Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site dartvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!dartvax!markv From: markv@dartvax.UUCP (Mark Vita) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Musical Talent, etc. Message-ID: <1387@dartvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 27-Apr-84 15:08:12 EST Article-I.D.: dartvax.1387 Posted: Fri Apr 27 15:08:12 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Apr-84 11:00:30 EST Organization: Dartmouth College Lines: 114 >I agree to some extent, I do not find those three bands to be >particularly interesting. Supertramp used to have some good >stuff but sound like they have started down the "bubble-gum- >teeny-bopper-syntho-pop" path. Loverboy is what I consider to >be "listenable" but they don't hold my attention long. Journey >is in about the same class and I do listen to them occasionally. I agree with your agreement. Nice to see that there are some rational people out there in netland. >Please tell me your kidding! Dwarved by the MUSICAL TALENT of >The Stones and The Who? My god, the Stones don't even tune up >before they play. I once heard them play a whole concert out >of tune! Well, I guess I could concede the Stones. "Musical talent" as I would define it (instrumental ability) is not what makes the Stones a great band. Sure, they don't always tune up before they play. I find that part of their unique, ah, charisma. Besides, it's so easy to flame the Stones these days. They are a (barely) living husk of a once great rock band. Sure their last three albums have been basically trash, but the Stones have been around for 22 years, and their prime has come and gone. I find hard to believe that people cannot see the majesty of songs such as "Sympathy For The Devil", "Gimme Shelter", "Time Waits For No One". But, chacun a son gout, as they say. (Well, someone says it. I don't. But I'm certain there are others that do. They probably live in France.) However, before leaving the subject of the Stones I would like point out one member of the band which I consider to be a *musician*, and that is Mick Taylor. If you have heard him play, you cannot deny his excellent blues-scale technique, especially on "Get Yer Ya-Ya's Out" and also the songs "Sway" and "Time Waits For No One." >The Who? Oh please, these guys do not produce what I call >music. Their simplistic droning is unimaginative, unchallenging, >(to listen to and play) and just plain boring. I can't bring >myself to sit and listen to a bunch of meaningless lyrical >drivel about sex & drugs accompanied by the same old cords >in 4/4 time. This is simply wholly inaccurate. I would hardly consider Townshend's lyrics to "meaningless lyrical drivel", but that is just my opinion. However, the assertion that the lyrics are "about sex & drugs" is simply not true. I'm fairly familiar with their work, and sure, there are a few sex and/or drug-related tunes, but not in greater proportion than your average garden-variety 60's rock band. Besides, I was referring to instrumental ability. Keith Moon was just an excellent drummer -- how can you say that Bonham is excellent and deny Moon? I would place their talents on about an equal par. And there are very few bassists that have the raw skill and creative talent of John Entwistle. (I would like to see you even PLAY some of Entwistle's "unimaginative" basslines, much less CREATE them.) As far as Townshend goes, I will agree that his talent is a little more nebulous -- you can either like it or hate it. I happen to like it. (If you would like to hear some excellent Townshend lyrics [better, I believe, than what appeared on the Who's last several albums, as Townshend began rather selfishly to save his best material for his solo work], try listening to either of his solo albums "Empty Glass" or "All The Best Cowboys Have Chinese Eyes"). One last note about the Who -- they too suffer (suffered, I should say, since are apparently now defunct) from the Stones Syndrome. Perhaps they should have quit five or so years ago when they still commanded some respect. >Zeppelin? I do like some of their stuff, though not much. Most >of their stuff was just too noisy for me. I can't deny however >that Bonham was a great drummer. He could really play. Now *you're* on the right track! Bonham was awesome. (God rest his soul.) But so is John Paul Jones and, how can you ignore Jimmy Page? The man's a true artist with the guitar. Sure, some of Zeppelin's stuff is noisy, but I would say that the large majority is not. They kind of get a bum deal publicity-wise, as most rock stations when playing a Zeppelin tune will usually pick one of their noisier tunes, such as "Black Dog" or "Rock And Roll". But you must really sit down and listen to all of their albums to realize what a truly diverse group they were. For example, their third album was recorded almost entirely with acoustic guitar - very little "noise". (Although Page does use a few effect boxes (phasors and the like) even on the acoustic.) Their music ranges from heavy metal ("Black Dog") to ballads ("Going To California") to classic 12-bar blues ("I Can't Quit You Baby") to weird Eastern-tinged stuff ("In The Light") to almost neo-classical ("Kashmir"). And much of it NOT in 4/4 time!! (Even "Black Dog" is 5/4, believe it or not. Listen carefully.) Just a clarification about the term "real musician" which seems to have raised a lot of hackles. The term is completely relative. Compared to me, who plays the guitar at an rather amateur level, even the bozo in Quiet Riot must be considered a real musician. I'm not trying to imply that people such as these have NO musical ability, but simply a unremarkable amount compared to such true greats as Jimmy Page. (And to that list of greats I would add Jimi Hendrix, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Dickie Betts, David Gilmour, Randy Rhoads and Brad Gillis. Why the latter two ever hung out with a loser like Ozzy is beyond me.) Mark Vita ..!decvax!dartvax!markv