Best Singer/Songwriter Today?

I know that some people have a problem with him but Elliot Smith still sounds like the best to me. But then I also like Aimee mann a lot.

Leonard Cohen

Bruce Springsteen

Stew from The Negro Problem.

I'm not sure if he would count, though. He has one beautiful singer-songwritery solo album, but he's better known for the two Negro Problem albums. Either way, he's great.

Jarvis Cocker.

Rufus Wainwright

jigga.

Will Oldham. There, that was easy.

Either Neil Finn, Ron Sexsmith, or what Ryan Adams might become one day but still isn't yet today.

John Darnielle, or Stephin Merritt.

This is why I love this board. No flames and now I have like 10 artists that I never heard of to check out! Thanks to all who answered. (Still love Martin Sexton, though!)

Peace

Finally I'm not the only person in this bitch to appreciate Neil Finn. Hurrah!

Franklin Bruno.

Jess is a funnee guy.

Honestly, you'd think that mild-mannered Kiwi's would be less threatening to the radicals that lurk about these parts. After all, he IS one of the best and brightest that pop's come up with in the past couple of decades. Class act, that.

Exactly. I can fully understand the not being into the style, but the dissing for being too trad, too deliberately hook laden and obliquely dramatic seems odd. I mean, being really stuck on his style of stuff I can tell you that barely anyone else is doing it so *how* can it be such boring cliche? Maybe Andy Partridge does it, maybe Marshall Crenshaw, those Beatle fellas, and few others. Perhaps it's the Beatles comparison alone... but his music is so much more than the mere derivative that those people seem to see. It's irritating! But I'll shut up before I embarass myself...

I know what you mean--the "informed" are just as prone to blanket dismissals as others. and occasionally it strikes me whether or not they actually enjoy music on a visceral level. on the other hand, I much prefer Finn to Messers Partridge and Crenshaw. Neil was my first songwriting idol--and so i still find myself avoiding sounding like him... weird... fortunately, having derailed from pop, i now can claim a spot between tripe and shite. yay!

As far as I can tell, the general beef with Neil Finn has usually been more related to the way he's praised by critics (all the stuff about "songsmithery" and crafting the perfect pop song) who can tend to paint him as a haven of classicism amidst a sea of modern dreck. I've always quite liked Crowded House, but (with the exception of when I was 12 and "Private Universe" was my favourite song) only in a vague, non-committal sort of way.

Have you heard One Nil yet? I was actually disappointed when I first heard it because it seemed a bit off, almost dissonant, sloppy, un- Neil, y'know? And the lyrics for 'Anytime' really did strike me as a cliche - getting older, accepting mortality, etc... But then on the third or fourth listen all that changed. So now, except for a few cringeworthy moments here and there (like the first few lines of Hole in the Ice) I find it's just gorgeous.

Yeah, I'll buy that Tim. But isn't that a stupid reason not to like something? Especially if it's at least partly true?

And I don't get why the same lauding somehow doesn't doom Andy Partridge... I mean, he does get that a lot doesn't he?

Yeah, I'll buy that Tim. But isn't that a stupid reason not to like something? Especially if it's at least partly true?

I think the problem is more this -- Tim said this already, but I'll just make it more direct -- it's not so much that Neil Finn should be praised, but praised as set *wholly* against 'modern dreck' all lumped together. In otherwards, that what Finn has is a sole track to greatness because he follows a sixties-skewed standard of greatness.

Typical mainstream/RS crit comment, circa 1988, say: "Neil Finn writes real songs, unlike Eric B. and Rakim/Depeche Mode/Todd Terry/Tiffany/ whoever." It's this type of attitude -- of 'rockism' if you will ;-) - - that is the problem, not Finn's songs. As it is, I do own the Crowded House best of.

But since when does anyone around here listen to the critics anyway. :) And you know that whole sixties tradition thing is largely just a part of that critical image - Crowded House was just one style... he's not always so 'conventional'. You ought to let me send you some stuff.

Kim, I'm afraid that my loyalty to Mr. Finn only pertains to Woodface and Together Alone. The earlier two albums makes me wince due to the super-80's production, and his solo stuff is mostly awful--especially One Nil. His melodies, to me, have become much more pedestrian--and his lyrics, well, more earnest, and thus more grimace-worthy. That said, Woodface and Together Alone are so gorgeous that it makes me happy and warm and in awe of such a talent. Woodface alone--Four Seasons in One Day, is such a stunner. Mitchell Froom and others have said that, if it weren't for a coupla clunkers, it would be a classic album for the ages... (ok, bit redundant, that.)

Incidentally, have you noticed why Crowded House fans are shunned by everyone else? It's because we're so damn persistent! Maybe that's why people get annoyed at Finn--I used to read the Tongue In the Mail compendiums, and it's like this rabid fandom that needs to get some fresh air. But I still agree with you that critical praise shouldn't be the reason for dismissal...

P.S. I just ordered Finn's live cd with Johnny Marr, Eddie Vedder, the kids from Radiohead, and Sebastian Steinberg of Soul Coughing. I wonder what that's gonna sound like?

Well I've been around here for ages and never gotten rabid until now so.. heh. I'm still on Tongue in the Mail but I think I've actually contributed maybe once in the last four years. I've been to the concerts - and those fans, some of em *are* a bit weird - not weird like Morrissey fans but still, poor Neil. Actually I watched that concert via the webcast and bits of it were really interesting. Neil singing "There is a Light that Never Goes Out" was sort of unexpected. Not mind blowing mind you...

I'll second the Stew from The Negro Problem choice and urge everybody to pick up the "Guest Host" solo record that came out last year. Scott Miller from The Loud Family is a great songwriter and singer too, but he probably doesn't qualify.

Is it just me or does Stew sound like Hootie?

Robert, I say to you, go forth and seek out Woodface and Together Alone. They're not quite today--but I have yet to find more consistently inspirng songcraft in the last 15 years.

If you like Martin Sexton, Paul Ellis might not be a bad fit. Or Freedy Johnston.

Also, for good singer/songwriters, Joe Henry ain't bad neither. Nor is Richard Thompson, but I'm not sure he counts as contemporary.

― Mickey Black Eyes, Monday, 3 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Pinefox to thread!

I like how a paradigm on ILM is developing whereby if you explain yourself re. a band you like you're over-intellectualizing it whereas if you DON'T explain yourself re. a band you hate then you're just a knee-jerk trendy who doesn't actually like music. What's a wordy pop snob to do?

I don't know why I don't like Neil Finn. I know that his voice doesn't have the electic yelp of Andy Partridge's and the bees in his bonnet buzz less interestingly, though. The Andy Partridge = classic songsmith angle is the angle used to praise XTC's drabbest work often (has a pudding ever been more comprehensively over-egged than Oranges And Lemons?)

Despite everything, my answer to the question is still Stephin Merritt.

hmm... well i reckon it's pretty much even stevens for will oldham and smog. oh and vic chesnutt. yes, musn't forget him

Bob Dylan.

Richard Thompson
Mark Mulcahy

Tom, I think that the comments posted here fully illustrated the issue--I don't think anyone would object to anyone saying, I don't like X 'cuz, well, it sucks and doesn't do anything for me. But to say that the "problem" is critical praise is ridiculous-- we don't seem to have that problem with the Strokes, or with White Stripes, or whoever else you care to mention... when they get the deluge of praise, we set up a post that asks "do they deserve it," not "the problem is that they're getting too much praise," implying A) of course one doesn't think that they deserve it and B) this somehow has anything to do with their music or is a justification for dismissal.

and I think it's hardly an exaggeration to say that the people on ILM pride themselves on eclectic, forward-looking taste, and often it can very much come across like a bad imitation of the High Fidelity syndrome, where we throw down baseball cards to trump each other-- thus turning the world of music into some sort of fashion show. It's like college radio all over again... which is sort of depressing, because sometimes good music is just smoothed over because it doesn't provoke enough... and letting the whims of fashion take over music is something that worries me--it's already happened to art, it's happening to film, so I dunno...

anyhooo, that's I think an amelioration of the above assertion...

Unless it's still Paul McCartney, then presumably it's still Elvis Costello.

The whims of fashion took over music well before any of our lifetimes, I think. And have you been reading the same Strokes/White Stripes threads I have? The intricacies of the critical to-and-fro- ing around those bands has been pretty much the main focus, and yes it is a problem. The act of listening to and consuming 'music' is a consumption of music and context, picture and frame. The frame can spoil the picture. A lot of the time - like on this thread - some people are trying to re-frame the pictures they like or dislike. Which is good.

Maura/Kate to thread! Why has every name so far been male, yo? All the singer/songwriter's I've listened to lately have been women. Hannah Marcus, Tiffany, Pink (yes she is now, but she's only good about half the time), Cat Power, Jill Scott (well, everyone else likes her -- I think she's terrible), &whatabout tori?

And as far as men go, one should not forget Buckner.

I tend to like male singer/songwriters more. I'm not sure why this is.

I thought I had addressed that point--my comment pertained to the fact that, unlike with Finn, we had a discussion about it, not a dismissal... so instead of just going with "general consensus is the problem with the strokes is that they're overhyped" we asked, "are they overhyped?" and, besides, if context is everything, then are we proposing that the only acceptible context for enjoyment is a lack of critical acclaim PLUS a lack of popular acceptance? that's pretty cynical, not to mention a little ludicrous...

And I don't think that the fashion of pop fetishism happened way before our time... sure, music or art or clothing as an indication of your status existed, I mean, I'm sure some 19th century guy went to the opera just to hobnob, but it wasn't a point of pride, no one bragged about it, it was just a status quo move... here, however, the love of music is much more an identity, and since we are constructing our avatars with the "clothes" of music we like, it is much more central...

Kate and Anna McGarrigle.

Also, don't forget Ms. Life Without Buildings.

And E. True would probably have the best suggestions of all.

really the whole mcgairgle/wainwright axis is pretty fantastic esp. if you connect it to toehrs working near them/with them.

Consumption of music has helped define identity easily since the 18th century, let along the 19th - going-to-the-opera was absolutely a keystone in identity-definition. Recorded music, where you couldn't see who was consuming your music, may have derailed this tendency slightly. But I think all it meant was that the social meaning of music became reproducible at a local/community level, just like the music itself.

I see your point about Finn - but the thread above seems like a discussion to me, I still don't think he's been treated that differently to anyone else. Finn-haters and Finn-lovers both occasionally use easy oppositional moves to define themselves - the first lot against a mass of 'critics' who overpraise Finn, the second lot against the 'hipsters' who make him unfashionable. By your lights both arguments should be bogus, I think both are fine, but we should focus on both, not just one.

Lou Reed, Neil Young and the one and only Howe Gelb (Giant Sand). That should do for the male songwriters, not to forget Michael Timmins from the Cowboy Junkies and Hubley/Kaplan, the Yo La Tengo couple. Stina Nordenstam, Chan Marshall (Cat Power), Rickie Lee Jones, Aimee Mann are some of my current favourite female songwriters.

Again, I think my point is slightly different--the idea of fetishism in music, of worshipping it as a fashion symbol, is not the same as trying to have good taste--having an Eames chair is not the same as championing architecture and furniture design and sneering at the Arts & Crafts movement... so yes, people have dressed nicely in the past, metaphorically or no, but it's a new phenom to be "cool" by being in love with avant-garde popular music... I mention pop especially because of the extensive branching it has done, and therefore is more conducive to the "i've heard it, you haven't, but you could've, because it's out there for us all" type of argument, which wasn't possible before recorded music...

and the comparison with popsters and critics isn't the same, because in the first, the unstated assumption is that it's not that great because critics loved it, in the second, we're not suggesting that it IS great simply because the elite don't love it... merely that the elite seem sometimes uninterested in things unprovocative or ironic cool...

and I say this with all the love in the world for my ilk... :)

I still don't believe the operations of taste and social positioning worked much differently in previous eras - the main difference is that recorded and mass-reproducible media brings the 'battle lines' between various differences of taste a lot closer.

And the comparison isn't exact but I'd still argue that if you say "The radicals don't like Neil Finn. I do." you are triangulating yourself even if you don't link the two, just like someone positioning themselves against "the critics" is doing. In the context of this thread, Kim had actually pre-empted any purely musical arguments by saying that dissing NF for being "too trad" was "odd", so it's not surprising Tim and Ned dived into the meta.

Is it just me or does Stew sound like Hootie?

Oooh, fighting words...

Actually, I meant doesn't Stew LOOK like Hootie. I'm not sure that's better--maybe that's worse. Poor Stew. I guess Hootie ruined it for burly, lumberjack-esque Black men. So much for my dreams of a PM Dawn reunion. Schade.

Snoop.

Yeah but Tom, I'll admit that I was making some assumptions about the general feeling towards Neil Finn, but they're based on my own observance of the reactions and attitudes of others during my decade+ of 'fandom' (I never actually joined the club mind you) and I think that makes them at least somewhat valid. It's also true that Neil has never quite seemed to fit in with the rest of my tastes in a certain way - v. hard to put onto a mix after Skinny Puppy for instance - so I really can forgive a lot of perceived ignorance and outright indifference about his stuff from other people. I actually would have given the ILM collective the benefit of the doubt, IF not for the fact that this conversation *has* gone on before (Crowded House - Classic or Dud, I believe) but I just wasn't in the mood to rail on that day, so I just read and was quite disappointed at the virtually unchallenged blanket dismissal that ocurred - In fact there may never have been such an agreeable thread!

Mickey there (whom I now LOVE by the way) has got it dead on - it wouldn't irk me at all if it felt like honest dislike of the either the music or the man, but instead practically all I've ever seen from people who don't already identify themselves as fans seems like an instinctive reaction to a familiar image. A lazy attitude if I want to be rude about it (which I don't really) but it's just the acceptance of it being dull because of x, y and z, and the lack of curiousity as to whether there could ever be any more to it that's totally sabotaging songs that (in my opinion - in a perfect world) would be far more popular than they are right now. He's probably somewhat content with that though, so my argument is moot from all but an 'I just want to hear more of this kind of music' point of view.

Tom, to your credit, I will add that I remember you were one of the few who actually wasn't dismissive on the thread I mentioned so I suppose you'll be immune to my evil eye 8) but then again, perhaps I should look it up before saying such things at all. It was ages ago.

On second hand - everyone - ignore me. This is exactly why I rarely talk about the stuff I that I really love. Too passionate to be logical...

1. The "they don't like them = they obsessed with fashion" (undertone = "they fall for passing fads, but we shall be vindicated at the Apocalypse!") argument is a) used by any defensive fan of a band that is criticised, and b) ignores the fact that Crowded House themselves can be clearly located within a tradition/scene/movement/period in history, and thus also = fashion, albeit a largely outmoded one. I'd say its usefulness as a rhetorical device had been exhausted, but that would suggest it was legitimate to begin with. (The Homerpalooza episode of The Simpsons had a wonderful meditation on this very issue)

2. I don't see why the critical reception of a band is irrelevant to judging a band - the "Classic or Dud" threads in particular have always taken in discussions of the positive/negative influence or impact the band has had, as well as whether the band was overrated or underrated. The argument that "it's all about the music, man!" strikes me as an overwhelmingly positional one - something we all drag out for the occassion when it suits us, and then shove back in the closet with an acknowledgement of its simplicity. Certainly I think slamming Crowded House for the way they inspire impassioned defences of classic songwriting and the rejection of "fashion" (see Mickey's post) is at least as legitimate as, say, slamming Tori Amos for inspiring legions of fairy-obssessed antisocial teenage girls.

If it makes you feel any better, Crowded House have always been massively popular in Australia, both commercially and critically.

Ah but I don't ever expect to be vindicated Tim. :)

Which movement would you say that Crowded House belonged to? Even when popular here, it always did seem to be an odd man out. Not being pointed - honestly curious.

Tom! Tim! Kim! and Mickey... wow, don't I feel like the odd man out. For this post, you can call me Mim. or Mom. Though that would be weirder.

Anyhoo, I think this argument has gone on for long enuff--it's going nowhere fast, and after a while, it boils down to circling the drain of aesthetic theory. It's amazing how many discussions on ILM could be settled by a quick run through some of the more fundamental texts of aesthetic and lit crit--we have some great discussions, but they've been dealt with before. The idea of rank, of relativism, of context--they're not new issues, and they've certainly been more clearly elucidated elsewhere.

I will say this, though--Tim, I think that you're mixing some metaphors and being a little disingenuous. "Judging" a band's worth on context of popularity is, in fact, not a good idea. Judging your reaction is fine. Another words, your level of interest versus disinterest is easily affected by the level of popularity--presumably for most of us, the more popular something is, the less intimate we feel towards it. That's fine, but saying that a band is crap BECAUSE it is popular or has critical acclaim is, and I'm applying a positive frame of reference, wrong wrong wrong.

And it is not in any way simple to say "it's the music, man" because that's what it really is when you're dealing with certain kinds of music. I would suggest that, as you clearly so eloquently noted, Finn is part of a tradition, and thus the context is known. Having established the non-ironic context, you have nothing else but the music.

And being part of a tradition does not mean that listening to it is solely an indication of fashion. I think that's a dangerous generalisation. That's as silly as liking Chinese food because of the way it makes you look when you eat it. I don't doubt that many truffle-eaters do it because it's expensive, but I would also argue that, per Brillat-Savarin, food is good because it's good food.

And I forgot to add two other younger songwriters that have good heads on their shoulders--Patty Griffin and David Garza. The latter unfortunately having a gi-normous ego to boot.

David may think very much of himself, but goddamn he's got some good songs. I have...wow, four albums, how did I end up with that many! Frankly just the fact he wrote "Slave" is all the justification he needs.

I dig your Garza review on AMG, Ned. Especially the comparion of the Black Crowes/Lenny Kravitz to necrophilia. Nice!

Has Dan Bern been mentioned yet? I can't decide whether I like or dislike him, but he's pretty clever. Saw Martin Sexton in concert a couple of weeks ago, and aside from getting thoroughly annoyed by his rabid cult of middle-aged christian/new-age women who shout things like "God Bless You Martin You Are The Greatest In The World" while holding their hands up palm-open in the air (a practice I loathe without mercy); I liked him a lot. Well, that is to say, an incredible vocal virtuoso, and no slouch on the guitar, but give me Vance Gilbert any day. But that dude from the Negro Problem?!?!? Are you kidding? Fucken'-A man, they were opening for the fucking Counting Crows and I thought the Crows were more enjoyable (although they were about on par with Live :)) !

― Dan I., Tuesday, 4 December 2001 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Which, in case I didn't make myself clear (wouldn't want you thinking I had a place for Live in my generous heart), means they really, really, Suck; big time.

Slave is amazing! This Euphoria is one of the most gorgeous albums by a out of left fielder I've ever heard, I was like, whoa! But have you seen him in concert? It's hysterical/freaky--it's like Mr. Garza was channeling outtakes from La Bamba... I'm not kidding. And I played with a coupla guys from his old band Dah-veed (ego much?)--and they were like, he's an asshole, he's an asshole, asshole him. But then I met him, and he seemed so nice! Weird... of course, after This Euphoria tanked, Elektra or whoever he's with had the bright idea that they'd let him produce that new one, instead of Kravitz, and, well, I think it's not nearly the album that Euphoria is.

Mickey - I think it would be pretty clear by now that I don't have a problem with a band's popularity.

A judgement of a band's worth is almost inevitably a judgement of one's reaction to them, and if that reaction takes in elements outside the music itself then so be it. You can choose to disregard such reactions or argue with them, but launching into a diatribe against their approach to music seems to me to be unnecessary. Anyway, I don't see how disliking CH for being the standard bearers for classicism is any different than liking them for being the standard bearers for classicism (a lot of reviews of CH feel compelled to talk about how "at least they're not [X] like everything else these days" - a fashion-based answer, no?).

Personally I care very little how Crowded House are treated by the press (as I noted before, I don't have a problem with them), but I perhaps contrarily take objection to a dismissal of the thoughts of those that do care, because the nature of the general critical reaction to music has a huge bearing on one's own reaction to the music *if one finds the music in and of itself disappointing*. It would be doing a disservice to those posters who have expressed criticisms of Crowded House to assume that they're posting without a knowledge of CH's music and an opinion on it (but again, the temptation to do so is almost inevitable when talking about a favourite band or artist, and I am as guilty of it as any).

Your taste/look of food analogy confuses me though, at least when applied to music. If "fashion" encompasses everything up to and including the style of the music and even the nature of the songwriting (which it does, as these are subject to change and rising or falling levels of popularity), how can this not be an important and constituent factor in consumption of the music on a level with tasting food? Would you say that (to pick an example out of the air) the fashion of short, angry two-chord sneerathons during the punk era had comparatively little to do with the nature of punk as music? I fail to see how the hunger for something new in music is actually different to the hunger for something new in terms of food, and I also fail to see how someone who might feel they've listened to enough "classic songwriting" for one lifetime necessarily feels that way because of some failure or compromise of their critical faculties. Maybe I've totally missed your point - if so, enlighten me.

Isn't Mickey's point that this argument is irrelevant because the key texts of aesthetics and lit crit have been there before kinda like our argument that Crowded House are irrelevant because the Beatles (say) have been there before?

Judging a band by the fans - if the fans of a particular band say or do the same thing in the same way, then occam's razor suggests that there might be something in that band to inspire the fans to do/say that.

Steve Earle, people! Steve! Earle!

Failing that, Ron Sexsmith, too.

First, the short reply--Tom, no, it isn't. It isn't in the same way that just because my jacket is red and an apple is red doesn't mean they are the same thing.

And secondly, Tim,

I think that what we differ on is the belief that a justified evaluation of worth includes one based on the work's reception. Or rather, I think that's a trite way to see something. The food analogy was awful, btw, I'm sorry for that--I've been writing all day and so my brain was fried. What I meant is that the catch-all "fashion" term allows a very messy, undelineated semantic to cover sketchy ground.

Your discussion is one of context. To paraphrase your point, I think you are arguing for factors outside of the "work" itself being valid valences. Some theorists would argue that even things inside the "work" are context-based, but let's ignore that slippery slope, because clearly no one believes that argument here, otherwise no one would ever post anything on ILM, except maybe recommendations based on genre.

I agree that context is important, but I also believe that pop music is more or less clear on context. i.e., unless it's obviously sampling/referential/postmodern, it's usually sincere and so you know the "fashion" under which it operates. Thus it is fairly reductive to identify the things that make a good pop song or a bad one. It's kind of like baroque--traditional pop have rules and the way in which you play with them gives you a good or bad song.

The idea of fashion, then, is sorta silly, because we know the rules, and so we CAN judge a piece by its rules. As an example of the irrelevance of fashion to certain musics, we listen to music now having no idea of what the fashion is, and we're ok with that. I mean, I wasn't alive when Sgt. Pepper was around, but I think it's great. I certainly wasn't around when Ellington recorded A-Train, but I think that's great too. And I don't wont for any fashion or contextual clues--so obviously there's something there that's "real"-- a self-contained analysis based on our understanding of western music rules.

This all goes around the point that originally I posited--that there's a kneejerk reaction from the elites to sort of dismiss nonprovocative music. This claim is neither outrageous nor novel-- it's pretty much fact. But the thing I can't figure out is why the proletariats--the ones who have high art tastes but claim low art affinity, still bypass the "middle." I mean, after irony, isn't sincerity the most ironic of all?

I like Lawrence Hayward.

The idea of fashion, then, is sorta silly, because we know the rules

I've noticed before on this board that when somebody says "pop has rules" or to put it another way "there are objective criteria for measuring the quality of music", and you then ask them to describe these rules or these criteria they tend to sidestep. I'm positive Mickey won't do this.

Sergeant Pepper is a bad example because it's very very difficult to find an appreciation of SP nowadays which isn't based in historical contextual factors.

...As an example of the irrelevance of fashion to certain musics, we listen to music now having no idea of what the fashion is, and we're ok with that. I mean, I wasn't alive when Sgt. Pepper was around, but I think it's great....And I don't wont for any fashion or contextual clues--so obviously there's something there that's "real"...

I think we're operating on different definitions of "fashion" - mine takes in compositional and stylistic approaches (why I used the term "tradition") which, since I presume you can spot them in your Beatles albums, aren't included in your definition (which I take to be an entirely context-based one).

But to switch over to your definition, why is someone with a desire for music that sounds new (to them) necessarily following the dictates of fashion? Especially with filesharing, I come across new music constantly which I don't even know the name of, let alone the context, and yet it manages to captivate me purely by virtue of sounding thrillingly new to me.

And maybe there's the rub: obviously people are incorrect to claim that Crowded House are objectively bad due to their traditionalism, but is there something so wrong with saying they personally have heard far too much music like this during their lifetimes to like a band who make a point of specialising in it (and that the way the band are praised for this pushes their response from mild dislike to strong dislike)? I certainly don't think the non-parenthesis section of that could be considered a "fashion" based response, unless (to use your admittedly disowned fashion analogy again) someone who tires of eating the same sort of cuisine every night does so due to fashion.

Re: "a self-contained analysis based on our understanding of western music rules"... I'm not about to automatically dismiss such an approach, but I think there's been enough debate in the "subjective vs. objective" and "bad" threads to suggest that this is not even a desirable method of analysis to many people, let alone a high-priority one.

Arthur, who is Lawrence Hayward?

Just kidding. A couple of days ago I played Kate the Tampax Advert off Novelty Rock, she was in fits.

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.