Awesome Entwistle video
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
I'm beginning to think you guys are right as we do live in a different age now, as far as taste is concerned. For the first time in the history of this country it is possible for a person to (from the very youngest age) grow up with very little adult supervision, reach adulthood with next to no education, and even commit all kinds of violent felonies along the way. Yet this same person, not long after and with less help than ever before from a record label, whose staff used to be what were considered "tastemakers," can become a trend setter...in music, in fashion, in multiple forms of entertainment and business at the same time. All without having to employ a band, write music, or learn how to play a Rickenbacker. To be considered a genius and become a multi-millionaire he need only talk over some old classic rock hit. In the old days, which were really not that long ago, it was not possible to be a pop star whilst hawking a clothing line and whoring ads right and left, which now even include doing infomercials for zit treatments. That would have been looked upon as at least questionable as far as taste goes. But now it's looked upon a smart. All anyone thinks about is "he's making money. That's what it's all about." To think, MC Hammer took it on the chin less than 20 years ago from his fans for putting out an album AND hawking Pepsi.This world we are discussing here, either there is no such thing as taste or the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
This is off the record
I don't think taste has somehow disappeared today, that in the past there was good taste and bad taste and now there isn't. I think it's always been just a personal thing whether you like something or not, and nothing to do with some invented, inherent quality of it (i.e. if it is in bad taste, if it is good art, etc.). There is very little rap that I like today. I hate listening to it. I think that there are valuable musical qualities of it that are not being exploited because they aren't the things making money for the rappers. But that's the same with pop music in the 80s. And the 70s, for that matter. There have been plenty of bands that care more about the money than about the music they make, and, as such, just follow the current moneymaking trend. However, no matter how much I think that this is wrong and bad, it doesn't invalidate the music that is being made.
Also, if you look, several very famous and respectable musicians (people whose music would probably be considered to "be in good taste"), such as Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson, have been in ads and infomercials and such. Musical quality, talent, and so on don't necessarily prevent people from "whoring ads right and left". U2 have done it. Aerosmith have done it. Bob Dylan has done it. Willie Nelson has done it. Led Zeppelin's music has been in ads for Cadillac SUVs for crying out loud! Anyone can sell out, and to any degree. Just because artists who I think are talentless can make it big doesn't mean that talented artists don't make it big. What about Franz Ferdinand? What about Robert Randolph and the Family Band? They're not sellouts. They obviously have talent. They're famous TODAY.
People's tastes are not simply based on what popular people say. For the most part, I think what someone likes or doesn't like depends on what they grew up with, but there is definitely room for variance. I grew up with Elton John, Queen, The Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Simon & Garfunkel, The Beatles, and lots and lots of jazz. Despite being born in 1987 and growing up in the '90s and the '00s, my taste was formed more from what my parents listened to than anything else. I heard great stuff on the radio (The Goo Goo Dolls, for example, or Soundgarden, or Pearl Jam, or Radiohead, or Tool), but what I like and what I consider "good music" is based mostly on the music that I grew up with. I think that prog rock is good music, and I certainly didn't get that from the prevalent tastes in today's media . . . prog hasn't been prevalent since the first half of the 70s. It's certainly not hailed on the radio today as "good music" or "in good taste".
Also, if you look, several very famous and respectable musicians (people whose music would probably be considered to "be in good taste"), such as Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson, have been in ads and infomercials and such. Musical quality, talent, and so on don't necessarily prevent people from "whoring ads right and left". U2 have done it. Aerosmith have done it. Bob Dylan has done it. Willie Nelson has done it. Led Zeppelin's music has been in ads for Cadillac SUVs for crying out loud! Anyone can sell out, and to any degree. Just because artists who I think are talentless can make it big doesn't mean that talented artists don't make it big. What about Franz Ferdinand? What about Robert Randolph and the Family Band? They're not sellouts. They obviously have talent. They're famous TODAY.
People's tastes are not simply based on what popular people say. For the most part, I think what someone likes or doesn't like depends on what they grew up with, but there is definitely room for variance. I grew up with Elton John, Queen, The Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Simon & Garfunkel, The Beatles, and lots and lots of jazz. Despite being born in 1987 and growing up in the '90s and the '00s, my taste was formed more from what my parents listened to than anything else. I heard great stuff on the radio (The Goo Goo Dolls, for example, or Soundgarden, or Pearl Jam, or Radiohead, or Tool), but what I like and what I consider "good music" is based mostly on the music that I grew up with. I think that prog rock is good music, and I certainly didn't get that from the prevalent tastes in today's media . . . prog hasn't been prevalent since the first half of the 70s. It's certainly not hailed on the radio today as "good music" or "in good taste".
I want to clear the air on my baseball cap thing. I wear them all of the time and I don't play baseball. The rules are, they must be pristine, except for the bill curl, the crown must be high, and they must NOT be worn backwards.
Yes taste is somewhat relative, but like I stated before, some things just are tasteless!
Everyone has a right to an opinion, however, not all opinions are valid. I may have an opinion on something I know next to nothing about. An expert can come along and correct me and I am fine with that. Wearing panties and bra outside the clothing? If we polled a thousand people, what fo you suppose the numbers would be?
Ok, now let's look at the flats versus round debate. Good taste or bad taste does not really enter into the discussion. If we polled a thousand bassists, we would not have a "universal" opinion on whether flats are in bad taste.
What PM did to his Rick finish wise was stupid, and yes, in bad taste. Nice try but.......
So, my point is, if everyone's opinion was different, then I could go along with it being totally relative. The fact that most people would agree that something is in bad taste would lend credence to the idea that it is.
Yes taste is somewhat relative, but like I stated before, some things just are tasteless!
Everyone has a right to an opinion, however, not all opinions are valid. I may have an opinion on something I know next to nothing about. An expert can come along and correct me and I am fine with that. Wearing panties and bra outside the clothing? If we polled a thousand people, what fo you suppose the numbers would be?
Ok, now let's look at the flats versus round debate. Good taste or bad taste does not really enter into the discussion. If we polled a thousand bassists, we would not have a "universal" opinion on whether flats are in bad taste.
What PM did to his Rick finish wise was stupid, and yes, in bad taste. Nice try but.......
So, my point is, if everyone's opinion was different, then I could go along with it being totally relative. The fact that most people would agree that something is in bad taste would lend credence to the idea that it is.
"The fact that most people would agree that something is in bad taste would lend credence to the idea that it is."
But that really depends what you're talking about. And I'm sure if polled people across different cultures, they would have vastly different ideas of what is "good taste" and what is "bad taste". I think that general tastes are conditioned by one's society and culture, not inherently known. That's a basic principle of sociology.
I do agree, though, that there are valid and invalid opinions. If I said that Led Zeppelin suck. That's an opinion. If I've never heard Led Zeppelin's music, it's an invalid opinion, because you can't possibly know how you feel about a band's music unless you've heard it. I would say you'd have to listen to a significant amount of it as well, not just like "their best song". Charly, you're right that if someone knows nothing about a topic, yet has an opinion, the opinion is probably not valid. However, if someone has an opinion that runs contrary to what someone else considers "good taste", that doesn't mean their opinion is invalid, because they may know very much about the topic on which they have an opinion.
But that really depends what you're talking about. And I'm sure if polled people across different cultures, they would have vastly different ideas of what is "good taste" and what is "bad taste". I think that general tastes are conditioned by one's society and culture, not inherently known. That's a basic principle of sociology.
I do agree, though, that there are valid and invalid opinions. If I said that Led Zeppelin suck. That's an opinion. If I've never heard Led Zeppelin's music, it's an invalid opinion, because you can't possibly know how you feel about a band's music unless you've heard it. I would say you'd have to listen to a significant amount of it as well, not just like "their best song". Charly, you're right that if someone knows nothing about a topic, yet has an opinion, the opinion is probably not valid. However, if someone has an opinion that runs contrary to what someone else considers "good taste", that doesn't mean their opinion is invalid, because they may know very much about the topic on which they have an opinion.
What he said.....
With regards to the "bad taste" list, using my own sense of what is in bad taste, there are certain things on there that I would agree with. However, as I've been known to wear a baseball cap occasionally and I've never even played baseball, and I have in the past worn sweatpants outside the gym or house, by Glenn's logic I have bad taste. If I have bad taste, then the things that I consider to be in bad taste must actually be in good taste....get my drift?
With regards to the "bad taste" list, using my own sense of what is in bad taste, there are certain things on there that I would agree with. However, as I've been known to wear a baseball cap occasionally and I've never even played baseball, and I have in the past worn sweatpants outside the gym or house, by Glenn's logic I have bad taste. If I have bad taste, then the things that I consider to be in bad taste must actually be in good taste....get my drift?
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
jwr2
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>I think it's always been just a personal thing whether you like something or not, and nothing to do with some invented, inherent quality of it (i.e. if it is in bad taste, if it is good art, etc.)<<
Not long ago, there were certain powers that be in broadcasting, and whether they were correct or incorrect, had anything to do with good taste or not, they collectively controlled a lot of pop culture content, for the better or worse of society.
The television code, for instance, is how TV broadcasters in days of old (when most markets didn't have cable TV) kept shows like Cops and Springer and World's Wildest Police Chases off of the air, and the FCC probably would have banned Stern, as what he does is really just the old burlesque routine, right down to appealing to some people's prejudices. They also, to a certain degree, kept local news shows from doing titillating "exposes" on subjects like porn, as so-called news.
And I didn't mean to throw everyone who's in show business and done an ad into the same can, though there are rockers who not only won't do ads, they won't let their music appear in them (Petty, Springsteen, and until recently, the Doors.) Advertising, like many things, can be cheap and crass or dignified and intelligent.
There seems to have been a trend in the music biz, here at least, to go for nothing but the least common denominator, or take people from a TV amateur talent show and make them "stars." Unfortunately this is because record labels are now owned by companies that own TV networks and instead of having creative people call the creative shots, the finance guys are calling the creative shots.
So, we have someone who is a singer one week, and give them their own TV show then next week (reality show, not variety show like in days of old) while at the same time they're pushing zit cream. And I'm not talking about old stars who no longer sell that much product and thus need more income, I'm talking Jessica Simpson.
Per baseball caps, I've worn them numerous times off of the field and to this day, being light skinned, there are times when fashion is less important than comfort and safety. In situations like these many guys simply defer or, ahem, give in to their girlfriends as women, after all, tend to be more interested in fashion and "what the world will think." Just because I say I think something is, at minimum, in questionable taste does not mean I don't partake. Also, the observation about a backwards baseball cap is dead on.
I like flats on bass but do not think rounds are in bad taste.
>> I think taste is a highly honed sense of what is quality and what isn't.<<
I agree more to this than the top quote, think it's well said, and indicates that good taste is something that's learned (i.e. most people are capable at one point in their lives of having either good or bad taste. Trump being the exception. Maybe this is some sort of ego thing. The guy's super successful in one sense, thus he simply won't listen or pay attention to anyone else, hairstylists included.) The cultural aspects of course are true. Hence the cartoon riots.
Sweatpants; I included that from an observation in a Seinfeld show. If you know the show there is an episode where George is dressed in sweats, and standing in Jerry's living room. As usual, others are there, too. Jerry takes a look at George, and gestures to indicate what George is wearing, head to toe, and says, "this is what happens when one just doesn't care anymore." It is funny of course because Jerry had a point in regard to an issue, dressing, that involves taste issues. And even though we're in a casual dress society, one can still take it too far.
Not long ago, there were certain powers that be in broadcasting, and whether they were correct or incorrect, had anything to do with good taste or not, they collectively controlled a lot of pop culture content, for the better or worse of society.
The television code, for instance, is how TV broadcasters in days of old (when most markets didn't have cable TV) kept shows like Cops and Springer and World's Wildest Police Chases off of the air, and the FCC probably would have banned Stern, as what he does is really just the old burlesque routine, right down to appealing to some people's prejudices. They also, to a certain degree, kept local news shows from doing titillating "exposes" on subjects like porn, as so-called news.
And I didn't mean to throw everyone who's in show business and done an ad into the same can, though there are rockers who not only won't do ads, they won't let their music appear in them (Petty, Springsteen, and until recently, the Doors.) Advertising, like many things, can be cheap and crass or dignified and intelligent.
There seems to have been a trend in the music biz, here at least, to go for nothing but the least common denominator, or take people from a TV amateur talent show and make them "stars." Unfortunately this is because record labels are now owned by companies that own TV networks and instead of having creative people call the creative shots, the finance guys are calling the creative shots.
So, we have someone who is a singer one week, and give them their own TV show then next week (reality show, not variety show like in days of old) while at the same time they're pushing zit cream. And I'm not talking about old stars who no longer sell that much product and thus need more income, I'm talking Jessica Simpson.
Per baseball caps, I've worn them numerous times off of the field and to this day, being light skinned, there are times when fashion is less important than comfort and safety. In situations like these many guys simply defer or, ahem, give in to their girlfriends as women, after all, tend to be more interested in fashion and "what the world will think." Just because I say I think something is, at minimum, in questionable taste does not mean I don't partake. Also, the observation about a backwards baseball cap is dead on.
I like flats on bass but do not think rounds are in bad taste.
>> I think taste is a highly honed sense of what is quality and what isn't.<<
I agree more to this than the top quote, think it's well said, and indicates that good taste is something that's learned (i.e. most people are capable at one point in their lives of having either good or bad taste. Trump being the exception. Maybe this is some sort of ego thing. The guy's super successful in one sense, thus he simply won't listen or pay attention to anyone else, hairstylists included.) The cultural aspects of course are true. Hence the cartoon riots.
Sweatpants; I included that from an observation in a Seinfeld show. If you know the show there is an episode where George is dressed in sweats, and standing in Jerry's living room. As usual, others are there, too. Jerry takes a look at George, and gestures to indicate what George is wearing, head to toe, and says, "this is what happens when one just doesn't care anymore." It is funny of course because Jerry had a point in regard to an issue, dressing, that involves taste issues. And even though we're in a casual dress society, one can still take it too far.
This is off the record
"There seems to have been a trend in the music biz, here at least, to go for nothing but the least common denominator, or take people from a TV amateur talent show and make them "stars." Unfortunately this is because record labels are now owned by companies that own TV networks and instead of having creative people call the creative shots, the finance guys are calling the creative shots.
So, we have someone who is a singer one week, and give them their own TV show then next week (reality show, not variety show like in days of old) while at the same time they're pushing zit cream. And I'm not talking about old stars who no longer sell that much product and thus need more income, I'm talking Jessica Simpson. "
I must agree with this. And it's sad too. But I also can't imagine that this hasn't happened in the past, at least to some degree or in some similar manner. Also, just wondering, how is a variety show hosted by a sellout musician any better than a reality show starring a sellout musician? But yeah, record companies are now, even more than usual, dictating what people want and what will sell rather than the people telling the record company what they want and what to sell. Luckily, there has been a recent influx of (I feel) very good bands that have actually been somewhat popular, as opposed to the 90s and 80s, where we kind of had like 9 or 10 really good popular bands total and then a huge load of junk. I'm very relieved that record companies have been pushing The Killers, Franz Ferdinand, Muse, Coheed & Cambria, Keane, Modest Mouse, and all these other bands that probably would've remained underground otherwise . . . at least there is now some alternative to the teen-TV-star-turned-pop-star-turned-actress-turned-inescapable-media-icon. I've had about enough of those, personally.
So, we have someone who is a singer one week, and give them their own TV show then next week (reality show, not variety show like in days of old) while at the same time they're pushing zit cream. And I'm not talking about old stars who no longer sell that much product and thus need more income, I'm talking Jessica Simpson. "
I must agree with this. And it's sad too. But I also can't imagine that this hasn't happened in the past, at least to some degree or in some similar manner. Also, just wondering, how is a variety show hosted by a sellout musician any better than a reality show starring a sellout musician? But yeah, record companies are now, even more than usual, dictating what people want and what will sell rather than the people telling the record company what they want and what to sell. Luckily, there has been a recent influx of (I feel) very good bands that have actually been somewhat popular, as opposed to the 90s and 80s, where we kind of had like 9 or 10 really good popular bands total and then a huge load of junk. I'm very relieved that record companies have been pushing The Killers, Franz Ferdinand, Muse, Coheed & Cambria, Keane, Modest Mouse, and all these other bands that probably would've remained underground otherwise . . . at least there is now some alternative to the teen-TV-star-turned-pop-star-turned-actress-turned-inescapable-media-icon. I've had about enough of those, personally.
Just out of interest, and further to my last post, if a baseball cap should only be worn when playing baseball, should a deerstalker only be worn when stalking deer? What about a bowler? Or a top hat? I'm at a complete loss as to when to wear one of those! What about a fez? There isn't even a clue in the name!!! How am I supposed to know when the wearing of a fez is or isn't acceptable? What if I accidentally wear one in an improper context? Where's Tommy Cooper when you need him?
What about training shoes, should they only be used for athletic activities, and not for casual wear? Or jeans, which I believe were created as workwear, are they off limits except at work? Where do we stand on neckties and lapels, which appear to serve no purpose whatsoever? And why is it ok to wear a ring on every finger except the "pinky"? What did the poor "pinky" do that means it's excluded? That's just "pinkyism". What about toes? Are they acceptable? Or earrings? Or the neck "rings" worn by the Paduang?
"But I also can't imagine that this hasn't happened in the past, at least to some degree or in some similar manner. "
Not quite the same, but the Monkees and the Bay City Rollers spring to mind. Although I quite liked the Monkees....
Must admit I'm not a fan of Jessica Simpson. I prefer Ashlee...
What about training shoes, should they only be used for athletic activities, and not for casual wear? Or jeans, which I believe were created as workwear, are they off limits except at work? Where do we stand on neckties and lapels, which appear to serve no purpose whatsoever? And why is it ok to wear a ring on every finger except the "pinky"? What did the poor "pinky" do that means it's excluded? That's just "pinkyism". What about toes? Are they acceptable? Or earrings? Or the neck "rings" worn by the Paduang?
"But I also can't imagine that this hasn't happened in the past, at least to some degree or in some similar manner. "
Not quite the same, but the Monkees and the Bay City Rollers spring to mind. Although I quite liked the Monkees....
Must admit I'm not a fan of Jessica Simpson. I prefer Ashlee...
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>> Also, just wondering, how is a variety show hosted by a sellout musician any better than a reality show starring a sellout musician?<<
Variety shows in days of old had big production values (at least comparted to today) and brought in other entertainers who did their acts as a form of entertainment. Not sure you can call an entertainer who takes a gig as an M.C. a "sellout" outright but maybe.
The above as opposed to taking a singer with a short-lived career and producing a "show" where, if there are any production values at all they consist of little more than following the "star" around with a video camera, and in so doing perhaps presenting voyeurism as entertainment product.
>>What about training shoes, should they only be used for athletic activities, and not for casual wear? <<
I'd avoid wearing them with dress slacks (though it's acceptable in I.T.) But this is where it gets tough as people have pointed out that culture comes into play and our culture has become more casual.
Regarding training shoes, I think many of the shoes themselves are flat out ugly...even on the basketball court, and no less so when they're worn with jeans. I was relieved when Doc M's started chipping away at Nike's market share.
The Monkees, well, by today's standards, had massive production standards...crack songwriters, producers and studio musicians, actors playing musicians, shot on film, lots of props, guest stars...the whole shebang. If kids today were exposed to that kind of show they might have heart attacks from being subjected to so much quality all at once.
Variety shows in days of old had big production values (at least comparted to today) and brought in other entertainers who did their acts as a form of entertainment. Not sure you can call an entertainer who takes a gig as an M.C. a "sellout" outright but maybe.
The above as opposed to taking a singer with a short-lived career and producing a "show" where, if there are any production values at all they consist of little more than following the "star" around with a video camera, and in so doing perhaps presenting voyeurism as entertainment product.
>>What about training shoes, should they only be used for athletic activities, and not for casual wear? <<
I'd avoid wearing them with dress slacks (though it's acceptable in I.T.) But this is where it gets tough as people have pointed out that culture comes into play and our culture has become more casual.
Regarding training shoes, I think many of the shoes themselves are flat out ugly...even on the basketball court, and no less so when they're worn with jeans. I was relieved when Doc M's started chipping away at Nike's market share.
The Monkees, well, by today's standards, had massive production standards...crack songwriters, producers and studio musicians, actors playing musicians, shot on film, lots of props, guest stars...the whole shebang. If kids today were exposed to that kind of show they might have heart attacks from being subjected to so much quality all at once.
This is off the record
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>I heard great stuff on the radio (The Goo Goo Dolls, for example, or Soundgarden, or Pearl Jam, or Radiohead, or Tool)<<
Several years back, I think when grunge was still current, one of the guys in Oasis made an astute observation about the American rock market at the time by saying "they don't like tunes."
I've never been an Oasis fan, but I did note the differences in the pop charts during the 90s, US vs. the UK.
I think what he meant was, there was a distinct lack of melody in most of the rock over here, including some of the bands you mention. There also wasn't much harmonizing there, either, maybe in the Dolls. I'd have to go back and listen. It all seemed heavy and loud and not very melodic. Not very Rickenbackery if you ask me, and seemingly played to the exclusion of everything but the lightest teeniebopperest tunes (Britney, Madonna) as George Harrison pointed out at the time. Not a good time for music IMO.
Several years back, I think when grunge was still current, one of the guys in Oasis made an astute observation about the American rock market at the time by saying "they don't like tunes."
I've never been an Oasis fan, but I did note the differences in the pop charts during the 90s, US vs. the UK.
I think what he meant was, there was a distinct lack of melody in most of the rock over here, including some of the bands you mention. There also wasn't much harmonizing there, either, maybe in the Dolls. I'd have to go back and listen. It all seemed heavy and loud and not very melodic. Not very Rickenbackery if you ask me, and seemingly played to the exclusion of everything but the lightest teeniebopperest tunes (Britney, Madonna) as George Harrison pointed out at the time. Not a good time for music IMO.
This is off the record
Glad to hear you don't endorse wearing trainers with "dress slacks". Although I have to say personally that's because I don't like "dress slacks"...but then I'm just a casual kind of guy.
One thing I have to ask Glenn, is what exactly is "Rickenbackery"? Is it the Byrds? The Beatles? Because to me Motorhead sound equally "Rickenbackery". Lemmy was the person who introduced me to both the sound and style of Rickenbackers, and therefore by default must be "Rickenbackery". And I've certainly heard them described as "heavy and loud and not very melodic" .....
One thing I have to ask Glenn, is what exactly is "Rickenbackery"? Is it the Byrds? The Beatles? Because to me Motorhead sound equally "Rickenbackery". Lemmy was the person who introduced me to both the sound and style of Rickenbackers, and therefore by default must be "Rickenbackery". And I've certainly heard them described as "heavy and loud and not very melodic" .....
"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle."
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
According to the Oxford English Dictionary: "Rickenbackery; music made up of equal parts rock and pop; more melodic than most rock 'n roll music but more rock 'n roll than most pop music; folk rock; that which pertains to Eddie Rickenbacker; half of Motorhead's rhythm section; jangly guitar music"
This is off the record