who went from hip hop to funk, and recently bought an Ultimate Spinach lp and now consider themselves to be "dabbling in psych".
Just trying to put this into perspective. So, take this in a spirit of friendship, but you and fatback are not normal examples.
But you are talking about a level of dedication that a lot of people even on Soulstrut are not going to put in. An like you've both admitted - getting "deep" into a genre has taken years of focusing just on that genre. A lot of the people on here have not even been collectiong records for 5 years period. Not to knock soulstrut too much, but I've noticed that when "musical diversity" is discussed here it's mostly guys who went from hip hop to funk, and recently bought an Ultimate Spinach lp and now consider themselves to be "dabbling in psych".
Just trying to put this into perspective. So, take this in a spirit of friendship, but you and fatback are not normal examples.
those years flew by. but i'm glad i focused on jazz when i did. them shits is gone nowdays!
But you are talking about a level of dedication that a lot of people even on Soulstrut are not going to put in. An like you've both admitted - getting "deep" into a genre has taken years of focusing just on that genre. A lot of the people on here have not even been collectiong records for 5 years period. Not to knock soulstrut too much, but I've noticed that when "musical diversity" is discussed here it's mostly guys who went from hip hop to funk, and recently bought an Ultimate Spinach lp and now consider themselves to be "dabbling in psych".
Just trying to put this into perspective. So, take this in a spirit of friendship, but you and fatback are not normal examples.
those years flew by. but i'm glad i focused on jazz when i did. them shit is gone nowdays!
That's another good point - there are certain genres that today would be much harder to get deep into if you're just starting out. You cannot buy up 100's of doo-wop 45's for a nickle each like you could if you were starting out in the 60's or 70's, etc.
i'm sure one could argue that my knowledge in non-jazz genres is merely some perfunctory expansion of a few top 100 lists. that's kind of what i'm hearing from james. getting into jazz, i learned to listen very carefully. that's all you need and you can apply that anywhere.
Cheers to becoming an "old fuck." I hope to be there soon. Patience is nice, if dwindling in the age of instant expertism. What I take issue with is the the areas proscribed as preordained "important", "significant", "classic" within genres.
the majority of the important
and semi-important
every significant country LP
The reason I listen to music for myself (rather than just relying on what I hear others say about it) is to determine for myself what the record does. This is the problem I see in the discussions of this thread. Relying on some external standard of what the thing is supposed to mean to us personally. Depth, to me, has nothing to do with dead wax or the memorizing of "facts" or credentials, but following the thing wherever it leads me. It prevent the paths of desire from being overgrown with the miserabilism of the human condition.
Lest we should all get caught in the trappings of the conformistly anti-conformist.
I ate cookies with Ramblin' Jack Elliott once. That insignificant moment meant more to me than the weighty tome that is his selected biography. It will be memorialized nowhere but in my own appreciation of his hobo-grooming.
I vote for the banning of recital, to be replaced with paying homage to those who have written works in the ink of action. Or, as Elliott himself put it, "Now you're up... Now you're over."
i'm sure one could argue that my knowledge in non-jazz genres is merely some perfunctory expansion of a few top 100 lists. that's kind of what i'm hearing from james. getting into jazz, i learned to listen very carefully. that's all you need and you can apply that anywhere.
I mean, I guess it all comes down to ones defenition of "deep". I would consider someone like you wayyy more knowledgeable about music than most people. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do. But then, I get people who see Waxidermy and think I'm some sort of super collector - which is funny, but I guess I know a bit more than some people. It's very easy to lose perspective. I mean, I'm looking at this like "damn, I'll never ever be half as deep as someone like Rich, or Dante, or whoever", but compared to normal people I meet at the grocery store I am a complete music freak. And I'm always thinking that because I have a dozen genres that I really love, I'll never really be able to get serious about any of them.
there are certain genres that today would be much harder to get deep into if you're just starting out. You cannot buy up 100's of doo-wop 45's for a nickle each like you could if you were starting out in the 60's or 70's, etc.
...THEN BUY THE REISSUES - THEY ARE THERE FOR A REASON[/b] You can't help it 'cause you was born too late to buy the shit when it came out!
most folks on this board are casual collectors of vinyl.
Being "deep" into a genre requires a good bit of study, thought, discipline, ingenuity and research.
To think that all you need to do is sit around with a couple hundred LPs and just "listen" in order to be an expert... that makes you literate in a genre but it doesn't make you (necessarily) very knowledgeable. I have met cats who are very literate in a musical style but not very well-researched. And vice versa. There are folks who own a lot of obscure records and don't really know much about the music contained within (just that they like it), or the bands as part of a larger scene. Conversely there are folks who are very musically-literate but don't have a vast knowledge of artists or releases within their chosen genre.
I was actually remarking to myself recently how broad the average record buyer's taste really is and while I think that's a great thing, I also agree with James that people can get a bit self-congradulatory about it.
Cheers to becoming an "old fuck." I hope to be there soon. Patience is nice, if dwindling in the age of instant expertism. What I take issue with is the the areas proscribed as preordained "important", "significant", "classic" within genres.
the majority of the important
and semi-important
every significant country LP
I definitely hear what you're saying here.....
As far as Country music goes it is an unusual genre with virtually no "underground" scene, therefore most of the country music found from '54-67 was on major labels and "specialty" labels like Starday, King and Audio-Lab that dedicated all or large amounts of their catalog to Country artists. By "significant" I mean any LP that even a Country Music "expert" would mention while discussing the history of the genre.
Just listening to this music "could" be a shallow excercise if you don't have an understanding and/or appreciation of it's history and the people behind it. While it's a far cry from meeting Ramblin' Jack, having spent time at my Grandfather's knee who had lived his whole life(98 years) in North Carolina and gone blind from drinking moonshine in the 40's gave me a unique insight as to what was at the heart and soul of Country music. And the more I heard, the more I wanted to hear....having a Mom that listened to Minnie Pearl and Reno & Smiley while growing up in Brooklyn was unusual to say the least. So when the opportunity came to buy a collection, that covered the entire History of the genre, I jumped on it(and drank a lot of whiskey while listening).
It takes dedication, a tremendous thirst for new sounds and a very open mind.
But ultimately I don't feel that I am an "expert" in any genre of music and can only tell you what an LP or artist means to ME.
The reason I listen to music for myself (rather than just relying on what I hear others say about it) is to determine for myself what the record does.
I vote for the banning of recital, to be replaced with paying homage to those who have written works in the ink of action. Or, as Elliott himself put it, "Now you're up... Now you're over."
Good thread and it's come at the perfect time. I have been going through my collection for the last 7 weeks to get rid of about 700 lps. I have only been sitting on about 1000 pieces, so that's 70% of my collection. Anyway, I've I've sold about 75 so far, but only after needle dropping every lp and searching for the nice cuts to record to MD.
But what constitutes the "nice cut?" Well, someone said it very well here a couple of months ago when learning a newbie collector. He said, find your sound. After more than 15 years avidly listening and collecting music, I have a pretty good idea of what my sound is (today). Listening through the 8 hours of cuts I've collected from the first 75 records I sold made it fairly clear.
I'm sure I'll go back someday and re-buy some of the Bop/Funk/Soul/Rap records that I'm liquidating. Actually, I'm looking forward to it. For now, I'm trying to get deeper into my sound, which should continue to take me across the universe of genres and artists. I'm not ready to be a music professor, just a collector of sounds.
We wanted it more live and raw. We didn't want a studio sound. -- Alice Cooper
i'm sure one could argue that my knowledge in non-jazz genres is merely some perfunctory expansion of a few top 100 lists. that's kind of what i'm hearing from james. getting into jazz, i learned to listen very carefully. that's all you need and you can apply that anywhere.
I think you???re projecting.
My initial post had two points:
One point was to bitch about how threads like this are usually flimsy excuses for dudes a) to pretend that one of their obvious points of pride is in fact some kind of hardship (???Hey, is anybody else out there just too good-looking? I mean, shit is problematic.???) and/or b) to bend over backwards to distinguish their superior tastes from those of the massed, ape-eared (word to Marco) barbarians at the gate, who cannot possibly love/understand/appreciate/own music as sincerely (???Yeah, people say they have eclectic tastes all the time. That usually just means they love Some Bullshit that People Like and Some Other Bullshit That People Like equally. My taste is truly eclectic???). It???s always transparently fake humility rubbin??? nubbins with unfortunately real piousness, and that shit is always nauseating.
The other point was to inquire as to what kind of deals people are making with themselves, whether they???re pursuing breadth of taste at the expense of some depth, or pursuing depth at the expense of some breadth.
I ate cookies with Ramblin' Jack Elliott once. That insignificant moment meant more to me than the weighty tome that is his selected biography. It will be memorialized nowhere but in my own appreciation of his hobo-grooming.
his daughter lives in Brooklyn, or at least she used to a couple of years ago.
Comments
It's a beautiful thing when I simply can't fit in all the music I want to have heard a thousand times. But when I catch myself wanting to know[/b] everything just for familiarity's sake, it's kind of vain, and pretty said.
missbassie, that was beautiful and I can completely relate to many of the things you said here.
i absolutely agree. why waste time on mediocre, why dilute ones experience?
However, the corellary, in my experience anyways, is how certain tracks rise up in your conciousness and stick there hard, demanding attention because they really speak to you. So while i plow thru 4 foot stacks of recently aquired LPs looking for something fresh to excite me (and thus wasting hours i could have been further appreciating what i already know i like and should get to know better), the occasional discovery of a new fave track (or whole album or artist if i really get lucky) i guess is worth it, because its that new fave track ill listen to 45 times on a mix cd in the car or whatever over the ensuing 6 months, to the point where that song is deep inside for good.
that's exactly where I am at.
And I hear you missbasie on the subject of following artists. It is less about genre for me, more about qualities that a lot of different music shares.
I like to listen to everything - I started small back in the day, only listening to a handful of artists and genres, and being completist about it, and digging DEEP into a genre. The more I dug, the more I found that the genre would invariably branch out into other areas as some point...there would be a point where an artist would collaborate outside their genre/style with another artist, a remix, or a side project that did something entirely different.
Like the Animals once said (in their song "Story Of Bo Diddley"), "that is the BIGGEST...LOAD OF RUBBISH...I ever heard in my life."
I too suffer from "too much good music"/"too little time to absorb it" syndrome. Yes, there are albums I acquired two years ago that I still haven't gotten to know even though I know it's a classic. But I don't go doing mental cartwheels over it.
I'm sorry but you, James and everyone who hold this theory are wrong.
I spent several years seriously devoting myself to jazz--selling almost all of my non jazz collection to buy more jazz. I supplemented that experience with reading, videos, concerts and my own sorry ass playing. So I can say I got deep. I've bought a lot of that non-jazz stuff back and have gone deeper into Jamaican, Hip Hop and Brazilian musics. It's not that hard people. I'm just as ADD/OCD/Stoned as the rest of you cracktards.
Good point James. I have been considering the depthlessness of diversification recently. An example:
My dear friend Nathan whom I've known for years (and who, paradoxically, credits me as "the reason [he] got into country music") has dove headlong into the pool of country while I remained a fan on the edge of its depth. Before a few weeks ago I considered myself an "avid fan of country music" as I have hundreds of country records, I listen to Willie Nelson more than many other artists, I go to country shows, I read the books, etc. Sure, I'm a country music fan, totally. Avidly.
Then I had a conversation with Nathan about Kris Kristofferson (there was a time in my youth when I would push the music I loved into the lives of those I loved regardless of their willingness to receive. 99% of the time my Comprehensive Look At Death Metal or Absolutely Everything You Need To Hear By Merle Haggard mixtapes ended up in the trash, but with Nathan they were welcomed) and he told me that after I made him sit through a listening of The Silver-Tongued Devil and I in its entirety he went and got a copy out of the dollar bin for himself, particularly for the intro on "The Pilgrim -- Chapter 33."
If you're not familiar with that slice of genius, get familiar. Kris namechecks all the cats on the scene at the time:
I started writing this song about Chris Gantry. Ended up writing about Dennis Hopper and Johnny Cash, Norman Norbert, Funky Donnie Fritts, Billy Swann, Bobby Neuwirth, Jerry Jeff Walker and Paul Siebel... Ramblin??? Jack Elliott had a lot to do with it.
During this discussion with Nathan, he said, "I had to get a copy of that record for myself so I could figure out who all those people were." Nathan replayed the intro to that song, wrote down all the names he heard, and then bought all their records. He told me that with a sense of mirrored understanding on my part, You know how it is, right? But all I could think of was how many times I'd listened to that song and not paid attention to those names. Nathan ran down the list and told me what he thought of all the musicians Kristofferson cites. I sat dumbfounded, listening to this, considering what I missed by being interested in too much other shit.
It was at that moment I realized I shouldn't consider myself an "avid fan of country music."
I understand the position mesh described, shuffling through my record collection and seeing a wonderful mix of all things, but as I get older I realize how I miss that singlemindedness, that total lack of objectivity that kept me leaving no stone unturned. It is in that depth that I found so many wonderful records. Or say as the French say: Lis tes ratures.
p.s. File Under: Undisputed Summer Joint 2006
See, but you admit that you gave up other genres to focus on Jazz while you were focusing on Jazz.
Of course this depends on how you define "deep" ....if you define it as knowing the letters etched into the dead wax of every record of a specific genre ala some nut in the film "Vinyl" then obviously it will be hard to get that deep in more than one genre.
But if it means hearing and appreciating the majority of the important and semi-important artists within a genre then it is very possible.
As a kid I was in to Top 40 rock and soul and by the time I was in my late teens I knew just about every/anything in those two genres that were sold in your average record store.
Then I was lucky enough to have an older collector show me the ropes of Rockabilly & Doo-Wop and after a few years I was doing a 6 hour a week radio show of these genres with a dash of Blues thrown in. After a few years of doing this I was pretty deep into both styles.
Next I discovered the Garage 45 and through digging and experts like Barry Wickham, David Shutt and the many comp LP's that were out there I was able to get pretty deep into that genre.
In the early 90's I bought 6,000 LP's from a Country Radio station in Iowa and spent the next year doing nothing but listening to bluegrass and hard core country. This collection had about every significant country LP released between 1954-67 and since there aren't too many "private press" country LP's it represented a crash course deep into the genre.
And finally I drifted into the private press/obscure/psych and rock genre and got to exeprience that music to the deepest of levels.
Certainly there are MANY people out there who know a lot more than I do in each of those genre's but my point is it is possible to journey deep into various genres, especially if you enjoy the music of each one.
So it took me 30 years to get deep into 3-4 different genres.....like I said it takes patience and access.....and becoming an old fuck in the process.
Just trying to put this into perspective. So, take this in a spirit of friendship, but you and fatback are not normal examples.
those years flew by. but i'm glad i focused on jazz when i did. them shits is gone nowdays!
That's another good point - there are certain genres that today would be much harder to get deep into if you're just starting out. You cannot buy up 100's of doo-wop 45's for a nickle each like you could if you were starting out in the 60's or 70's, etc.
The reason I listen to music for myself (rather than just relying on what I hear others say about it) is to determine for myself what the record does. This is the problem I see in the discussions of this thread. Relying on some external standard of what the thing is supposed to mean to us personally. Depth, to me, has nothing to do with dead wax or the memorizing of "facts" or credentials, but following the thing wherever it leads me. It prevent the paths of desire from being overgrown with the miserabilism of the human condition.
Lest we should all get caught in the trappings of the conformistly anti-conformist.
Like, fuck you, what does this record mean to me.
Depth is finding the guy who doesn't bother changing out of his mustard-stained shirt before taking the press photo in whatever "genre" he may be, significant, important, retarded, private, lonely, or otherwise.
I ate cookies with Ramblin' Jack Elliott once. That insignificant moment meant more to me than the weighty tome that is his selected biography. It will be memorialized nowhere but in my own appreciation of his hobo-grooming.
I vote for the banning of recital, to be replaced with paying homage to those who have written works in the ink of action. Or, as Elliott himself put it, "Now you're up... Now you're over."
I mean, I guess it all comes down to ones defenition of "deep". I would consider someone like you wayyy more knowledgeable about music than most people. I'm sure you know a lot more than I do. But then, I get people who see Waxidermy and think I'm some sort of super collector - which is funny, but I guess I know a bit more than some people. It's very easy to lose perspective. I mean, I'm looking at this like "damn, I'll never ever be half as deep as someone like Rich, or Dante, or whoever", but compared to normal people I meet at the grocery store I am a complete music freak. And I'm always thinking that because I have a dozen genres that I really love, I'll never really be able to get serious about any of them.
...THEN BUY THE REISSUES - THEY ARE THERE FOR A REASON[/b]
You can't help it 'cause you was born too late to buy the shit when it came out!
Being "deep" into a genre requires a good bit of study, thought, discipline, ingenuity and research.
To think that all you need to do is sit around with a couple hundred LPs and just "listen" in order to be an expert... that makes you literate in a genre but it doesn't make you (necessarily) very knowledgeable. I have met cats who are very literate in a musical style but not very well-researched. And vice versa. There are folks who own a lot of obscure records and don't really know much about the music contained within (just that they like it), or the bands as part of a larger scene. Conversely there are folks who are very musically-literate but don't have a vast knowledge of artists or releases within their chosen genre.
I was actually remarking to myself recently how broad the average record buyer's taste really is and while I think that's a great thing, I also agree with James that people can get a bit self-congradulatory about it.
As far as Country music goes it is an unusual genre with virtually no "underground" scene, therefore most of the country music found from '54-67 was on major labels and "specialty" labels like Starday, King and Audio-Lab that dedicated all or large amounts of their catalog to Country artists. By "significant" I mean any LP that even a Country Music "expert" would mention while discussing the history of the genre.
Just listening to this music "could" be a shallow excercise if you don't have an understanding and/or appreciation of it's history and the people behind it. While it's a far cry from meeting Ramblin' Jack, having spent time at my Grandfather's knee who had lived his whole life(98 years) in North Carolina and gone blind from drinking moonshine in the 40's gave me a unique insight as to what was at the heart and soul of Country music. And the more I heard, the more I wanted to hear....having a Mom that listened to Minnie Pearl and Reno & Smiley while growing up in Brooklyn was unusual to say the least. So when the opportunity came to buy a collection, that covered the entire History of the genre, I jumped on it(and drank a lot of whiskey while listening).
It takes dedication, a tremendous thirst for new sounds and a very open mind.
But ultimately I don't feel that I am an "expert" in any genre of music and can only tell you what an LP or artist means to ME.
Good thread and it's come at the perfect time. I have been going through my collection for the last 7 weeks to get rid of about 700 lps. I have only been sitting on about 1000 pieces, so that's 70% of my collection. Anyway, I've I've sold about 75 so far, but only after needle dropping every lp and searching for the nice cuts to record to MD.
But what constitutes the "nice cut?" Well, someone said it very well here a couple of months ago when learning a newbie collector. He said, find your sound. After more than 15 years avidly listening and collecting music, I have a pretty good idea of what my sound is (today). Listening through the 8 hours of cuts I've collected from the first 75 records I sold made it fairly clear.
I'm sure I'll go back someday and re-buy some of the Bop/Funk/Soul/Rap records that I'm liquidating. Actually, I'm looking forward to it. For now, I'm trying to get deeper into my sound, which should continue to take me across the universe of genres and artists. I'm not ready to be a music professor, just a collector of sounds.
We wanted it more live and raw. We didn't want a studio sound.
-- Alice Cooper
I think you???re projecting.
My initial post had two points:
One point was to bitch about how threads like this are usually flimsy excuses for dudes a) to pretend that one of their obvious points of pride is in fact some kind of hardship (???Hey, is anybody else out there just too good-looking? I mean, shit is problematic.???) and/or b) to bend over backwards to distinguish their superior tastes from those of the massed, ape-eared (word to Marco) barbarians at the gate, who cannot possibly love/understand/appreciate/own music as sincerely (???Yeah, people say they have eclectic tastes all the time. That usually just means they love Some Bullshit that People Like and Some Other Bullshit That People Like equally. My taste is truly eclectic???). It???s always transparently fake humility rubbin??? nubbins with unfortunately real piousness, and that shit is always nauseating.
The other point was to inquire as to what kind of deals people are making with themselves, whether they???re pursuing breadth of taste at the expense of some depth, or pursuing depth at the expense of some breadth.
That's all.
his daughter lives in Brooklyn, or at least she used to a couple of years ago.
"But what I'm really trying to say here is . . ."