Do narrower musical tastes equal greater passion?

[Michael Fitzgerald]

Re: the food analogy - just because you've eaten 500 different types of food doesn't mean you have all that still lining the shelves of your pantry or refrigerator (or the walls of your living room). If you want to follow that approach, you buy, listen, sell. I certainly don't - I buy, listen, buy - and I'm unapologetic.

I think it was Paul McCartney who said that the Beatles were the last group NOT to be influenced by the Beatles - very perceptive. They had everything *else* to listen to. Afterwards, the Beatles became such a focal point that in one way or another just about everyone was imitating them. Pop came of age and some people never bothered to go beyond it to investigate jazz, blues, classical, folk, country, experimental, world music. I think the best pop music came from artists who did explore past their garden gate (bringing us back to the idea of broad musical tastes being important). Agree about the eager clueless labels in the 1960s and also about the artist development process which has been abandoned.

Still feel that the later generations have been working from a limited palette, musically. Because the Beatles had a relatively emptier canvas, their influences were more interesting. Sorry, but a punk band nowadays whose influences go all the way back to the Sex Pistols is highly unlikely to produce anything that's going to move past that. Particularly if there is any kind of attempt being made to market them. The idea of marketing to the masses almost insists on dumbing down things.

As far as I could ever tell, folks like Oasis never scratched the surface of 1960s bands to find out what *those* bands were listening to, what they were striving for. Or if they did, they didn't seem to have the wherewithal to do anything with this knowledge, because I've never heard anything from them that pushed the artistic boundaries the way The Who or The Kinks or The Zombies did.

In many cases, the kids ARE less talented, but I agree that the corporations have latched onto this and made that acceptable - even admirable. I used to teach students musical analysis and we'd take apart a pop tune of their choice and they would be amazed at how rudimentary it was ("Is that it?"). Ditto for the production/execution. Once I took 5 minutes to program a drum machine and set up a loop, it came very close to what is behind a huge amount of dance music today. Of course, that doesn't mean that someone who can do that will immediately have a number one hit - because it's NOT about the music (or lack thereof). It's about the image and the marketing and the networking. The music is largely irrelevant.

Mike

[Jim Alfredson]

I'm reminded of what Branford Marsalis said once in a master class at Michigan State. He was talking about influences and traditions. He said something along these lines:

"The problem is, for instance, you have all these bands that listened to Led Zepplin and they want to sound like them. But they don't go back and listen to what Led Zepplin was listening to... they don't go back to the blues. So instead of something cool, you wind up with Whitesnake."

Hehe... Whitesnake.

They suck.

[Brad]

You need to keep things broad. Narrowing of interests also lead to narrowings of the mind. I suppose it's good to be a completist but not at the expense of other parts of your listening spectrum. I go on binges where I only want to listen to one particular artist. What happens is that after awhile you then lose interest in that person so you have to mix it up. Since this for me is paritally learning and broadening the horizons, to narrow your interests is to cut yourself off from learning about other things. Over specialization (unless you're a professional in a field, where specialization may be necessary) will not you allow to gain knowledge and increase awareness.

[Jazzmoose]

Okay, this is going into a whole new direction. Personally, I feel that interest in where one's music came from, and having the motivation to do the research to seek out it's origins, and how it relates to other music, is what seperates the true music fan from your run of the mill listener. I don't think you have to have an in depth knowledge of all types of music, but you certainly have to know where your music fits into the scheme of things, and how it has been influenced by other forms of music. I always questioned rock fans when I was growing up who had no knowledge or interest in blues, R&B, C&W, etc.; it was almost as if they thought rock had sprung forth fully formed from nowhere. Sort of a big bang theory, I guess...

[A Lark Ascending]

I just noticed in this month's issue of 'Mojo' that Ian MacDonald - the writers whose ideas I was raising at the start of this thread - died in August.

Brits of a certain age will recall him as one of the most intelligent writers from the glory days of the NME in the early 70s. Most will know him for his excellent 'Revolution in the Head', a blow by blow account of the Beatles output. He also wrote an intriguing book on Shostakovich. 'The People's Music' - his most recent collection - is a thought provoking collection, highly recommended to anyone with an interest in the popular music of the last 50 years.

A sad loss.