Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site grkermi.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!genrad!grkermi!andrew
From: andrew@grkermi.UUCP (N. Edwards)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Instrumental vs. vocal popular music
Message-ID: <612@grkermi.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Sep-85 18:15:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: grkermi.612
Posted: Sun Sep 15 18:15:07 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:16:31 EDT
References: <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: andrew@grkermi.UUCP (N. Edwards)
Distribution: net
Organization: Dolton Records
Lines: 107
Summary: 


In article <1477@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) writes:
> ...
>I contend that most vocal popular music, especially rock, would be
>better music, and more enjoyable, if it was instrumental only. 

Yeah!  Let's hear it for the Ventures!  And Johnny and the Hurricanes!  Duane
Eddy!  Lonnie Mack!  The Chantays!  Dick Dale and his Del-Tones!  Link Wray!
Bill Black's Combo!  Sandy Nelson!  Davie Allan and the Arrows!  (Hey, I
still have my Ventures model Mosrite... by any chance do you play sax?)

>...On *most* rock, however, the vocals are:
>1) sung by people who can't sing (often shouted, not even sung)

Most rock singers "can't sing" in the conventional sense.  What distinguishes
the best from the OK is the distinctiveness of the voice... you hear them on
the radio and you know immediately who it is.  Could you mistake anyone else
for, say, Jim Morrison?  Or Mick Jagger, or Rod Stewart?  On the other hand,
take what's-his-name from Journey and what's-his-name from REO Speedwagon
(please)... as Robert Christgau would say, "Distinctions not Cost-effective."

>2) often not understandable, no matter who sings them, due to the mix

"Ah Louie Louie, whoa no, ah get her way down low.  Ya ya ya ya ya ya."  Hey,
I didn't have any trouble understanding that!  :-)

>3) of little import or originality

True today, although not always (ie., late 60's).  One notable exception is
U2, who eulogized Martin Luther King *twice* on "The Unforgettable Fire"
despite being a) Irish, and b) at most 7-8 years old when he was killed.
Another is Bruce Springsteen, although I find it hard to listen to him
without recalling the Firesign Theater's line "Honest stories of working
people as told by rich Hollywood stars".

>4) often offensive to some people (see later)
>
>I don't listen much to rock any more; I never did to any great extent in
>any case, but I did for some years. I think I have determined that this
>is mainly due to disliking what I hear in the vocals, because I still
>enjoy listening to instrumental rock of various vintages.

See introductory paragraph.  (Apologies to Preston Epps, the Tornadoes, and
anyone else I left out!)

>The referenced McNeil/Lehrer report was on a Washington women's group
>(including a senator's wife and a cabinet member's wife),

"Parents' Music Responsibility (?) Committee", headed by the wives of Sen.
Gore (R-Tenn.) and Treasury Sec. Baker.

>who seem to
>have received much publicity over the past few months with a campaign to
>force record companies to tag albums with a rating system about sexually
>explicit lyrics, and to print such lyrics on the outside of record
>jackets for pre-buying review (I suppose by parents).

Not just sexual lyrics; also drug/alcohol-related, violent, and "occult"
(whatever that is... I guess that means anything else PMRC doesn't like.)
And you can bet that when we have another war to write anti-war lyrics about,
that category will be added post-haste!

BTW, Dave Marsh had an interesting idea... suppose *all* rockers deliberately
included something "offensive" on *every* album, thereby making the rating
system meaningless?

> This was countered
>by various interviews with recording-industry people (including a brief
>appearance by Frank Zappa)

Good for FZ!  He's the only well-known rocker to come out against the
labeling system - probably because he doesn't get enough airplay to have
to worry about retaliation by wimpoid program directors!

There is an anti-PMRC group, "The Right to Rock"... sorry, but I have no
details like address, etc.

> and with teenaged record buyers. These
>latter, most importantly, generally voiced the opinion that "no one
>listens to the lyrics, they just listen to the music". In effect, they
>endure the lyrics to get the benefit of the music.

Probably true... anyone who thinks "Born in the USA" is a patriotic song 
obviously isn't listening very closely!

>In this case, then, would not it be better for practically all
>concerned... for most rock to become instrumental
>music? What is gained by having lyrics anyway? The audience has stated
>they do not want words. Some parents or others object to the words that
>have been being used.

Their main objection to rock is that KIDS LIKE IT - period.  If rock *was*
instrumental, they'd find some other excuse to complain about it.  You will
recall that in the early days of rock, it wasn't the lyrics that parents
and other self-appointed meddlers objected to - it was that JUNGLE BEAT!
(According to one survey, 34% of all juvenile delinquents had listened to
negro music at least once!  Q.E.D.!)

>The words do not add to, but actually detract from
>the sound. So let's drop the damn words and get back to pure music!
>
>OK, let's have the flames...
>
>Regards,
>Will Martin

Andrew W. Rogers


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com