Are you a music fan? Are you curious as to the inspiration behind classic songs like Wild Horses or I Am The Walrus? Then check out this link from Purpleclover.com:
Of the 15 songs presented, I already knew about the inspiration to roughly five or so of them. Not a great amount, which meant that there were plenty of interesting surprises to be found. And of those, the one that surprised me the most was the inspiration to The Beatles’ Ticket to Ride.
I had absolutely no idea!
…or so argues Annie Zaleski for Salon Magazine.
I’ve heard this argument in support of Cheap Trick before but I’m somewhat torn. I think the band made some very good music but there are others still not in the Hall of Fame that I personally feel are more deserving of entry. Music is, after all, nothing more than about one’s personal taste!
This then is a list of musical acts so far not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame:
http://www.futurerocklegends.com/The_Snub_List.php
Looking over the list, I feel there are many (in fact most!) of these acts should be in the Hall of Fame. I’ll mention a few below that struck me as particularly egregious in their not being in the Hall. Note that many of these picks represent bands I DO NOT have ANY of their songs on my Hard Drive. But it is impossible not to acknowledge their influence to music in general:
The Carpenters – as with Cheap Trick I’m not a huge fan, but it is undeniable how popular they were in their heyday. Sure they could be considered shmaltzy today, but there’s something about Karen Carpenter’s voice…
The Cars – A group I’m quite fond of. They had a unique new wave sound and plenty of hits.
Def Leopard – Another band I don’t really care all that much about. But, again, for many years they released a spate of very popular songs and, even though I’m not a fan, feel they should be in the Hall.
Depeche Mode – Have several of their albums, am a fan. They have a strong list of hit songs and are certainly deserving of entry.
The Doobie Brothers – Not a fan of their music. In fact, whenever one of their songs comes on the radio I move on to another station. Having said that, they were a very big act and their music is clearly very popular with many.
Iron Maiden – Have a few of their albums but don’t consider myself a terribly big fan. Having said that, they are certainly a very popular band worldwide.
Journey – Don’t stop believing… When I was in high school, I really liked their album Escape (which had that song). Apart from that album, I never was a huge fan of the group but, again, they created some very popular music.
The Moody Blues – Again, not a huge fan but they’ve created some really solid work.
Siouxie and the Banshees – Am a BIG fan of their music. Very big fan. They’ve created some wonderful songs and should be in the Hall.
Man, I really like tnem. Here’s another:
T. Rex – A strange omission. Again, not a huge fan of T. Rex but there is no doubt they blazed a trail that many, including David Bowie, would follow.
Yes – Another band I’m not a huge fan of, but they’re not in the Hall yet?!?
So there you have it. Again, I’m not trying to slight any of the many others on the list. In fact, many -perhaps even most!- of them could easily be on this brief list. But why repeat the whole thing?
As they say, your mileage may vary.
Perhaps one of the best known/watched TV shows today is HBO’s Game of Thrones. This past weekend, as they are wont to do, HBO offered a “free” weekend of viewing for those who don’t have the cable station as a way to give them the premiere of this season’s Game of Thrones (it aired Sunday). Of course, the free “taste” of the fifth season of this show is intended to get people to, hopefully, subscribe to HBO.
But even before that first episode aired came news that the first FIVE episodes of the fifth season had already leaked and were available to be downloaded at various pirate websites:
http://gizmodo.com/nearly-half-of-game-of-thrones-season-5-just-leaked-1697305966
As I said in the heading, this is unfortunately very much a sign of the times. If you have anything that is popular and desirable, be it music, movies, books, and, yes, TV shows, chances are good you’ll find pirate copies of them available online.
And that’s too bad.
While shows like Game of Thrones no doubt earn their investment dollars many times over, the fact is that not all works of art and their creators/investors are as fortunate. Piracy, even in small amounts, hurts the bottom line. While there may be those who illegally download something and later on legally pay for the same product, there will always be some percentage of these people who get material illegally and for free and do not bother to pursue it any other way.
One of the great concerns I have today is that artistic creations have become dangerously devalued. There are great and powerful industries out there that create wonderful machines that allow you to see and experience artistic works (smartphones, computers, tablets, etc.) and as consumers we’re willing to pay sometimes big money to have the latest of these items…yet the things the machines allow us to see/hear -from music to movies to books- are for the most part unprotected.
You have the latest iPhone or iPad or Samsung or HP computer, etc. etc. and with them you can go to assorted websites and illegally download a movie/music/book/etc. you want to see. Sometimes, this movie/song/book hasn’t yet been formally released!
The end result, I fear, is that the ease with which people can get these items creates a sense the act of creating them didn’t involve much actual work. I’ve noted before the weird (to me) idea that authors “shit out” their books in their free time while and during the rest of the hours in the day pursue a life of fun and leisure. This concept has been exacerbated by TV shows such as Murder She Wrote and, more recently, Castle.
I fear this idea is permeating other creative fields. Coming up with a song/album? Come on, how hard can that be? Drawing a 22 page comic book? Shouldn’t take more than a day, right? Writing a story? Can’t take much more to create it than it does to read it.
Even worse, there are those who know creating such works takes time and effort and they just don’t care.
If I work somewhere -from a Wall Street office to a McDonalds- eight hours a day for two weeks, at the end of this time I expect to get a check for my work. With artistic creations, you may do the very same time and work just as hard and for just as long…and your hard work can then be taken from you, posted online, and whatever monies you might have made are now subject to that loss.
I’m not saying anything anyone out there shouldn’t know already.
Piracy is, at least as of now, a sad reality of life. Perhaps in time there will be a way to more securely protect your artistic works so that they don’t end up pirated online.
Or perhaps there will never be a way of doing this.
Regardless, the irony is that the people who will ultimately be hurt by this are the consumers. The Beatles took years to practice their trade and be properly paid for their work until they were able to create some truly memorable songs and albums.
Somewhere out there might be a band that, with time, might have become just as good as them, but they make no money from their music because it simply doesn’t sell as much as it is pirated. Unlike John, Paul, George, and Ringo, the members of this band eventually have to break apart…they simply cannot sustain themselves.
And we, the public, will never get to hear what this band might have made.
Or see what this director could have created.
Or this writer.
Or this artist.
The most interesting thing about reading interviews is that sometimes you may glean a bit of knowledge that surprises as well as fascinates you with its insight.
This happened when I was reading the following interview with the authors of Birth, School, Metallica, Death and Into the Black from Salon.com, concerning the rise and fall of the heavy metal group Metallica:
“What the f*ck have we got ourselves into?”: The Rise and Fall of Metallica
Now, before I get into what I found so fascinating in the interview, let me first state that I really like Metallica’s first album, Kill Them All, but have middling feelings about most of their other output. There are a smattering of songs from other albums I enjoy, but I’ve always felt their first album was their strongest. Further, in the realm of metal music, I’ve preferred the music of Megadeth (although to me their post-Countdown to Extinction and Youthanasia albums are lacking) and Anthrax.
Having said all this, here is what really intrigued me in the interview. It is the very last question and the authors’ answer (the part I found so intriguing is bolded):
Salon Question: What is the legacy of Metallica one hundred years from now?
Good question. A hundred years is a very long time. Given that almost no music from a hundred years ago is widely known by the general public, it’s tempting to say that it might not be remembered at all. But if it is, they will be recognized as the greatest metal band of all time.
As I said, this bit of information, something that if I had given some thought to would probably have realized on my own, nonetheless struck me as so very fascinating because it so clearly speaks of the transitory nature of music appreciation.
We are creatures that live and appreciate what goes on around us in the “here and now”. But our “here and now” is not necessarily other peoples’. Or, to put it another way, what we find memorable is not necessarily what others find memorable.
And so it is, perhaps more so than with other works of art, with music. For popular music is generational. When I was growing up, The Beatles were considered (and are to many still considered!) the best rock band there ever was. Yet when they were coming up, John, Paul, George, and Ringo were clearly influenced by the music they grew up to, which was 1950’s era rock and roll.
As much as I love Beatles music, I can’t get into most of the 1950’s era rock music, even though I know it was the foundation of much of what came afterwards.
I’ve noted many times before my love for the music of David Bowie, yet his output simply doesn’t work for my daughters, even though some of the music that does work for them displays to my ears clear echoes to Mr. Bowie’s works.
Ironically enough, I recall reading a very old (it must have been released in the late 1980’s or earlier) interview with James Hetfield, singer/songwriter/guitarist for Metallica, wherein he marvels at the music of the Beatles, a band he had at that point just discovered.
So the statement that “almost no music from a hundred years ago is widely known to the general public” is spot on…and rather sad.
I’ve always hoped that good art, whether it be novels or movies or television shows and, of course, music would stand the test of time. Yet the reality is that while we may still admire ancient artworks or ancient architectural wonders or old novels or poems, of all the art forms out there it seems to me music appreciation is the one that has the hardest time surviving the passage of time.
There are exceptions of course. Most people know or at least recognize Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony (and more likely the famous opening rather than the whole thing).
Yet let’s be truthful here: If you’re a modern teen in the mood to listen to music, I doubt you’re popping this into your player.
A while back I read another interview, this one with Henry Rollins (a truly fascinating singer/actor/comedian who came into prominence back in the 1980’s with the punk band Black Flag) wherein he stated that when he was a teen, his father would yell at him about the music he was listening to and tell him it was all garbage to his ears.
Mr. Rollins noted how his “old man” simply didn’t get the then modern music and therefore it proved how out of touch he was. Mr. Rollins went on to state that his teen self couldn’t believe how someone could get that way and be as out of touch with music as his father was. As a teen, he could only shake his head and say he’d never become like him.
The kicker? Mr. Rollins went on to say that over time he’s found more recent music harder and harder to like. With great humor and irony he notes that he finds most of it awful and that he has, effectively, become his father!
And so it goes.
Like music? Are curious to see which song reached the #1 position on the day of your birth? Then check this out:
http://playback.fm/birthday-song
I’m an ooooold man, and the #1 song for the day of my birth was…
Watching this video, I’m intrigued with the lip-synching. Clearly the song as playing in this clip is the studio version. The synching, to my eyes, is not all that pretty…
Goes to show, the more things change…
…Every David Bowie hairstyle from 1964 to 2014 in one GIF:
For those too lazy to click on the link, here’s the GIF, though I suggest you check out the link if you want (NEED DAMMIT!) a full chart that shows you each individual picture…
When I heard my favorite musician, David Bowie, was about to release a new “greatest hits” set called Nothing Has Changed, I wasn’t particularly excited. Looking over the list of songs on the release, I had almost all of them, and many were “radio edits”, which meant the songs were cut down to fit radio playing times. Sometimes these cuts were simply brutal and harmed the songs more than helped.
Still, after giving the list a second look I found a number of tracks interested me. There was the new song, Sue (or in a Season of Crime) along with three tracks taken from the aborted Toys album which I heard snippets of but was curious to hear in full (Let Me Sleep Beside You, Your Turn to Drive, and Shadowman). There were also some interesting curios/remasters. Of those, the one I most wanted to hear was the remastered The Man Who Sold the World, one of my all time favorite Bowie songs.
Then, at the tail end of the set were five very, very early Bowie tracks that predated his first big hit, Space Oddity: In The Heat of Morning, Silly Boy Blue, Can’t Help Thinking About Me, You’ve Got A Habit of Leaving, and Liza Jane.
Taken together, there were at a minimum ten songs I was curious to hear/have out of the 59 in the set. Had I bought those ten songs individually, I would have paid roughly $10.29 for them…if they were all available for download (amazon.com does not allow you to buy three of the very early Bowie songs individually). The full album, on the other hand, was $19.99.
With an approximate $9 difference, I decided to go for the whole thing.
Now, I’m a David Bowie fanatic and willing to make the investment in the overall product. Even so, I’m level headed enough to warn those who have most of these songs and maybe aren’t as big a fanatic of David Bowie to go over the track list like I did and consider whether you want to spend their money on the whole thing or just some of the songs in this particular set. As I said, the extra nine bucks for me wasn’t too big a hurdle but to others the price difference might be greater. Even so, did I get my money’s worth?
Well…sorta.
I really enjoyed the three songs from the so-far lost Toys album and wish Mr. Bowie would officially release the whole thing. As for the new song…it’s Ok, a jazzy piece that neither blew me away nor severely disappointed. The very early works of Mr. Bowie, I knew coming in, would be more curiosity pieces than songs worth listening to over and over again. I was happy to have them in the set, but again, they aren’t necessarily earth shakers.
The remastered works were clear and sounded great, but at least to my ears weren’t necessarily a significant step up from what you find in other recent releases.
My overall impression of the album is that it is a good, pretty comprehensive effort but one that those unfamiliar with Mr. Bowie’s oeuvre will enjoy more than “old fans” like me.
A few days back Keith Harris at the Concourse wrote a snarky column about new boxed sets…
http://theconcourse.deadspin.com/2014-music-box-sets-a-guide-for-the-bemused-and-disgus-1664336893
…and basically trashed most of the sets offered this Christmas/Holiday season, including Nothing Has Changed. Most egregious was this statement regarding David Bowie’s more recent output:
I know a bunch of Bowie fans who, against all reason, continued to buy his albums into the ’90s and beyond, and then sold them back in disgust.
If you were a David Bowie fan up to Let’s Dance and tuned out afterwards, Nothing Has Changed should prove Mr. Harris and his supposed friends’ opinion quite wrong. While I would agree that Mr. Bowie floundered a bit after Let’s Dance, his output since 1993’s Buddha of Suburbia has been on par, in my humble opinion, with some of his great 1970’s work, though obviously not as commercially successful.
In conclusion, if you’re not very familiar with Mr. Bowie or haven’t checked out his more recent output, you might want to give Nothing Has Changed a try. Otherwise, consider what songs you want and what songs you need and then decide whether getting this album is worth the investment.
…when you’re no longer in tune (that’s one bad pun) with modern music?
Easy, when you read an article like this one, which states that Drake has surpassed the Beatles for number of top 100 songs…and you couldn’t name even one Drake song!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/05/drake-surpasses-the-beatles-hot-100-singles_n_5935158.html
Yes, I’m becoming my parents…
I’m often fascinated with songs and their remakes. To my mind, the most successful remake of a song is Jimi Hendrix’s version of Bob Dylan’s All Along the Watchtower.
The original Bob Dylan version:
The Jimi Hendrix version:
’nuff said.
But there are cases where original songwriters have written songs and subsequently given them to others to record. Sometimes those recordings prove to be very popular.
Mott the Hoople’s All The Young Dudes was written -and I believe features some background vocals- by David Bowie. Perhaps the most fascinating thing about the song is that, according to Mr. Bowie, it was originally intended to be included in the Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders From Mars album!
Mr. Bowie would go on to perform that song many times in concert. He even recorded his own version(s) of it. To my ears while they may be good, Mott the Hoople version still feels like the definitive version:
Now check out Sorcerer, a song sung/recorded by Marilyn Martin but written by Stevie Nicks. It originally appeared in the 1984 film Streets of Fire:
It would appear Stevie Nicks remembered and liked the song enough to “take it back” in 2001, recording and releasing her own version in the album Trouble in Shangri-La:
Unlike All the Young Dudes, I can’t decide which version of Sorcerer I like more.
Interesting stuff, to my mind!
According to longtime David Bowie producer Tony Visconti we’re not all that far away from having another album from the legendary artist:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/19/showbiz/bowie-album/index.html
The article has a link to another article that is about a new “Best of” package being released by Mr. Bowie which will include, apparently, at least 2 new songs (depending on which version you get) and some songs from the aborted Toys album:
http://www.nme.com/news/david-bowie/79653
Interesting stuff.
So too is this debate published at Salon.com between Simon Critchley and Rick Moody regarding Mr. Bowie’s 1979 album Lodger:
I like the title of their article, regarding the “Maddening” brilliance of Lodger. This was/is a wild album, even for Mr. Bowie. It was the last of the so-called Berlin Trilogy and many felt it was the weakest of the three albums (the other two being Low and Heroes).
Yet as with many David Bowie works, what at first may seem like a misfire or a lesser piece can, over time, grow in your estimation. Apparently, this is what happened to the two debating the album. They were big time Bowie fans who were let down with Lodger when it was first released. Now, many, many years later, they find themselves enjoying the work and “understanding” it better than they did before.
Interesting stuff, if you’re into David Bowie!