Kurt Cobain Memorial thread

[Blurred Elevens]

Originally posted by Schmear
So what happens to Cheney in 2004?

He'll have his 80th heart attack and live the rest of his life on the Haliburton old folks retirement resort.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Il Eagle
Way to get your panties all wadded up there, bud.

You think that the "Yellow Shark" was more influential over popular music than "Lumpy Gravy", "Hot Rats", or "Sheik Yerbouti"??? I mean, the Rolling Stones are still recording, but was "Steel Wheels" as influential or significant as "Sticky Fingers" or "Let it Bleed"?

The bitchslap was earned:
1) By behaving exactly like the target of your criticisms.
2) By your complete misunderstanding of the natire (yes, intended) of my posts.

There is no rock persona that can begin to compare with Zappa'genious. His influence was widely felt thoughout the 80's and 90's.

And besides, I don't expect pond scum to understand. My opinion is a private issue, not some papal decree. I liked Nirvana and Cobain as well as New Order, The Cure, John Zorn, The Residents and Prince. I like a bunch of other music. But only Ellington can compare to FZ.

So, my apologies Ill Aigle. Feel free to sore sick.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
You're just going to have to believe it. Name one thing the Beatles did first, before any other band, and I'll post a video of myself listening to "I'm Happy Just to Dance With You" until my ears bleed. Should take about four go 'rounds.

This is just the very first thing on the internet I came across...I'll send you some cotton balls for your ears.

SGT. PEPPER
Never before in rock history had a single album created such an impression and evolutionary leap as the Beatles, Sgt. Pepper. Released on June 1, l967, in the United Kingdom and on July 2, l967 in the United States, the album took 700 hours of studio time ( compared with 12 for their first album) and cost twenty times what their first album did.7 Sgt. Pepper, sold 2.5 million copies within its first three months and stayed on the charts for a staggering 113 weeks. Since l967, it has sold over 15 million copies. Perhaps this album proved with irrefutability that rock music could be, and is, a true musical art form.

Before Sgt. Pepper, long-playing (LP) records were basically a collection of singles but with the concept album, an LP could be one musical work with different sections, much as a classical symphony. Sgt. Pepper blended songs and even modulated keys within the song link.

Within the first few weeks of recording, the Beatles had recorded "When I'm Sixty-four," "Strawberry Fields Forever," and "Penny Lane." George Martin states, "I was so knocked out with both 'Strawberry Fields' and 'Penny Lane,' that I knew the Beatles were on a new wave. They'd shed a lot of simplicity of even 'Revolver,' which had been a bit more complicated than 'Rubber Soul.' Now they were on a new plane."8

By mid-January of l967, EMI was anxious to release some new Beatles' singles; so the Beatles gave EMI "Strawberry Fields" and "Penny Lane". Towards the end of March, the Beatles added "When I'm Sixty-Four," and others originally titled, "Meter Rita," "A Day in the Life," "Good Morning, Good Morning, Good Morning," "She's Leaving Home," and "Sgt. Pepper's Blues."9

Alan Livingston, the head of Capitol Records, was invited to the Abbey Road studio to hear the Beatles latest efforts. As he was listening to playbacks of "A Day in the Life," Livingston recalls, "I was not prepared at all. I said, 'What is that? Who is that?' I couldn't believe it. I raised two feet off the floor."10

The magic in the grooves occurred, under extremely crude recording conditions as compared to recording technology of today. There were none of the electronic instruments used today, such as sampling machines or even synthesizers. The tracks were recorded on four-track machines similar to models available for today's home recordings.

George Martin remembers this recording process: "We had to invent our own tools rather like cave men, therefore it was much more exciting. The coming together of Pepper was a kind of eruption of combined genius...everybody sparked each other off."11 An example of this improvisation occurs during, "Lovely Rita." To obtain the "wobbly" piano sound, later to become a hallmark sound of psychedelia, Martin put a piece of adhesive tape on a tape machine capstan to achieve a distorted recording. Then Martin mixed that sound back into a direct piano signal thus creating the new effect.

Another example of the Beatles' creativity and experimentation occurred during the recording of "A Day in the Life." In actuality, this song was a combination of two songs, one by Lennon and the other, the middle section, by McCartney. According to Martin, "It was Paul's idea to have the big orchestral buildup. He was a bit naive in a way, because he said, 'Let's get a symphony orchestra in, and we'll just tell them to play anything.' I said 'You can't tell 90 people just to play anything, because it wouldn't sound very good.' We actually had to organize the chaos." Martin continues, " It really grew into something great. I think for me the most magical moment is, in fact, the beginning--the way the song emerges out of the reprise and cross-fades into the piano. It set up a mood. And John's voice coming in there--'I said the news today oh boy...' That still sends shivers down my spine."12 At the conclusion of the track, all four of the Beatles and Martin sat at three pianos and struck the same chord simultaneously. As the sound faded, the recording engineer kept inching up the level so the chord would float for a rock eternity.

Now that the tracks were almost completed, the album cover needed to be created. The Beatles had their uniforms made and it was suggested that the picture should look as if they might be posing after a concert even including a background crowd of people. Several lists of possible crowd people were drawn up, including long lists from John and Paul; George's list contained mostly gurus, and Ringo's list just said, "Whatever the other chaps say is fine."13

A final master list was created involving over sixty people, including Bob Dylan, Karl Marx, Marylin Monroe, a Snow White figurine, and even a large doll wearing a Rolling Stones T-shirt. After everything was planned and assembled, the album cover was shot.

Each track of the album was unique, yet each blended into the concept album philosophy. The first track, "Sgt. Pepper," is a lively rock introduction featuring the Beatles in a mono recording. Once Sgt. Pepper's band is introduced, the sounds break into full stereo.

Ringo sings the lead in, "A Little Help From My Friends." Originally titled, "Bad Finger Boogie," it was recorded last; even though it sounds musically innocent, Vice-President Spiro Agnew once tried to have the song banned because of the use of the word, "High."

"Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds," was banned by the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) because of the song's supposed drug reference. According to the composer, Lennon, the inspiration came from a picture that his son Julian drew.

One of the funkiest tracks was, "Getting Better." The song contains sharp rhythm guitar and a rhythm and blues feeling.

Paul plays harpsichord in, "Fixing a Hole," another controversial BBC banned song. George plays a wonderful guitar solo.

Perhaps a social commentary, "She's Leaving Home," is a melodrama with strings. Only Lennon and McCartney sing on the track.

The carnival-like music and lyrics off a circus poster combined to form, "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!" George Martin included randomly spliced organ sounds to create a whirling musical effect.

"Within You, Without You," had George Harrison singing lead. This song showcased Harrison's attraction for East Indian philosophy. No other Beatles were included on the track.

McCartney wrote, "When I'm Sixty-four," for his father. Ringo left spaces instead of fills and changed beats, at times stopping altogether to allow room for the song to evolve rhythmically. Ringo's sensitive drumming would set a new standard for rock percussion.

"Lovely Rita," has some fine bass playing by McCartney, and George Martin performs honky-tonk piano on the track. The bridge of the song contains a comb-and-paper trio of Harrison, Lennon, and McCartney.

A cornflake cereal television commercial inspired Lennon to compose, "Good Morning, Good Morning." The track contains barnyard sounds, including a chicken's cluck that is transformed by Martin to a guitar lick.

The "Sgt. Pepper," reprise is more hurried and uses different chords than the introductory track, but this track prepared the encore and solidified the single, long, musical idea.

The final track, "A Day in the Life," closes the album with a great surge of creative energy.

Recording Sessions:

The Beatles recording sessions were of great importance to their music and to the evolution of their art. After l966, the Beatles stopped touring and performing live because of the difficulties associated with touring and of the obstacles created by their more complex musical experimentation. Unlike other rock bands who rehearsed and then went to the recording studios to record their songs, the Beatles used their recording sessions as a musical laboratory, constantly experimenting and redefining their compositions.

Mark Lewisohn has compiled the Beatles' recording sessions (l962-l970) in his book, The Beatles: Recording Sessions.14 EMI Records made available to Mr. Lewisohn its unpublished documentation for every recording session the Beatles ever did. The following excerpts are from the preceding book.

[meatdrink9]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
edit: if Radiohead doesn't want to be critiqued, they shouldn't release music. It's part of the gig. When I release an album go ahead and tear it apart.

I didn't say radiohead didn't want to be critiqued I just said music is personal, but you seem to think you know what everybody else should like more than the people themselves. I was also saying your opinion about critics and your opinion about radiohead didn't jive. I just used an example I knew would be relelvant.

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki

2nd edit: erased the three paragraphs I had explaining why criticism, even by non-professionals, is acceptable, because I don't feel that much like getting into it. I will say it seems like this stems from an old grudge about something I said about Radiohead, so I don't see the point. People are entitled to say what they like about music if it sucks, and if they provide reasons, well all the better. You don't like the reasons, disagree. But you shouldn't just say it's great art because you relate to the dude who made it.

It's cool to be a critic. It's easier to tear something down than it is to create something yourself. I believe critics are needed, but I also think there is a vast abundance of people that think looking down their nose at something somehow makes them cool. If your only basis for slamming something is that you breathe too... then climb aboard the asshole wagon and spread that negativity as far as you can. I don't say it's art because I relate. I say it's ALL art. Some of it is good art and some of it isn't, but somebody else may like it so I've got no reason to tell him his taste sucks. (Other than to be an ass.) Less go piss on a parade.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by meatdrink9
I didn't say radiohead didn't want to be critiqued I just said music is personal, but you seem to think you know what everybody else should like more than the people themselves.

You DID say I was being hypocritical in critiquing Radiohead ('You pick apart minor aspects of their lives. Fuck you. Put your shit under a microscope...etc.'). The implication, that it was wrong of me to do so, is very clear. That makes no sense and is what I was pointing out to you. How have I ever said I know what anyone should like? I have explicitly said the opposite. Artistic merit doesn't have to match taste. There's plenty of music I really don't like but have a lot of respect for. There's music I enjoy listening to that I know is not 'great' music.

I was also saying your opinion about critics and your opinion about radiohead didn't jive. I just used an example I knew would be relelvant.

I never expressed an opinion about critics, which is why it doesn't matter whether or not I follow them. I simply pointed out that Radiohead relies a lot on their image to sell records, and part of that image comes from the rock press. My feelings about Radiohead are independent of critical reviews.

It's cool to be a critic. It's easier to tear something down than it is to create something yourself. I believe critics are needed, but I also think there is a vast abundance of people that think looking down their nose at something somehow makes them cool. If your only basis for slamming something is that you breathe too... then climb aboard the asshole wagon and spread that negativity as far as you can. I don't say it's art because I relate. I say it's ALL art. Some of it is good art and some of it isn't, but somebody else may like it so I've got no reason to tell him his taste sucks. (Other than to be an ass.) Less go piss on a parade.

I haven't tried to be cool by critiquing, and never thought liking (or criticizing) certain music should make someone cool.
I'll tell you that people have bashed Dave Matthews and Britney Spears (or someone like that) on this board a lot harder than I've bashed Radiohead, and no one raised any objection, so maybe I'm just guilty of having a bad opinion of the wrong band.
Are you pissed that we were saying bad things about Phil Collins, or is that OK while criticizing Radiohead is off limits?

[meatdrink9]

This didn't stem from radiohead. It came from people bashing Nirvana and generally bashing overall. It wasn't you I addressed initially. You addressed me. Look back through the posts. Whenever I get into an "intelligent conversation" with you it always takes a bunch of turns and none of my original questions get answered and by the end I'm not sure what point we're even arguing. It drives me nuts. This has nothing to do with Radiohead. Bash who ever you want if it makes you cool. Enlighten us all about why your opinions about music are greater than everybody elses. Bestow upon us your great knowledge and lead us not into shitty music. Live and let live. And until you yourself are great don't concern yourself with quantifying or not quantifying others as such.

[Blurred Elevens]

WHY ARGUE ABOUT MUSIC FOR FUCKS SAKE????!!! If it hits you in your heart and moves you some way, who cares? Do you have to prove to others it made you felt that way? Music is art, it's not something logical that your college professor can explain to you. If you feel it, you feel it. Please don't demean and disrespect it by trying to intellectualize it, that's retarded. It's like trying to explain being in Love, give it up.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Just because several songs are about cars does not a 'concept album' make. Still just a collection of singles, unless there's some big idea there that I've missed. I didn't consider Sinatra a rock artist, but I know that classifying and judging are bad things to do...But Beatles use of various instrumentation in rock music (harpsichord, french horn, sitar) does predate that of others. But being first wasn't really the point. I honestly don't think you can deny the Beatles changed how music was played by their contemporaries and later musicians--as soon as they released Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's most other bands changed their approaches, too.
Same as with Miles.
Their enormous influence is a result of how well they innovated.
I do look forward to reading Prof. Mcguffin's book, though.

MD, you didn't address me first, but made a general statement about why people shouldn't critique music. Go back and check. I didn't (and don't) agree. I told you my thoughts about music aren't 'to be cool', although you keep saying that. You telling me that I shouldn't be critical of music because I'm not 'great' (I thought you were against such classifications) is like me telling you that you can't have an opinion about Radiohead because you haven't produced great music. Enjoy Radiohead and don't critique music, but don't tell me that it's wrong to think otherwise or be critical of things.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
But Beatles use of various instrumentation in rock music (harpsichord, french horn, sitar) does predate that of others.

Consider the following on Freak Out, circa 1966:

Gene Estes--percussion
Eugene Di Novi--piano
Neil Le Vang--guitar
John Rotella--clarinet, sax
Kurt Reher--cello
Raymond Kelley--cello
Paul Bergstrom--cello
Emmet Sargeant--cello
Joseph Saxon--cello
Edwin V. Beach--cello
Arthur Maebe--french horn, tuba
George Price--french horn
John Johnson--tuba?
Carol Kaye--12-string guitar
Virgil Evans--trumpet
David Wells--trombone
Kenneth Watson--percussion
Plas Johnson--sax, flute
Roy Caton--copyist
Carl Franzoni--voice
Vito--voice
Kim Fowley--(Featured on hypophone)
Benjamin Barrett--contractor
David Anderle
+
Motorhead Sherwood--noises
Mac Rebennack (aka Dr John)--piano
Paul Butterfield
Les McCann--piano
Jeannie Vassoir--(the voice of Cheese)

And perhaps the following:
Some nobody tenor sax player did a tune called "India".
Also:
The first major rock group to record a raga number was the Yardbirds. Their song "Heart Full of Soul," released in June of 1965, was to have featured a sitar, though the released version has Jeff Beck imitate the sound with fuzz guitar. The song is available on the The Yardbirds' Greatest Hits Volume One: 1964-1966 (Rhino, 1986).
In October of '65, the Kinks released their single "See My Friends." Again, no Indian instruments were used, but the sound is clearly influenced by Indian modalities, considerably moreso than the Yardbirds' hit had been. The song can be heard on the reissue Kinks-Size Kinkdom (Rhino, 1988).
In addition:
The Byrds do deserve credit for turning George Harrison on to the sitar. According to McGuinn, Crosby had watched Jim Dickson produce sessions for Ravi Shankar at World Pacific Studios, and became an ardent fan of Shankar's music. When the Beatles were visiting LA in the fall of 1965, a large group of Byrds and Beatles were dropping acid in a hot tub when Crosby demonstrated some Shankar-esque licks on his guitar to a fascinated Harrison.*.


So that factoid regarding originality is a bit flimsy.

But being first wasn't really the point.

Darn. You keep changing the rules.

I honestly don't think you can deny the Beatles changed how music was played by their contemporaries and later musicians--as soon as they released Revolver and Sgt. Pepper's most other bands changed their approaches, too.

While the Beatles were influenced by others and did a smidge of influencing themselves, they can be credited with being the most heavily marketed. Again, a conduit of the music of the time, though not necessarily the originators.

Same as with Miles.
Their enormous influence is a result of how well they innovated.

Personally, I think comparing Miles Davis to the Beatles is like comparing Anna Purna to Mt. Washington. But hey, this is the internet.

Aside from all the bickering for bickerings sake, the point is well taken that MD9 holds up acheivements in art and ignores the failings, an infinitely honorable position.

[Innominatus]

Originally posted by Buster Highmen

Motorhead Sherwood--noises

Heh. With a name like that, he would have been in charge of "noises."



Edit:

One sidebar/nitpick: as for the innovation of introducing sitars and raga instrumentation to the stew of early rock fusion, I think the Paul Butterfield crew predated the Yardbirds (but not Zappa). But then, as with the examples listed before, it all depends on your definition of rock 'n roll.

Whatever. The nature of music is to be interpretive.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Quick tell all those musicians who claim to have been influenced by the Beatles that they're the victims of a conspiracy. They were actually listening to a Beach Boys single, or Zappa and Paul Butterfield. All those poor, deluded musicians...even when the Beatles were first, somehow they weren't because they stole someone else's idea (if only the Yardbirds hadn't broken their sitar strings!).
(And John Coltrane, my favorite sax-man, is rarely included in the ranks of rock musicians)

Sorry, there was no rule change for me, I played Walter's game of finding something 'done first'. If you reeeeed you'll see my point was about influence before Walt asked the 'first' question. I didn't set out to play the 'first' game, but I'm a sucker for stuff like that (and still want to see him dance in circles). However, on that point there's a list at http://music.northwestern.edu/classe...tml/record.htm
that covers it nicely, as far as studio stuff is concerned. Enough firsts for any second rate, inconsequential band like the Beatles.

Subject two: Hemingway and Faulkner just stole tricks of earlier writers, and used good marketing, to achieve their prominence...

[Dexter Rutecki]

Here I was thinking Anna Purna is some girl Buster used to know...

http://www.cs.wpi.edu/~kal/nepal/annapurna/abcme.jpg

[meatdrink9]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki

MD, you didn't address me first, but made a general statement about why people shouldn't critique music. Go back and check. I didn't (and don't) agree. I told you my thoughts about music aren't 'to be cool', although you keep saying that. You telling me that I shouldn't be critical of music because I'm not 'great' (I thought you were against such classifications) is like me telling you that you can't have an opinion about Radiohead because you haven't produced great music. Enjoy Radiohead and don't critique music, but don't tell me that it's wrong to think otherwise or be critical of things.

This is what I said first and this what you addressed me about:

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody can tell you what you to like. Music grabs different people for different reasons. I think a lot of people were able to identify with Kurt and that helped them feel that their problems weren't their own. I know I've identified with other bands on this same level. We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

RIP Kurt



The point I was making was instead of being a critic and spending your day shitting on things...go do something yourself. Everyone is entitiled to their opinion, but the way they share it can be major problem.

You feel that if anyone creates anything they need to be criticized for doing so. That's probably why so few people create anything. If somebody tries to do something great let's pull them back down with us before they can get there. Not everybody makes brilliant work their first try and creative people can be sensitive about their work. I know tons of artists operate from a place of insecurity, but they still put something out there which is more than you the asshole behind the proverbial ted stryker alias will ever do.

Paraphrased from you: "If they didn't want to be criticized they shouldn't have created it.."

You've got a kid right. Let's apply your critic mentality to this issue. So let's say you're walking down Central Park and some asshole comes up and critiques your creation "You know what, that is the ugliest child I have ever seen. She is going to have a long and lonely life. I have an opinion. It's my duty to share when it isn't asked for. If you didn't want unsoliticed opinions about your ugly child being thrown in your face you should never have reproduced."

Then let's take that mentality for a trip to the clothing store. The person shouts: "My god these clothes suck ass. Nevermind that the store is full of people enjoying their purchases. Let's stop and piss all over their day." After all we're critics and we have opinions.

Now let's take your mentality to Washington. "Instead of actually doing my job today and helping America or humanity as a whole I think I'll focus my efforts on criticizing my opponent. Then my opponent will have to counter these arguments and won't be able to do his job. Instead of either of us getting anything done that really matters we'll spend our terms criticizing and jostling for power. You know I've got an opinion and everybody needs to hear it."

Are you beginning to get it? Or will you now find one random line of this to quote and the argument will shift to something about Washington and the point will be missed again?

[jibij]

interesting thread.

i've always been kinda baffled by people declaring music or any kind of creative medium as "great" or "not great". that's just not quantifiable.

originality is quantifiable, mass appeal is quantifiable. you might even be able to pigeon-hole it into a category. nobody has the singular authority to determine any piece of creative works' worth. that's not why it was created. it was an expression of the artist. most artists really don't care whether you like it or not. (unless we're talking about pop-music money factories, which isn't art but music manufatured to appeal to a specific demographic)

[The Reverend Floater]

It doesn't matter what you say: Dex is going to argue and twist arguments into pretzels in order to "prove" you're wrong.

"hemingway stole tricks from earlier writers"


Thanks for the coffee on the keyboard, boss.

[tonghands]

"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points
out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds
could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who
is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and
sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes
up short again and again, because there is no effort
without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great
enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a
worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the
triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he
fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his
place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who
knew neither victory nor defeat." - Teddy Roosevelt

[acostiga]

i was thinking about this last night and it popped into my head that altough i am not into her music, style or even looks (anymore) that madonna was pretty darn influential during the 1990's when she was in her prime. yes, she basically just popularized many trends which were already on the radar screen- but nevertheless she sold tons of music and had great influence over the distribution of certain aspects of culture into the homes of middle america. yes, i'm beating a dead horse here. no, i'm not a madonna fan. sorry.

[Kurt Cobain]

So I’m sitting up here with my friends Jerry, Jimi, Easy E and Mr. Lennon (he’s an arrogant fuck, we have to call him “Mr.”) and we get such a laugh at these little debates. None of us were the great-genius-second-coming-of-Christ that everyone has made us out to be. Do you people actually think that we “invented” a certain genre (grunge, gangsta rap) or started a certain type of musical insurrection? Pffft. Well, except for FZ and the Wah-Wah or Les P. and that multi track thing. We all picked up little bits and pieces along the way. Like the shit we listened to growing up, shit we borrowed (stole) from the less fortunate and the shit we just stumbled upon after a 7 day [insert drug of choice] binge.

If I wasn’t dead, and was a young blonde headed chick with a nice rack, I’d jump on the Britney Spears gravy train too! Hmmm, does that mean that she is one of the most influential artists of the new millennium? How many no talent bimbo’s have come from her musical womb?

We all decided the other day, if We hade it to do all over again, We’d all put our money in lottery tickets. Obviously, We were all blessed with good luck, because if Jimi was white, he wouldn’t have got a second look (no racial slam intended). If Jerry didn’t have a bunch of dope smoking hippies for friends and he lived in Kansas instead of SF (you get the picture)

We all agree that Radiohead blows, why do you think I killed myself, I hate it when you get a song stuck in your head “I’m a creep, yada, yada...”

I need to go get high now.

[acostiga]

as i was wading through the pages and pages of posts which accumulated in the time that i left the cubicle and returned once again, somebody had mentioned something about the question of what makes "good" art. a worthy question....

like it was mentioned, as far as my two cents go, "good" art is whatever influences or "touches" somebody. tastes and preferences are as individual as the snowflakes in a blizzard. all of this still doesn't explain why my idea to wed the flavor of nacho cheese and the popularity of chicken wings has not yet taken off and become a taste sensation sweeping across this nation...

[tonghands]

I was working in music stores and playing in bands when Nirvana hit it big, and I will say that thousands of bands all over the country were started in response. Mostly young kids who probably never thought they could be in a band until they heard Nirvana on the radio. These kids hadn't heard bands like the Sex Pistols, Husker Du, Dead Kennedys, and all the other great punk bands, it was all new to them.

They aren't the first band to have this effect, but there haven't been many. Regardless of what you think of their music, anyone who can have this effect is pretty damn cool as far as I'm concerned.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by The Reverend Floater
It doesn't matter what you say: Dex is going to argue and twist arguments into pretzels in order to "prove" you're wrong.

Not at all. MD is still hammering at the idea of not criticizing anything--as if randomly declaring to someone that their kid is ugly is the equivalent of saying a record isn't any good. WTF? If my kid one day puts a record out for commercial release I hope she'll figure out that some people might not like it, and even (gasp) criticize it. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you're so taken aback by this, I think your defensiveness shows something about how you truly feel about what's been criticized. You can tell me that Hendrix, the Beatles, or Herbie Hancock suck and it won't bother me a bit because I know how good they are. Seems like a different scene if Radiohead is on the block, though.

It's bullshit to say that I'm switching the terms of the debate (yeah, I'm going to talk about politicians now, right)--since the start this has been about the place of criticism in music, and I argue that it's perfectly acceptable. MD thinks otherwise.

[Buster Highmen]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Quick tell all those musicians who claim to have been influenced by the Beatles that they're the victims of a conspiracy. They were actually listening to a Beach Boys single, or Zappa and Paul Butterfield. All those poor, deluded musicians...even when the Beatles were first, somehow they weren't because they stole someone else's idea (if only the Yardbirds hadn't broken their sitar strings!).
(And John Coltrane, my favorite sax-man, is rarely included in the ranks of rock musicians)

Sorry, there was no rule change for me,

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
But Beatles use of various instrumentation in rock music (harpsichord, french horn, sitar) does predate that of others.

This statement is false. Do you get it Dex? Or does the empty righteousness of your blood boil?

If you had said something like:
But Beatles popularization of various instrumentation in rock music (harpsichord, french horn, sitar) does predate that of others.

I might sit down and shut up. But given that my philanthropy with regard to your need to argue endlessly about meaningless ploperty is not quite used up, I thought I'd point that out.

No one is saying the Beatles weren't influential. They were extremely influential, but they may not have originated certain forms. They marketed those forms and became the conduit for the baby boomers beyond anyone's success.

I played Walter's game of finding something 'done first'.

You thought you did, but as I've pointed out you didn't. You are confusing "done first" with "popularized first". Very different.

If you reeeeed you'll see my point was about influence before Walt asked the 'first' question. I didn't set out to play the 'first' game, but I'm a sucker for stuff like that (and still want to see him dance in circles). However, on that point there's a list at http://music.northwestern.edu/classe...tml/record.htm
that covers it nicely, as far as studio stuff is concerned. Enough firsts for any second rate, inconsequential band like the Beatles.

OK, I'll buy the influence remark. But if you read my remarks regarding your statements, you'll make that deep observation that in fact, you didn't refer to influence, but execution.

The sad little vignette regarding the Beatles being inconsequential is below you. Below me.

Subject two: Hemingway and Faulkner just stole tricks of earlier writers, and used good marketing, to achieve their prominence...

More silly remarks.
At the root of the issue was your remark that Nirvana was:

Yeah, he was. Just a singer in a below average band that got lucky. I don't know where you were, but none of the people that I knew (who cared about music and had never listened to Milli Bolton Madonna Big Stuff) really thought that much of Nirvana. Loud, 4 chord music with a lot of distortion and bad singing--it had already been done a million times before.

So while Nirvana may not have been original, neither were the Beatles. But they both popularized a styles of music and were undeniably a conduit for an ethos of the time.

That's something for which both parties deserve some respect.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Originally posted by Walter Sobchak
I like to see you post dumb shit someone else told you about music, but I suspect you'll keep it up without any more encouragement.

I haven't posted anything anyone told me--I found something that answered a question you asked, and you invented some nonsense in response.
I like the logic that if someone else shares my opinion it points out how stupid I'm being. I don't take it as a bad sign that I'm in the company of guys like Jimi and Clapton, and thousands who have studied the subject, who see the Beatles for the musical force that they were. Maybe you're right, and your opinion trumps all others, but I don't find it convincing.

As for your comments about Jesus, well, I think that's a different thread.

[The AD]

Originally posted by Kurt Cobain
So I’m sitting up here with my friends Jerry, Jimi, Easy E and Mr. Lennon (he’s an arrogant fuck, we have to call him “Mr.”)

Well, there you have it. Proof that Jim Morrison is still alive, because he wasn't in that list.

[meatdrink9]

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
Not at all. MD is still hammering at the idea of not criticizing anything--as if randomly declaring to someone that their kid is ugly is the equivalent of saying a record isn't any good. WTF? If my kid one day puts a record out for commercial release I hope she'll figure out that some people might not like it, and even (gasp) criticize it. There's nothing wrong with that.
If you're so taken aback by this, I think your defensiveness shows something about how you truly feel about what's been criticized. You can tell me that Hendrix, the Beatles, or Herbie Hancock suck and it won't bother me a bit because I know how good they are. Seems like a different scene if Radiohead is on the block, though.

It's bullshit to say that I'm switching the terms of the debate (yeah, I'm going to talk about politicians now, right)--since the start this has been about the place of criticism in music, and I argue that it's perfectly acceptable. MD thinks otherwise.

Continue to twsit things around Dex. Tell me again what it was I was saying and what I should like. Again below I've pasted my original statement where I made none of those claims.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Nobody can tell you what you to like. Music grabs different people for different reasons. I think a lot of people were able to identify with Kurt and that helped them feel that their problems weren't their own. I know I've identified with other bands on this same level. We "the critics" need to shut our holes and give props to those to put something out there and create rather than sit back and complain about those people who are actually doing something.

RIP Kurt


Again this has nothing to do with Radiohead. Did you even read my last post? Here it is again to help:


The point I was making was instead of being a critic and spending your day shitting on things...go do something yourself. Everyone is entitiled to their opinion, but the way they share it can be a major problem.

You feel that if anyone creates anything they need to be criticized for doing so. That's probably why so few people create anything. If somebody tries to do something great let's pull them back down with us before they can get there. Not everybody makes brilliant work their first try and creative people can be sensitive about their work. I know tons of artists operate from a place of insecurity, but they still put something out there which is more than you the asshole behind the proverbial ted stryker alias will ever do.


Until you're ready to come and talk about the real of issue in my posts don't bother posting again. Pretend I'm saying something else to try and dig yourself out of a hole. Whatever. Everybody seems to get it but you. I'm sure you get it, but don't want to admit it. Tonghand's Teddy Roosevelt post was spot on. Why are you the only that can't absorb this concept?