How I yearn for the days when dudes would embarass themselves over a Layers pull.
Glorifying Layers for it's "breaks" alone I can see as being NAGL, but come on - Les McCann is no tepid funkster, I think he deserves a little more respect than that.
Layers gets a pass from me for the Boston connection, anyway.
I only meant "discredit" in the "why should I listen to this person tell me something about modern music history" sense. I don't mean discredit "as a human being" or "as a fan of _____ genre." I also say this in the context of the fact that this is a music-related board.
The only reason why somebody would post nonsense about not knowing a thing about one of the most fundamental acts of the history of recorded popular music is to get a rise out of people and/or gloat about that fact. That's goofy. I am not insisting that a person need to actually like anything the man does. You can hate him, for all I care. But to flaunt your ignorance about anything is pointless. This has zero[/b] to do with taste.
For golly sakes: At least listen to "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan." That's a nice introduction to the man's music.
you're flaunting your lack of knowledge of Western popular music.
Is there anything wrong with that? Few human's pop music knowledge is all-pervasive.
Pervasive is knowing about a private press record. Pretty pervasive is knowing Rudy Van Gelder's jacket size. All-pervasive is knowing the man Terry Melcher.
you're flaunting your lack of knowledge of Western popular music.
Is there anything wrong with that? Few human's pop music knowledge is all-pervasive.
Pervasive is knowing about a private press record. Pretty pervasive is knowing Rudy Van Gelder's jacket size. All-pervasive is knowing the man Terry Melcher.
Let the tomatoe launcher be loaded. I too, hate Bob Dylan. Think he's a whiny bastard. Definitely wanted to pull a Jon Belushi Bluto with him many times before - and I might even walk off without saying "sorry." Never got with any of his music. However - I'm very aware of his influence and all that yada yada.
I hate Tupac too. HATE. 2pacalypse is cool....post that.....booooooo.
you're flaunting your lack of knowledge of Western popular music.
Is there anything wrong with that? Few human's pop music knowledge is all-pervasive.
Pervasive is knowing about a private press record. Pretty pervasive is knowing Rudy Van Gelder's jacket size. All-pervasive is knowing the man Terry Melcher.
And here I was thinking this was one of those "reissued" posts - what topic could be so hot that it could expand to two pages over two hours? - but alas, the dateline proved me wrong!
The thing about art is there is a 'canon'. You know, a generally agreed upon collection of artists and artworks that are vital and definitive examples of an art form.
You don't have to like what is in the canon; but, you SHOULD make an effort to learn it. If you don't learn the canon, you are only playin' yourself.
Now, the canon is a vast, ever changing, amorphous thing- there is no canonical mountain, where folks on high decide what is in or out of favor. It is not written- just generally agreed upon. And, to be very fair, it is impossible to have read/listened to/watched/or looked at all that is in the literary, musical, cinematic, or artistic canon. There will always be holes in peoples knowledge; if there weren't we wouldn't spend our lives seeking out new art work.
Ok. That said...
Bob Dylan, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones are three of the fucking pillars of the colliseum of Rock and Roll/Pop/60s music. And, not having a basic familiarity with their works does ONLY the ignorant a disservice.
You don't have to like them. You can hate them. But, you should KNOW them. Jesus, even if you only like soul and hip hop, you might want to learn a thing or two about them, for all the cover versions and samples they leant us.
You can hate who you want; but, some of this willfull ignorance shit gets tiresome.
rant over. feel free to disregard. burn notice is starting.
It's funny because so often these kinda "I hate [insert important artist of the modern music era]" posts almost inveitably lead to eaxactly this kind of post explaining in articulate terms that you' don't have to like them just because they're considered classic, but that you ignore them to your own detriment in some way.
The thing about art is there is a 'canon'. You know, a generally agreed upon collection of artists and artworks that are vital and definitive examples of an art form.
You don't have to like what is in the canon; but, you SHOULD make an effort to learn it. If you don't learn the canon, you are only playin' yourself.
Now, the canon is a vast, ever changing, amorphous thing- there is no canonical mountain, where folks on high decide what is in or out of favor. It is not written- just generally agreed upon. And, to be very fair, it is impossible to have read/listened to/watched/or looked at all that is in the literary, musical, cinematic, or artistic canon. There will always be holes in peoples knowledge; if there weren't we wouldn't spend our lives seeking out new art work.
Ok. That said...
Bob Dylan, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones are three of the fucking pillars of the colliseum of Rock and Roll music. And, not having a basic familiarity with their works does ONLY the ignorant a disservice.
You don't have to like them. You can hate them. But, you should KNOW them. Jesus, even if you only like soul and hip hop, you might want to learn a thing or two about them, for all the cover versions and samples they leant us.
You can hate who you want; but, some of this willfull ignorance shit gets tiresome.
rant over. feel free to disregard. burn notice is starting.
This is absolutely on point.
And not only that but you have every fucking idiot on these forums sweating "rare private shit" but have little or no fucking concept of this cannon. You have dudes "getting into psych" and sweating big money records like Relatively Clean Rivers who either dismiss or have not heard the Dead or Dylan or whatever. It's retarded.
You have dudes "getting into psych" and sweating big money records like Relatively Clean Rivers who either dismiss or have not heard the Dead or Dylan or whatever. It's retarded.
I can't listen to Relatively Clean Rivers without wanting to put the Dead on when it's finished; they are so clearly of the same time and place, and frankly, i don't see how one can claim to like RCR without liking the Dead (who had MUCH more sophisticated lyrics, IMO.)
I know there are people on here who like one without the other; let's keep that to the Jerry's Sink thread.
The thing about art is there is a 'canon'. You know, a generally agreed upon collection of artists and artworks that are vital and definitive examples of an art form.
You don't have to like what is in the canon; but, you SHOULD make an effort to learn it. If you don't learn the canon, you are only playin' yourself.
Now, the canon is a vast, ever changing, amorphous thing- there is no canonical mountain, where folks on high decide what is in or out of favor. It is not written- just generally agreed upon. And, to be very fair, it is impossible to have read/listened to/watched/or looked at all that is in the literary, musical, cinematic, or artistic canon. There will always be holes in peoples knowledge; if there weren't we wouldn't spend our lives seeking out new art work.
Ok. That said...
Bob Dylan, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones are three of the fucking pillars of the colliseum of Rock and Roll/Pop/60s music. And, not having a basic familiarity with their works does ONLY the ignorant a disservice.
You don't have to like them. You can hate them. But, you should KNOW them. Jesus, even if you only like soul and hip hop, you might want to learn a thing or two about them, for all the cover versions and samples they leant us.
You can hate who you want; but, some of this willfull ignorance shit gets tiresome.
rant over. feel free to disregard. burn notice is starting.
I don't know about anyone else, but I definitely wasn't trying to hate. I simply do not enjoy his music, I don't think dude sucks.
As far as learning the canon, I feel like it does the work for you. For the most part the canon is the stuff that is always in general rotation, the things that you are exposed to without looking for them. That segues into an interesting point, and basically what i was trying to get at in the beginning: what elements of the canon do people not dig on?
Fair point, Rock- I have a fair knowledge of stuff from the 30s and 40s, but nothing I'd write a book about. I've got the Harry Smith anthology, more Hank Sr. than I know what to do with, some old blues nonsense, whatever.
I'm not as literate in that work as I could be, but I've listened to all of it, and come back to what I like.
But, I'm not here to show a resume- my point really is- I'm not flaunting what I don't know.
I don't know shit about classical music; but, I would LOVE to know more. And, frankly, I look forward to spending the next 60 years of my life learning about it. I read all the New Yorker reviews and classical stories, trying to amass knowledge, and move into a world I find unbelievably vast and intimidating.
I can't know everything; I never will. But, I'm not actively avoiding learning things to flaunt it.
Whatever. I'm sounding madsanctimonious.
I'll leave it Rachmaninov, who an old line cook I worked with (who was in performance school to be a symphonic cellist) often quoted...
"Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music."
Comments
Is there anything wrong with that? Few human's pop music knowledge is all-pervasive.
Glorifying Layers for it's "breaks" alone I can see
as being NAGL, but come on - Les McCann is no tepid funkster,
I think he deserves a little more respect than that.
Layers gets a pass from me for the Boston connection, anyway.
braggart
For new music, I prefer to hear stuff by people who have never heard of Bob Dylan, Beatles, etc.
i would never do that
The only reason why somebody would post nonsense about not knowing a thing about one of the most fundamental acts of the history of recorded popular music is to get a rise out of people and/or gloat about that fact. That's goofy. I am not insisting that a person need to actually like anything the man does. You can hate him, for all I care. But to flaunt your ignorance about anything is pointless. This has zero[/b] to do with taste.
For golly sakes: At least listen to "The Freewheelin' Bob Dylan." That's a nice introduction to the man's music.
Pervasive is knowing about a private press record. Pretty pervasive is knowing Rudy Van Gelder's jacket size. All-pervasive is knowing the man Terry Melcher.
Actually, he played at my friend's Bar-Mitzvah.
I hate Tupac too. HATE. 2pacalypse is cool....post that.....booooooo.
^ Then your friend, not you, is ALL-PERVASIVE[/b]
It used to be.
That's where the "-related" part comes in.
Back off, Quayle.
Woah.. That's mad weird. I didn't even mean for that to happen - but worked out to my disadvantage.
The thing about art is there is a 'canon'. You know, a generally agreed upon collection of artists and artworks that are vital and definitive examples of an art form.
You don't have to like what is in the canon; but, you SHOULD make an effort to learn it. If you don't learn the canon, you are only playin' yourself.
Now, the canon is a vast, ever changing, amorphous thing- there is no canonical mountain, where folks on high decide what is in or out of favor. It is not written- just generally agreed upon. And, to be very fair, it is impossible to have read/listened to/watched/or looked at all that is in the literary, musical, cinematic, or artistic canon. There will always be holes in peoples knowledge; if there weren't we wouldn't spend our lives seeking out new art work.
Ok. That said...
Bob Dylan, the Beatles, and the Rolling Stones are three of the fucking pillars of the colliseum of Rock and Roll/Pop/60s music. And, not having a basic familiarity with their works does ONLY the ignorant a disservice.
You don't have to like them. You can hate them. But, you should KNOW them. Jesus, even if you only like soul and hip hop, you might want to learn a thing or two about them, for all the cover versions and samples they leant us.
You can hate who you want; but, some of this willfull ignorance shit gets tiresome.
rant over.
feel free to disregard. burn notice is starting.
"Hate on Son, Hate on"
i couldn't resist.
professor wheelock was speaking THROUGH me.
This is absolutely on point.
And not only that but you have every fucking idiot on these forums sweating "rare private shit" but have little or no fucking concept of this cannon. You have dudes "getting into psych" and sweating big money records like Relatively Clean Rivers who either dismiss or have not heard the Dead or Dylan or whatever. It's retarded.
Was him, badass song, better in dazed and confused movie.
"Lay Lady Lay" is the best. Smokin' two packs of menthols a day' singin that schitt.
I can't listen to Relatively Clean Rivers without wanting to put the Dead on when it's finished; they are so clearly of the same time and place, and frankly, i don't see how one can claim to like RCR without liking the Dead (who had MUCH more sophisticated lyrics, IMO.)
I know there are people on here who like one without the other; let's keep that to the Jerry's Sink thread.
haha! yeah, I almost could not remember which thread I was responding to while typing.
I would assume some, but certainly not all.
So why is it strange that a 20 year old kid today doesn't know, or care, about 60's and 70's music??
You need to step back and stop believeing that "your" genre or era was as important as you think it was.
Surely, you must love KISS.
I don't know about anyone else, but I definitely wasn't trying to hate. I simply do not enjoy his music, I don't think dude sucks.
As far as learning the canon, I feel like it does the work for you. For the most part the canon is the stuff that is always in general rotation, the things that you are exposed to without looking for them. That segues into an interesting point, and basically what i was trying to get at in the beginning: what elements of the canon do people not dig on?
I am hardly just antagonizing people out of thin air trying to convert them to this shit.
I'm not as literate in that work as I could be, but I've listened to all of it, and come back to what I like.
But, I'm not here to show a resume- my point really is- I'm not flaunting what I don't know.
I don't know shit about classical music; but, I would LOVE to know more. And, frankly, I look forward to spending the next 60 years of my life learning about it. I read all the New Yorker reviews and classical stories, trying to amass knowledge, and move into a world I find unbelievably vast and intimidating.
I can't know everything; I never will. But, I'm not actively avoiding learning things to flaunt it.
Whatever. I'm sounding madsanctimonious.
I'll leave it Rachmaninov, who an old line cook I worked with (who was in performance school to be a symphonic cellist) often quoted...
"Music is enough for a lifetime, but a lifetime is not enough for music."