A Lark Ascending

Gary, Check out 'Spin' in Newcastle. They're a rock merchant but stock the Davis boxes - I got 'Silent Way' from them at considerably less than HMV. They have 'Jack Johnson' on their web page but no price yet. http://www.spincds.com/

I think MacDonald's point is that in the 60s amateurs (in the pop music world) took over from the professionals - your Lennons and Jaggers and Dylans as opposed to the general distinction between performer and the writers on Tin Pan Alley or the Brill Building. Had the Lennon/MacCartney's and Dylans gone into the Brill building as writers as opposed to being writer/performers then I'm sure 'Help' or 'Like a Rolling Stone' would sound very different. But there is only so far you can go, so much you can do from an autodidactic starting point. The first generation of amateurs had a blank page. Each successive generation (generations are very brief in pop music!) has found it harder and harder to carve out a new way of doing things. The biggest UK band of the last ten years, Oasis, built everything on remodelling a sixties approach. You are right about the role of the industry. It strikes me that one of the reasons the sixties music explosion was possible was because the industry was caught completely on the hop. They hadn't a clue about what would and what would not sell but knew there was a potential fortune to be made. The result was a brief window when all manner of experimentation was getting out on major labels. The 'stuffed shirts' often gave some very inexperienced people their head in the hope they had their ear to the street. By the late 70s the suits in the industry had regained control and knew exactly how to package this music.* They've been upset occasionally since but are much quicker at finding how to process any musical rebellion. Punk, Grunge, Rap et all have been very rapidly turned into something very marketable, very quickly. (*and in many cases the mavericks became the suits - Geffen, Branson etc).

I have a hard time disagreeing with someone who says that, with over 500 CDs, I have enough to listen to. But of course, I want something else to listen to. Agree. Its not so much the buying and owning. Its the hearing of something new that keeps me buying. You may as well argue that you've eaten 500 types of food so there's no point in trying anything else.

I love 'On the Beach'...my favourite along with 'Zuma'...though I too could never understand its reputation for being 'difficult.' To my ears it takes the tunefulness, mainly (though not exclusively) acoustic sound of 'After the Goldrush' and Harvest' but does it more carefully - the two earlier records are great but sound thrown together. 'On the Beach' has a unity about it...and a love the guitar on the title track. Neil Young is a classic case of where squabbling over whether a performer is good or not breaks down. I know exactly why many people can't get on with him - some hate his whiney vocals, others hate his eratic and deliberately cussed turns whilst others find his soft-rock expeditions difficult to take to. But if you warm to his way of doing things, well... He's produced his fair share of turkeys over the years. But I can't think of many people who've been able to put out as many albums that have thrilled me over thirty years. Why, I'm even enjoying 'Greendale'!

I used to eat way to much sweet stuff - chocolate, biscuits etc. I'd open a packet of biscuits and just would not stop until the packet was empty even though I was feeling increasingly sick. So 2.5 years back I went cold turkey on chocolate and sweet biscuits. Havn't touched either since and don't miss them. I still eat the odd piece of cake or pastry; and sometimes buy a few wine gums or liquorice allsorts but my craving for them is well diminished. Age or self-control? I'm not sure. ********* Now if I could exert the same discipline over CD buying I'd be in the world's wealthiest lists by next year!

I took a lifetimes dislike of Alfred Brendel about 20 years back when reading an interview where he said he only studied and played about six composers - Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Lizst and a couple of other because they say everything that needs to be said. How imperious! I know people who always go on holiday to the same place. No problem with that. They know it intimately, get to know the local people and ways. I'm more of one to go somewhere completely different every year. I'm like that with music. I have my musical home...artists, genres that I love deeply and have listened to for years. But I need my regular expeditions into other climes to keep my ears fresh (currently Scandanavian folk music).

I think I agree with JSngry. The way I'd put it is that there is 'The Blues' as in the musical form; and there is 'The Blues' meaning a depth of feeling communicated through that form. As JSngry says every culture has its blues...I like the Lear analogy. Whether you're talking Hungarian peasants or hardanger fiddle players from Norway or Mongolian throat singers or top twenty singers there are some who just have that ability to set your spine alight. Now that is not unique to 'The Blues.' There is a tendency to go all mystical on 'The Blues' as if the feeling is something quite unique. Nope. Its the same feeling that some Irish piper is feeling lamenting the fleeing of the Wild Geese. Its the blues format that is unique. And what a format for expressing powerful feeling in the right hands! When you listen to a blues record you might just hear a musician working through a particular structure but having that ability to create deep feeling that leads to a memorable experience; or you might get someone just running through the choirds and devices with no feeling at all. And you'll get exactly the same in every other form of music. The deep feeling is universal. It becomes 'The Blues' when expressed through a particular style. Which, to get back to the start, makes me feel that jazz does not have to contain the Blues format to have meaning; it can express its depth through some other source, borrowing from some other culture or coming from within the musician. Listen to some of Jan Garbareks Sami based music and you'll hear a depth of feeling the equal of any blues-based jazz (well, you will if you're open to it!). Of course its understandable that some should find the power of blues based jazz so absorbing that they feel no need to listen beyond. But jazz is happening beyond and it has just as much legitimacy.

Far out, man!

Simon, MacDonald's argument on the decline in popular music (and remember he is talking about mass popular music) is far mor complex than my brief mention - I'm not doing him justice. Essentially he argues that the explosion of 60s pop music was a result of a newly affluent youth getting off the leash and running straight into the conformism of the 50s - the friction created a vibrant and innovative popular music where amateurs were able to become the dominating force as opposed to the professional domination of the music industry (nothing new there). In his view this gave ten or so years of highly creative music before the law of diminishing returns set in. The lack of professionalism that had been the very heart of the 60s became an albatross thereafter and the emergence of new musical technology requiring even less skill ultimately led to a music unable to break out into its own creativity. The result has been a music increasingly reliant on nostalgia, constantly referencing back to the 60s. I'm always suspicious of 'things ain't what they used to be arguments' and this one seems a bit too all-embracing to be convincing. But my heart hears echoes in what he writes. He obviously explains it much better in the essay 'The People's Music' in the book. Jazzmoose, MacDonald also picks up on your point. He talks of three types of listener - those who focus on the music, those who focus on lyrics or words and those who want the lifestyle. Everyone has elements of all three but the balance varies from one individual to another. I know I can relate to that. I've always been mainly responsive to the music; I frequently stop listening to the words after a couple of verses! I think I'd throw in a fourth category and that is people to whom the most important quality of music is its dancebility. I've known many people to whom dancing to music is a way of life but who have little or no record collection. As for those to whom the lifestyle is paramount - well you only need look at every musical craze with associated fashion to see that in action. It's in us all to a point but I suspect most people on a board like this have it tuned way down!

I've never been too sure what 'strong character' actually means. Over here we're for ever told that things like 'team games' are 'character building.' The implication is that those who don't care for them (or are, like me, too physically weedy and uncoordinated to ever get properly involved) have 'weak characters.' It strikes me that a 'strong character' is someone who overtly and loudly demonstrates the assessors own particular value system. I doubt that Charlie Parker or Jerry Garcia would have been considered 'strong characters' at school! I'd suggest people who don't exhabit the signs of 'strong character' are perhaps just less prone to putting their character out on display at every available opportunity. Agree very much with Dr J. In reality even 'omnivores' have their favourite munchies which they know intimately!

My thoughts entirely. Someone with a singleminded focus on one area of music will obviously know that music in much greater depth and probably hear things the more magpie listener might miss. On the other hand he or she is going to lack the wider context of the music. Hearing other music can often send you back to your core interest refreshed and able to hear new things. I certainly take issue with MacDonald's idea that a 'strong character' will have 'selective tastes' and 'exclusive sympathies.'

No. I'm copying from a stand alone CD copier, not a computer. Thanks, I think I understand the distinction now.

I was struck by these sentences in Ian MacDonald's 'The People's Music' (Pimlico, 2003): "While, now, it's common to claim a catholic range of taste, it's doubtful whether such tastes are as powerfully charged as narrower, more sectarian responses …. A certain dilution in response is an almost inevitable consequence of inclusivity …The corollary of exclusivity is concentration. Those with very strong tastes will be more focused in their implementation than those who like a little bit of everything. It is, moreover, typical of strongly defined character that it manifests relatively selective tastes and exclusive sympathies." The context of the remarks is an essay where MacDonald is trying to explain what he sees as the deskilling of popular music over the last thirty years. I like MacDonald's writing as a rule but as a fundamentalist eclectic find myself in disagreement with him on this one. What do you think?

I'm not totally up on this. Am I right that what copyright control does is stops you making more than one copy (i.e. the copy won't copy)? I noticed this when making a compilation CDR. I tried to make a copy of the copy for a friend and some of the tracks would not copy. The problem was overcome by switching to analogue record. Can't say I noticed any quality difference. Or is this copyright control something different?

I'd join those recommending the early Caravan records. They've recently been reissued in remastered form with a lot of extra material. I saw them three times back in the early 70s (You can hear me clapping up in the balcony on the Drury Lane record) - two great concerts, one less so when the membership changes were losing the original feel of the group. Caravan had a great gift for poppy melody which they could absorb into wider structures - with Richard and Dave Sinclair they had outstanding musicians who could carry longer improvisations and the occasional use of Jimmy Hastings (a full time jazz player who guested on his brothers records) on flute and sax had a huge effect on the sunny, dreamy feel of much of their music. 'In the Land of Grey and Pink' and 'If I Could Do It All Over Again, I'd Do It All Over You' just epitomise the early 70s for me.

Jazz history seems to have been sorted out quite neatly. You can trace a linear story...yes, lots of sidetracks too...which makes it relatively easy to find your bearings. I've read two or three blues histories and always got totally lost. All those field trips into this and that region coming up with micro-styles. Outside of the really big names it can be really hard to get your head round. Which, of course, is no comment on the quality of the music. But might explain why there is some sort of system in my jazz collection where my much smaller blues collection seems quite random.

Egos. Mmm! The mirror, old chap, the mirror! This is a nice board, Mr h. By and large people are polite to one another and respectful. Yes we all have opinions but most posters try and express them with a degree of humility. Your posts appear to be based on the illusion that your opinions are 'right' and that you are required to ram them down people's throats. What is really strange is that you can be so unpleasantly dogmatic about what is essentially pop music! Great fun, hugely enjoyable but hardly worth fighting over. Lose the hectoring tone! Actually, I suspect you might well be a wind up merchant. Not normal behaviour. Anyway, show some respect to your elders, man. Have you not noticed that I'm a Veteran Groover! Kids today, I don't know...

That the blues gave birth to jazz is undeniable (well, it was one of the parents!). That it was central to its shaping in its first fifty years, equally so. That it still lies at the heart of much contemporary jazz, no argument. That anyone interested in jazz might also gain much from the listening to the blues outside of jazz, seems fair to me (I just received the box of Newport recordings from the early 60s today - it might have been these artists second wind but it sounds pretty wonderful to these ears). But that jazz has to contain the blues or that jazz musicians who choose to avoid it are lacking something. We're into jazz mythology there. There are other ways of expressing the depth of feeling that the blues has given jazz. Choosing to leave aside the musical structures associated with the blues is not a denial of the form or its influence, just another way to rejuvenate and help the music expand in the many directions its been going. In that evolution there is room for blues based and non blues based jazz. They needn't be mutually exclusive. They both owe their origin to earlier jazz and the blues from which it partially emerged. I can understand many people being unhappy with jazz that does not wear its blues on its sleeve. But be a bit careful in suggesting it is consequently lacking in something.

Along with Ken Clarke there's John Prescott. I'm not sure if they are celebrities...though given the state of politics maybe that's exactly what they are! The strange thing about these two is that Prescott (a Labour man) is the trady whilst Clarke (a Tory) is pretty up to date with his listening. I believe Clarke has been doing a programme on Radio 4 about jazz recently - havn't heard it. Isn't Julie Christie a jazz fan too? She's never sat at my table!

Now take the next step and realise that what you are putting forward as the 'true' this or that is actually your own very biased opinion! You're not so much trying to open up 'closed minds' as demanding that other minds fall in line with your particular mind which appears to be equally as closed. No need to fight about who is or isn't best, who is or are not the true 'innovators.' Ultimately its all just personal taste and trying to ridicule others tastes is the stuff of the Grammar School* Sixth Form common room (sorry, not quite sure what the equivalent is in the US system). God, I remember these 'Tull are better than Hawkwind' tussles from 30 years ago! Caravan, Henry Cow, Hatfield, Yes, Egg, Genesis, Mahavishnu, Van Der Graaf...all names I recall with great fondness from the 70s and still gain great pleasure from today. But in the grand musical scheme of things they are all pretty small fry when it comes to 'innovation.' Play who you like because you like them, not because they are 'important.' Keep your personal tastes in perspective. I have a downer on Wakeman but I'd never pretend that it was anything more than a personal dislike. As for Camel.....*%$£^&*&^%$5^6&&!!!!!!!

In a bar in Norway you say? I wonder how many people watching went bankrupt! £4 a pint, for goodness sake!

Most 'political' songs tend to be over-simplistic. Much as I love 'Ohio' as a performance (and the outrage comes across impressively) the lyrics are pretty naff. It wasn't for nothing that Dylan abandonned his 'finger-pointing' songs for something more ambiguous. One political song that really works through the obliqueness of its imagery is Elvis Costelo's 'Shipbuilding'. The Falklands War pilloried by understatement. The Robert Wyatt version is breathtaking. There's an English writer in the folk world, Maggie Holland, who has produced some outstanding songs with contemporary relevance. 'The Perfumes of Arabia' was written in response to the first Gulf War - the perfumes in question being the smell of petrol on our hands in the filling station. Martin Carthy does it brilliantly. But her masterpiece is a song called 'A Place Called England', a head on confrontation with the Right who would have us fill in the Channel Tunnel to keep out the 'foreigners'; and a wonderful celebration of England as an evolving culture, enriched by all who make their homes here. June Tabor's version has my spine tingling and eyes watering every time.

I never felt Wakeman was more than an 'add on' to the original group. Yes, I think dropping the keyboard player could well be a way to keep the rejuvenated group fresh. Without keyboards to fill up the sound they've got to try harder with the writing. 'Magnification' shows they can still do it...I have some of those tunes whizzing round my head for days after playing the disc. Just like in the olden days!!!! I'll give a listen to one or two of these more recent discs. I did by 'Open Your Eyes' when it came out and found it arid. What made me take the risk with 'Magnification' was reading lots of reviews that were equally disappointed with 'OYE.' It was nice to know if wasn't just me.

Charlie Haden did a piece called 'For a Free Angola' on his album, 'Closeness.' I think he got arrested and deported from Portugal in the early/mid-70s. His Ballad of the Fallen was a response to US policy in Central America in the early 80s. And, of course, Liberation Music Orchestra was a marvellous evocation of the late 60s - especially the free-form depiction of the '68 Democratic Convention.

I stand corrected! Bought a copy of 'Magnification' to take on holiday and played it on several long drives. What a glorious record! The melodies and key changes are just like the old days and the arrangements excellent. Lyrics as silly as ever but never mind Maybe this is the answer. No keyboard player! No synth washes or squiggles! Very enjoyable. (Anderson was interviewed in The Guardian a few weeks back and sounds as daft as ever...have a look here for a laugh. It's worth it for his thoughts on baby ducks!: http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/st...1008449,00.html 'The Idea is to Unravel the Onion' indeed!)