1974, Sheepshead Bay. I'm listening to the new Eagles record and "Already Gone" is just about over. My stepmother says, "God that's awful." But it wasn't said like a wicked stepmother. She loved music. Al Green, Buffalo Springfield, The Rascals and The Doors were some of her favorites. She just really hated "Already Gone." Actually, I don't love that song, or for that matter any of the Eagles "rockers." I prefer the band harmonizing over country ballads.
1980, Sheepshead Bay. I am listening to the new Rush album "Permanent Waves." Everyone in Sheepshead Bay was, as we were all getting prepped for the band's four night run at The Palladium. About a minute into the second song, "Free Will," my stepmother says, "God that's awful!"
True story.
There is a story popping up lately, in the wake of the upcoming Rush reunion that I had not heard about. Apparently, there is a feud between Geddy Lee and Don Henley. In brief, Henley had once said "Yuck" when Rush was mentioned and Geddy retaliated with "He's an asshole." I bet a number of readers would agree with both assessments.
Rush and the Eagles are two bands with little in common other than being played on the same classic rock radio stations. I am a big fan of Rush. I only just like the Eagles, though if I had to make a Top Ten list of all-time cringemaking songs, the Eagles would probably hold five of the ten spots.
I've been thinking about something on and off for months now. It's a subject that won't go away, and why should it? Good, passionate discussions on music are not only healthy, they can be a lot of damn fun when the participants behave themselves. I'm pretty sure I've talked about this before, but I don't mind bringing it up again.
What is the aversion to music that is produced well versus the appeal of music that isn't?
Or maybe that is too broad. A low-key Joe Henry production works for me more than a hot Don Was production.
How about this instead?
What is the appeal of artists and bands who knock out the same, three chord rock and roll for years, and why are there groans of disapproval when those same artists venture out of their comfort zone into bigger and brighter waters?
I love some good old fashioned rock ‘n’ roll, but I don’t love taking the side of the underdog just because they are the underdog. (See: Willie Nile, an artist I respect, with an unbeatable work ethic and a great outlook on life. But musically, I find his brand third rate at best.)
I had a friend who loved Guided By Voices when they first popped up. One day at the shop, he asked me to listen to "Bee Thousand" because it was right up my alley. All Music said, "it's obvious that Robert Pollard has an uncanny gift for a hook and a melody, and Bee Thousand's 20 cuts are dotted with miniature masterpieces." My friend mentioned how a few of the songs sounded like The Hollies, who he knew I loved.
No amount of drugs would make me believe GBV sounded like The Hollies and besides, my friend was not a Hollies fan, so why the hell would that be a selling point for him? He preferred this lo-fi noise to "Bus Stop" and "Carrie Anne." I guess as long as a band has a leader with a guitar running on C batteries, and an album that sounds like it was made in a recording booth at a State Fair, he was all in.
It's not just him.
People listen to The Shaggs but won't listen to The Who. Look at the photo below and read the first comment on the bottom. It says."The Shaggs. Better than The Beatles--even today."
That comment could have been put there just to wind people up, except I know too many people who truly think that way.
Recently, the band Tuk Smith & The Restless Hearts has been recommended to me by a number of friends whose musical taste is often on par with mine. I listened to the band's music. I liked it. But, here's what I found baffling. I think they sound like Bon Jovi. A few of my friends who recommended Tuk Smith would never be caught dead listening to Bon Jovi. But you can't tell me "Troubled Paradise" would be out of place sandwiched between "Living On A Prayer" and "It's My Life." I'm not buying it.
A friend sent me this over the weekend:
"Can you explain to me why Richard and Linda Thompson’s "Sunnyvista" is always dismissed and considered a low point in Thompson’s career? (especially by Thompson aficianados) I’ve always rated it as one of his best. It’s obvious I’m wrong. I just listened to it again. Still love it. I don’t get why no one gets it. Any insight? Who can hate "Saturday Rolling Around?" Or the riffiness in "Civilization?"
I offered this:
"Well, two things come to mind. The first- it’s upbeat, and RT/Linda
fans seem to prefer misery. Maybe they mistake joy for lightweight. The
other thing is that theory I have about people truly not knowing why
they like or dislike something, like all the people who call ”Nebraska” a
masterpiece. Don't get me wrong, I love the record. But I love five Bruce records more.
If it’s a masterpiece it’s an inadvertent masterpiece. It wasn’t
planned. But these people jump on a bandwagon and they don’t know how to
get off."
He replied:
"All valid points. Yet there are the contrarians who shit on obvious
classics--The Beatles are overrated--just to appear to be an original
thinker. It doesn’t seem to work the other way around. When
something’s deemed a misstep, it rarely gets a second life."
Long time readers know, I often give records a second life. Sometimes, it takes years and multiple spins to get what's going on.
4 comments:
I think there is a place for the polished and for the raw. For example, Motown and Atlantic soul music. Don't make me choose because both are essential.
Ah, this is one of those biggies that I'm reluctant to dive into, and your searching questions generally give me the sense that my response won't satisfy you, especially since I believe I've seen you respond in the past along the lines of "That tells me nothing" when folks have offered up things like "We like what we like, I guess!". But, that is literally the correct answer, but let me elaborate. I will say, tho, that the answer is right in front of us, and in the examples you gave. Your stepmother gave it to you in those two times (the first time would've been enough, but she confirmed it six years later): I'm guessing she had no agenda, and was just speaking from her heart about not liking either of those songs. Rush is my Willie Nile: I'm sure they're great musicians who put together music loved by folks who I know love music....but they're fingernails on chalkboard to me. But, similarly, I fell in love with this girl, and that girl, and not that one....who is cuter, or smarter, or whatever, than the ones that I had some unknowable chemistry with. I can try and 'understand' this, or I can just say, "I might figure out part of why this is, but I ain't gonna grasp the big pic". I don't know what changed, over time, before you liked VU or Robyn Hitchcock, but the short answer, which might be as close as we ever get, is that something obviously did change. I didn't get PiL's 'Metal Box' for years, but after loving Joy Division, all the sudden my ears were open to 'Metal Box' and it's a favorite (Glad I hung onto it for its collectability!). I had my Dylan epiphany years after dismissing him, and lucked out that my new girlfriend at the time turned out to be a fan and had all the albums, so I was able to easily dive in and explore his catalog.
I've never got the concept of 'guilty pleasure'. Sometimes you can ascribe a meaning to why something hits you good, like "I heard that song when I met my wife, so, yeah, it's lame, but it means something to me", but I think it's OK to also admit "I just like that song, even if it doesn't fit with what I normally go for".
Having said that, I think it's lame too to jump bandwagons of contrariness, and that is definitely a thing. But that's lame behavior in any arena, not just music, and I dismiss folks like that easily.
As to why some like the same thing from their artists, but dislike it when that artist stretches, well, it's the same answer. They don't go to that artist to hear the stretch, it's to hear the thing that makes them love that artist. When I eat chocolate cake, do I want jalapenos on it because someone decided that spicy on sweet is what we've all been missing? For some, that might be the bee's knees, legitimately, but to (over)use the term I've seen even here at Burning Wood, your mileage may vary.
C in California
This tells me nothing.
(Just kidding.)
But seriously, let me explain why I am not a fan of "we like what we like."
First, it's too often used with nothing preceding or following it.
I believe you absolutely can discuss music. My friends and I do it all the time. Rarely does my RT/Linda friend mentioned in the post, praise or crap on something without a few reasons why, and those reasons prompt a solid discussion, often changing each of our minds about the music. If you're coming to a place specifically to listen to and discuss music, and throw down "we like what we like" and then take off, it tell me nothing.
If we were having dinner and you ordered chocolate cake with jalapenos on it, I'd want to try it before coming to any conclusion.
Also, the older we get, the longer it has been since our original opinions were formed, and too often, I hear the same statements made about the same artists--opinions formed 30, 40 and 50 years ago--with no space for reevaluation. Again, if this was a casual conversation, well, we like what we like. Cased closed. But most contributors and commenters on this blog are serious music lovers. I guess I just expect more of a discussion than "we like what we like," as true as that statement is.
Given the Bizarro world we now live in, I'm not surprised by the ludicrous comment about The Shaggs.
I'm with your step-mom on the Eagles and Rush. You're right about how sometimes you have to repeatedly go back to something in order to get it. Some things that I hated 40 years ago I now appreciate. Happens all the time. However, no matter how many times Ive gone back to The Eagles or Rush (with the exception of YYZ) I can't get into either of them.
Post a Comment