Best Singer/Songwriter Today?

Pop has rules--I, VI, V. Sometimes I, IV, V, I. and many other version. It has certain progressions and accompanyments, and often it is the variations on the basic chords which provide the pleasure-- when we hear something that is unexpected, we go, wow! That's pretty much how most music is enjoyed--a variation on what we're used to.

Pop's a tradition, much like standards are. Certain cues, repetitions, thematic developments, we've heard before. So we know what to expect, and we also know that most of the time, this will lead to that--so when it does or doesn't, we can apply our knowledge base and decide whether or not we like that progression. Good pop songwriting's a very nuanced art of plying the divison between off- sounds and on-sounds--go too far out and do something too jazzy, and you have Steely Dan, which some people like and other don't... don't go far enough, and you have all the insipid Alternative Modern Rock that is on the airwaves today. We all know the Beatles-motif-- descending basslines against a static vocal melody, or certain modal scales they employ... I could write a song and employ several Costello tricks or Mann themes, this is because they use certain themes and devices a lot.... further, we are all familiar with the verse-chorus-verse structure, or any number of other subconscious rules. I don't have the time or the inclination to go further, but I think there are some books on this subject.

I'm not saying that that's all there is to music--I get a chill up my spine when I hear Johnny Hartmann do "Lush Life," but it's the resonance of the humanity and whatever else my leetle brain thinks its feeling--still based on rules...

And I don't think SP is a bad example because a lot of kids today have no idea what the historical relevance of SP is except in the same way that they know that The Who was really big at one time. I mean, as far as all my friends go, none of us were alive back then, and none of us ever think about the historical significance of these bands--it's as irrelevant to us as Television, Wire, U2, or Erasure will be to my 10 year old cousin. I refuse to believe that anyone is cynical enough to not be able to listen to SP except in some "contextual" sense--i.e. not care about the content. You might as well just put on the album cover then, no sense in wasting vinyl.

Tim, I think we're just getting onto different trains, to push the awful analogy of tracks further. (Words are so futile!) At this point, I've totally lost you (meaning both I've lost you and you've lost me, I think.) :) Um, ok, so at least I think I can clarify my point. My point(s) is/are this/these:

New music isn't the same as provocative music. So I meant, "fashion" avant-gardists (and yes, sweeping generalisations are being employed) tend to fetishise provocative musics, to the point where anything that isn't noisy, ironic cool, ironically noisy, or noisy is dismissed for being too traditional. This is not one of those "I fear change" arguments either--I've got plenty of friends in this circle, and usually I wait until they get laid, and all is better. :)

and secondly, I would much rather have someone say, they are much overrated because they suck, than--well, I don't have much of an opinion, but after I heard them being praised, then I realised that they REALLY sucked. As opposed to, I disliked them more, but not because they suck, but because I resent misplaced accolades.

I know the feeling--I didn't like Zorn that much, and after everyone who doesn't play jazz started ooh'ing on him, I disliked him more. But my feelings were that of the resentment in unfair world type, not the his music got worse type. That's sort of weird to me. And I dunno, maybe it's because I'm a musician, and so I focus more on the issues of content. And it's not any less "valid," according to relativism, to evaluate art on any other criteria--but it's a little more difficult to discuss in groups since there is no accepted arena.

Ah right sorry, I was taking "rules" to mean "rules for aesthetic judgement" not "rules" meaning "compositional building blocks". Gotcha.

In what context, though, is a new listener today likely to encounter Sergeant Pepper?

Pretty melodies? That's kinda how me and my friends view it--pretty melodies and great sound effects. Sadly, we have almost no take on the lyrics, which are sort of like cadence-markers for us. I don't speak for everyone, mind you, just most of the people I know.

That and a dawning realisation that it all HAS been done before. And mostly better. DAMNIT!

It's so weird for me to go back to these classic records and find hiphop-looping sounding beats! Of course, we need not mention Miles Davis's seminal works--but wow, it makes me feel very small indeed. I think that's why so many of us younger musicians have resorted to plying other ethnic trades--Brasilian, Gamelan, and so forth... of course that's been mined as well, but not so much in the collective pop consciousness as the BEATLES.

But we do love them--I had a friend who used to only listen to the Beatles, but couldn't recite any lyrics, just about. Of course, he was Estonian, so go figure. Actually, he wasn't. But that would've made a much cooler point.

Yeah, I don't think there are rules for aesthetic judgement--or rather, I think that anyone who proposed such rules, if they were at all specific, would be opening themselves up to a lot of ridicule and stoning.

I kind of meant - in what context is a new listener going to encounter Sergeant Pepper, as in "hear about it"? Awareness of a product precedes assessment, and the nature of that awareness colours assessment too I think - not absolutely of course but the context is still important.

I dunno-- I mean, there are countless ways to have heard the Beatles-- oldies station, friends, parent's collection, how did you hear about Sonic Youth the first time? How do we hear of any new music?

I heard about Mum here first, and I kinda like 'em! Did it colour my appreciation? Not noticeably. I saw Louis Armstrong on MTV, of all things, and I was obsessed for like 2 years when I was 8 or so--but I don't think that I associate Louis with Christina Aguilera or anything.

I see where you're going with it, but I think that while we can acknowledge that everything has an effect on context, there should be some threshhold to the importance of each effect.

Neil Finn already seems to own this thread, which is very much deserved.

Nowadays, however, he seems overtaken by Fran Healy as far as recent stuff goes

m.ward

Chris Martin

It's still Franklin Bruno

it's still Jigga

it's still hittin' the corners in them low-lows, girl

translation?

it's still Bill Callaghan.

A fascinating thread, this, if you read all the discussion up there between Kim, Tom, Tim and Mickey.