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.
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.
ReplyDeleteAh, 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.
ReplyDeleteI'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.
Delete(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.
Fair enough, Sal. I wanted to establish that 'we like what we like' is a legit and ultimately the truthful answer, but I agree that if someone can elaborate on that (or the individual song/album/artist/art/partner/etc), that is ideal. And, in fact, one of the two first questions I ask new coworkers (besides "How did you get into archeology") is "What music do you listen to, and get specific, don't say 'a little bit of everything', because that's certainly not likely...", so I too wanna know what drives the like.
DeleteAnd, yes, the Shaggs are no good. To their credit, if my understanding is correct, they knew it and performed under their dad's iron fist. That they've capitalized on the bullshit 're-appraisals' is nothing I can criticize, being a good ol' American capitalist that gets the need to make a buck in this world.
C in California
Given the Bizarro world we now live in, I'm not surprised by the ludicrous comment about The Shaggs.
ReplyDeleteI'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.
I loved the Eagles and now I'm meh on them. I do like Already Gone. I never liked Rush then, or now. Nobody seems to like The Sons of Champlin as much as me. I don't think I've ever liked something deemed Lo-fi. If I wanted Lo-fi, I'd listen to only mP3, or go get a crappy stereo system to replace my nice one. I have no problem with "I like what I like", but obviously I'm not going to be having a discussion with that person, which is most likely what they want. Often it seems that the "I like what I like" people seem to know they like stuff others think is crap. Hey, I like the Carpenters, but I can tell you why. Maybe the "I like what I like" people just don't want to bother to figure out why they like stuff. It's OK, unless the phase is meant to explain something. Maybe I have a point.
ReplyDeleteOh yea, and The Shaggs are not good.
ReplyDeleteNot really sure how to comment on this post other than to say that Tuk Smith song was definitely in my wheelhouse (the rest of the EP -- I see what you mean...) And I certainly don't have problems with well-produced music and some of my favorite singles of the past decade are shiny and excessivly-bright pop songs. I think people like to play Devil's Advocate for the lols, tbh.
ReplyDeleteFor the record, while I am not a fan of Bon Jovi, I do love a number of tracks from the band. Saying Tuk Smith sounds like Bon Jovi wasn't meant as an insult. I was just making the point about friends who can't stand Bon Jovi but dig Tuk Smith, when to my ears, they are not so different.
ReplyDeleteFor me it was Van Morrison , i could never understand the fuss, it was tuneless , rambling music that never took hold , then it was "Summertime In England " of all songs that did it , it was eye-opening, an incantation and a completely different style of music from my usual diet of post punk , americana and new wave. From there it was a short step to Astral Weeks and Veedon Fleece and a whole new artist to explore. Yes , I had to "work" at it but when it hit , it hit . put in the time , some stuff will never work but some will and the rewards are worth it
ReplyDeleteUnconscious processes, past experiences, and pattern recognition lead us to immediate judgements it's called Intuition. It can lead us to mistakes or nirvana.
ReplyDeleteI can hear Bon Jovi in Tuk Smith. If Desmond Childs got involved it would sound just like Bon Jovi.
ReplyDeleteI don't object to Springsteen tossing in a little hip-hop (or stretching, as they say); he just doesn't do it very well. Sure, fans want what they want and got pissed when Radiohead went from the gorgeous Pink Floyd-style pop of OK Computer to the jarring Kid A (took me a while to get it too) but many went along for the ride and now those two albums are both celebrated and both seen as Radiohead, rather than a jarring break from their sound or style. Sometimes the stretching opens up new territory (U2 after Achtung) and more often it doesn't because few acts are great at all sorts of stuff. "Nebraska" is Springsteen's masterpiece precisely because he WASN'T trying to create a masterpiece, the way he labored over the album and song "Born To Run," which is also great. I don't love it because it's "different" from his typical sound or a left-turn. I love it because it's his best batch of songs delivered in the ideal way for those songs. They have a lot more in common with Darkness and The River and Born in the USA then they have difference; hence the great tracks that sprang out of those sessions we heard fleshed out on BITU. Paul McCartney's Ram is RADICALLY different from the polished sound of the Beatles. But to me it has a lot more in common with that, thanks to his brilliant melodies paired with the perfect words, quirkiness, refusal to repeat himself etc. But Sting and the lute? Didn't work! Nice try! Next!
ReplyDeleteHuge Richard and Linda Thompson (and Richard Thompson and Linda Thompson) fan! I've always found Sunnyvista disappointing. I don't know the story behind it, but it always felt like poor production somewhat trying for a more radio-friendly sound, as silly as that might seem. But it's GOOD, it's just not as good as their other albums, which are great and more distinctive. A weak batch of songs, I think. BUT it's been a while so I'll give it a spin. Or I would IF it was on Amazon Music! Where's my CD!?!?
ReplyDeleteTo be honest, at this point in my life I have a hard enough time figuring out why I like or dislike stuff. Trying to figure it out for others is beyond me. 😎
ReplyDeleteRock ’n roll’s supposed to be dirty, so why bother with a super-clean Eagles-like production? Eagles records were always too clean and antiseptic for me, they never sounded like a band that could loosen up, even with Joe Walsh. But on the other hand, ultra low-fi always seemed to be lazy, like they didn’t care. Maybe that was the point. But if they don’t care, I don’t either. Ben Vaughn recorded “Rambler ’65” in the back seat of a 1965 Rambler, and it sounds as good as a lot of studio albums, so it seems to me like someone would have to make a conscious effort to make a cruddy low-fi album.
ReplyDeleteI have more “underdog” music than hitbound sounds, and most of it’s good to me. I don’t make excuses for them when it’s mediocre, though. I always enjoyed discovering good unknown bands and singers. I’d rather spend my money on them than a mega-hitmaker, they need it more. Nothing personal, future Mrs. Kelce!
You’re right about “opinions formed 30, 40 and 50 years ago”. Most of the music I like today isn’t really much different than what I liked back in the day. I’m not going to have any major stylistic appreciation changes at this point. Variations and progressions are fine, just don’t cut the songwriting quality or the hooks, and don’t go low-fi.
Only internet trolls take The Shaggs over The Beatles and The Who.
For those who've always thought "Sister Ray" was too long, here you go! I think it's pretty well done. https://saveyourface.posthaven.com/the-velvet-underground-sister-ray-single-edit-1967
ReplyDeleteRe: Bon Jovi. I've enjoyed some of their singles. Finally listened to Slippery When Wet, which I always assumed would be a perfectly good, radio friendly album, perhaps even better than I expected. I really disliked it intensely and the singles I knew from the radio I liked a lot LESS in the context of the entire dumb, mindless insipid album. Maybe I'd like a hits collection but it will be a long while before I go back to them. I had low expectations and they weren't met.
ReplyDeleteNow I'll have to go back and listen to Sunnyvista, but my recollection is that for me, there are no R&L classics but the album is otherwise not bad; it's just not as good as their others.
ReplyDeleteAs for the discussion about underdog/lo-fi, there's way too much hype about these types of albums. I like some GBV and one Pavement album, but more often than not, lo-fi/indie records don't live up to the hype and it just ends up being a way to cover up a lack of production values and/or good songs. And I hate Bonjovi in part because the production is too clean and highlights what are too often weak lyrics and overwrought singing that's way too intense for such trite songs. IMO.
I agree with Sal: it's fun to discuss music. I want to hear more than we like what we like, so see above. And I love the Eagles but mostly the singles, not whole albums. Saw a bar band the other night, which I usually avoid, because bar bands play too much familiar classic rock (Eagles tunes my pet peeve), but was out to dinner with friends so . . . of course they played "Take It Easy" and you know what? I still enjoyed it. The craft is undeniable.
If it's good, it's good. Doesn't matter if it's popular or obscure. Not sure why some people are like that. A need to feel special I guess. And the Big Lebowski was wrong. The Eagles are pretty great.
ReplyDelete