The Prosecution Rests Your Honor

[davideduardo]

Thanks! Just learned another tidbit about that period.

The development of stations that played recorded music was severely impacted by Petrillo and his AFM antics. It was not until his actions came under scrutiny that turntable-based formats could exist.

The situation was so difficult for radio that even in smaller markets like Chattanooga a station had to have a live house band in order to be "allowed" (read "not have a strike called") to play a few hours of recorded music a day.

A search of Broadcasting Magazine on "James Petrillo" will bring up all the amazing details.

And similarly, Petrillo was able to paralyze the recording industry with his demands on behalf of session musicians and the like, including his famous strike in 1942 that pretty much shut down new releases for over a year.

 

[TheBigA]

I am not nearly as familiar with the music of the 20's and 30's as I am with subsequent years and that is why I tend to focus on those later years.

I was referencing the death of Buddy Holly in 1959, which is viewed by some as the day the music died.

Except my whole point is.....there isn't any "new" music. You have vocalists remaking old classics and teeny-boppers displaying their *ahem* personal wares while warbling some off-key crap with electronic back markers.

I think that's a broad generalization. There is a lot of original music, using original beats and rhythms, and original instrumentation, which certainly makes it new using any definition. By the same token, you had rock musicians in your defined golden era who were basing their music on the blues of the 1930s and 40s. Certainly the Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin will admit to that. But Elvis was basically remaking Bill Monroe and black blues musicians like Big Mama Thornton. So remaking old music isn't confined to the present day.

Except the main issue with the advance of recorded music was the unions who wanted musicians to keep their jobs.

That was certainly part of it, but it also affected the overall presentation of radio, as it was done in its first golden era. Network radio gave way to local radio, programming built around shows changed to programming formats. The need for full staffs of engineers went away as the technology changed. So it was possible to present a popular music program with only one person: The DJ.

 

[landtuna]

Midler is now on-board:

"Midler exclaimed. "It’s always surprising to see someone like Ariana Grande with that silly high voice, a very wholesome voice, slithering around on a couch, looking so ridiculous. I mean, it’s silly beyond belief and I don’t know who’s telling her to do it."

https://celebrity.yahoo.com/the-insider/bette-midler-slams-ariana-grande-135641608.html

 

[landtuna]

I was referencing the death of Buddy Holly in 1959, which is viewed by some as the day the music died.

It certainly seemed like it at that time but after a few years of really terrible pop music in the early 60's we were rescued by the British Invasion and then an explosion of music innovation which has yet to be topped.

I think that's a broad generalization. There is a lot of original music, using original beats and rhythms, and original instrumentation, which certainly makes it new using any definition. By the same token, you had rock musicians in your defined golden era who were basing their music on the blues of the 1930s and 40s. Certainly the Rolling Stones and Led Zepplin will admit to that. But Elvis was basically remaking Bill Monroe and black blues musicians like Big Mama Thornton. So remaking old music isn't confined to the present day.

The "remaking" of music I am talking about is what was discussed a few days ago in the 'Michael Buble' thread - namely, essentially a copy of a previous work and within the same genre. You cannot say that anything Elvis did was essentially a copy of Big Mama Thornton. Although the title and perhaps the words were the same the music was definitely different. And, there is a huge difference between copying a work and having that work influence a subsequent work. Most artists are influenced by earlier ones but only those lacking in talent actually copy previous works.

 

[TheBigA]

You cannot say that anything Elvis did was essentially a copy of Big Mama Thornton.

Maybe, but we have pretty clear evidence that his recording of Don't Be Cruel is an almost note-for-note copy from Otis Blackwell's demo. And from that moment on, a lot of the vocal affectations that Elvis became known for were copied from Blackwell, even in songs Otis didn't write. The Rolling Stones version of Not Fade Away was basically a note for note copy of Buddy Holly. Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton were more than influenced by the blues masters. They copied their style and their subject matter, and often performed a lot of their songs. Lots of examples. Too many to mention.

 

[landtuna]

Maybe, but we have pretty clear evidence that his recording of Don't Be Cruel is an almost note-for-note copy from Otis Blackwell's demo. And from that moment on, a lot of the vocal affectations that Elvis became known for were copied from Blackwell, even in songs Otis didn't write. The Rolling Stones version of Not Fade Away was basically a note for note copy of Buddy Holly. Jimmy Page and Eric Clapton were more than influenced by the blues masters. They copied their style and their subject matter, and often performed a lot of their songs. Lots of examples. Too many to mention.

I didn't say it never happened but some artists (*cough* Buble *cough*) have made a career out of covering previous versions. Some genres, such as Christmas songs, are expected to be copied (why, I don't know, but it is true) but original works not so much. As an old musician myself I can understand why a current work would sound similar, sometimes more than that, to a previous one. I don't understand though why a performer would want a career out of imitating another (unless, of course, they didn't have enough talent on their own).

Getting back to the original topic....it seems to me these days that we have a multitude of "artists" (and I use that term VERY loosely) doing pretty much what everyone else is doing. Although the melodies and the words may be different the overall sound is very much the same. Although I don't classify Rap as actually music it is probably the best example of this but popular music comes close. Some singers made a career out of sounding alike never mind the song (yes you, Frankie) but across a genre it is just lack of talent.

 

[TheBigA]

Getting back to the original topic....it seems to me these days that we have a multitude of "artists" (and I use that term VERY loosely) doing pretty much what everyone else is doing.

It's fine to have that opinion, but to extend it beyond that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You like what you like. Enjoy it. Don't be surprised if others don't share your view.

 

[landtuna]

It's fine to have that opinion, but to extend it beyond that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. You like what you like. Enjoy it. Don't be surprised if others don't share your view.

Like everyone else I am just expressing my views. People are free to agree or disagree as they will. I'm a big boy. My feelings won't get hurt.

 

[Avid Listener]

"Midler exclaimed. "It’s always surprising to see someone like Ariana Grande with that silly high voice, a very wholesome voice, slithering around on a couch, looking so ridiculous. I mean, it’s silly beyond belief and I don’t know who’s telling her to do it."

Maybe someone should show the Divine Miss M some of the videos made of her when she was the diva of the homosexual bath houses in New York City.

 

[boombox4]

I suppose my favorite period for rock music -- if I had to boil it down to a range of years -- would probably be between 1963 and 1989.

But there was a lot of good and creative rock music produced during the 1990's, from Grunge to Nu-Metal and rap-rock, and a lot of the industrial rock from the 80's through the early 2000's was very good also. And I know there was some good rock and blues produced before my favorite era -- back as early as the 1940's.

There's good music in every decade. But to find what you like, sometimes you just have to look for it. A task made a bit easier now with the internet.

 

[landtuna]

But there was a lot of good and creative rock music produced during the 1990's, from Grunge to Nu-Metal and rap-rock, and a lot of the industrial rock from the 80's through the early 2000's was very good also. And I know there was some good rock and blues produced before my favorite era -- back as early as the 1940's.

You've used three terms for genres I've never heard before so I would classify them as niche at best and therefore discount them entirely. As for Grunge, was it ever really that popular outside the Northwest? Personally, I think Cobain did us all a big favor.

There was Blues, good or not, produced during the 40's but it didn't get much airplay due to "race music" restrictions by broadcasters. As for Rock in the 40's you would have to provide examples. I have never heard anything even remotely resembling modern rock during that decade.

 

[Avid Listener]

You've used three terms for genres I've never heard before so I would classify them as niche at best and therefore discount them entirely. As for Grunge, was it ever really that popular outside the Northwest? Personally, I think Cobain did us all a big favor.

There was Blues, good or not, produced during the 40's but it didn't get much airplay due to "race music" restrictions by broadcasters. As for Rock in the 40's you would have to provide examples. I have never heard anything even remotely resembling modern rock during that decade.

First, those aren't genres, they are sub-genres or even sub-sub-genres.

Second, though there was no "modern" rock recorded in the 40's, there were many songs that were direct progenitors of rock and roll as we now know it. Listen to these songs, which are a few good examples. Note that one is from 1929!

Goree Carter Rock Awhile (1949)
Roy Brown - Good Rockin' Tonight 1947
STRANGE THINGS HAPPENING EVERY DAY Sister Rosetta Tharp 1944
'Going To Move To Alabama' CHARLEY PATTON (1929)

The thing is, whether or not music was played on the radio or not is irrelevant. As long as it was played in bars and juke joints, it existed. As for the dividing line between blues and rock & roll, that's not a hard and fast, clearly delineated line.

For example, compare this song, Robert Johnson- Crossroad, with this song, Cream- Crossroads(Robert Johnson Cover). Clearly, the first one is blues, and the second one is blues-oriented rock. But aside from loud electric instruments and better recording fidelity, the actual song itself is the same. The same goes for all the rock songs of the British Blues era, including all the songs Led Zeppelin ripped off from the original artists.

 

[boombox4]

You've used three terms for genres I've never heard before so I would classify them as niche at best and therefore discount them entirely. As for Grunge, was it ever really that popular outside the Northwest? Personally, I think Cobain did us all a big favor.

There was Blues, good or not, produced during the 40's but it didn't get much airplay due to "race music" restrictions by broadcasters. As for Rock in the 40's you would have to provide examples. I have never heard anything even remotely resembling modern rock during that decade.

There have always been genres of rock, and they all make up part of what rock music is. To talk about rock music, you're also talking about genres. Whether it was the Mersey beat stuff that was popular on radio in the early 1960's, surf music, mod, psychedelic rock, folk rock, progressive rock, or blues rock. They're all genres. Any of the bands you've mentioned could be placed in a genre.

I'm sure when you mention that 1955-1984 was the best period for rock music, you aren't referring to Ace's "How Long" (technically in the rock format) or Rex's "You Take My Breath Away" (technically in the rock format) or anything by Pablo Cruise (technically in the rock music format), or anything by bands like Ambrosia (not exactly hard hitting music, but still technically in the rock format). But those bands and songs were played on album rock stations during your favorite era.

They happen to belong to a genre of rock I never cared for. But they still were "rock", and still were very popular.

My point was that the genres I mentioned were examples of what made rock music valuable post-1984. Rather than list a bunch of bands you may or may not have heard, I decided to list the genres. There are bands in those genres that I thought made rock music that was as good as a lot of the rock music that was released during your own favorite era.

Grunge was popular world wide. Soundgarden, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains all had albums that entered the Billboard 100 at #1 position in 1994. Much of the output by those four bands is quite good. A lot of it was very creative (especially Soundgarden). Nu-metal and rap-rock were popular world wide. Some of those artists sold millions of records, and a lot of those records were actually very good -- and some of it was also junk -- just like you get in any era of music.

As for the connection between rock and roll and blues in the 1940's, I think Avid covered that quite well.

 

[TheBigA]

But those bands and songs were played on album rock stations during your favorite era.

To me, that sentence is the key part of your post. Radio stations don't make music decisions for musicological reasons. Program directors are not musicologists. They're simply putting together songs in a collection that attract an audience base. Then years later, we find that audience base longs for those songs again, and they form the basis for new radio formats like classic rock or classic hits. But when you look at those songs divorced from their context, strictly on musicological grounds, they don't always make sense.

 

[landtuna]

First, those aren't genres, they are sub-genres or even sub-sub-genres.

Everyone seems to have their own definition. I just call those junk.

Second, though there was no "modern" rock recorded in the 40's, there were many songs that were direct progenitors of rock and roll as we now know it. Listen to these songs, which are a few good examples. Note that one is from 1929!

Yup, these were called "race music" and were not heard on national radio. Although you can hear the relationship to the 1950's Rockabilly and BeBop they are still a generation away.

The thing is, whether or not music was played on the radio or not is irrelevant. As long as it was played in bars and juke joints, it existed. As for the dividing line between blues and rock & roll, that's not a hard and fast, clearly delineated line.

Except that we are talking radio here, or at least I was. I didn't hang out in bars and juke joints as a kid so that music didn't exist for me (or the vast majority of my peers).

I've always maintained that Blues, in general, is almost a spoken word form with a musical background. Your examples are pretty good indicators of that. To take the skeleton of a Blues "song" and turn it into a true Rock classic takes a lot of work and the virtual rewriting of the original. Although there are similarities between "Crossroads" and its Blues counterpart they are in no way other than the basic key framework related. What you said about no distinct dividing line is true in many cases though.

The same goes for all the rock songs of the British Blues era, including all the songs Led Zeppelin ripped off from the original artists.

Our definitions of "ripped off" are different. To "rip off" an original I maintain that it must exist in the same genre as the original and be essentially the same song by a different artist. Buble rips off Sinatra for instance. In your example of Crossroads earlier though it is not because of the different tempo, instruments, accompaniment etc. Everybody seems to sing certain Christmas standards but no one accuses another of ripping them off and yet the songs are almost identical whether sung by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir or The Carpenters. I know there are some legalities in the differences - I am just addressing the musical part.

 

[landtuna]

Grunge was popular world wide. Soundgarden, Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Alice In Chains all had albums that entered the Billboard 100 at #1 position in 1994. Much of the output by those four bands is quite good. A lot of it was very creative (especially Soundgarden). Nu-metal and rap-rock were popular world wide. Some of those artists sold millions of records, and a lot of those records were actually very good -- and some of it was also junk -- just like you get in any era of music.

The boundaries that concern me is the USA. I didn't live in any other country during the time we are speaking of so what they listened to or considered popular is out of my knowledge. AFAIK ABBA is still the world's best selling pop music group even after all these years but if you asked most Americans my age they would probably tell you ABBA was much more International than National.

I live in the little city that Pearl Jam comes from and heard their stuff early on - and hated it. Along with most of the other similar acts. That is largely why I have discounted pop music later than the mid-80's. Whether you like it or not is a personal thing and I don't argue that. What I mean by "good music" is the lack of similarity (unique sounds) and the plethora of innovation that earlier decades had. Pearl Jam is still around BTW and still has a following. Just isn't and never was my thing.

Interestingly, I had two teens and one slightly younger during those 90's years and with the exception of one fanboi's like of Guns n Roses none of the other groups you mention were ever heard in my house. I don't doubt they were popular elsewhere but not here.

 

[boombox4]

The boundaries that concern me is the USA. I didn't live in any other country during the time we are speaking of so what they listened to or considered popular is out of my knowledge. AFAIK ABBA is still the world's best selling pop music group even after all these years but if you asked most Americans my age they would probably tell you ABBA was much more International than National.

I live in the little city that Pearl Jam comes from and heard their stuff early on - and hated it. Along with most of the other similar acts. That is largely why I have discounted pop music later than the mid-80's. Whether you like it or not is a personal thing and I don't argue that. What I mean by "good music" is the lack of similarity (unique sounds) and the plethora of innovation that earlier decades had. Pearl Jam is still around BTW and still has a following. Just isn't and never was my thing.

Interestingly, I had two teens and one slightly younger during those 90's years and with the exception of one fanboi's like of Guns n Roses none of the other groups you mention were ever heard in my house. I don't doubt they were popular elsewhere but not here.

I'll take a mediocre Pearl Jam record (not one of my favorite bands by any stretch) over any track by Asia or most of the output of 70's bands like Styx and Journey (bands that started out great but turned corporate and sounded increasingly interchangeable) any day.

Similarity has always been around. When you're into a genre, you don't hear the similarity, but it's there. I love a lot of the British blues rock of the late 1960's and very early 1970's. But a lot of it was guys trying to sound like Cream, with guitarists trying to sound just like Eric Clapton. We can look at those bands now as innovative, when at the time many of them were just imitators. Good sounding imitators, but imitators none-the-less.

I'm sorry to hear you gave up on rock after 1984. You missed out on a lot of great rock music. And there still is some great rock music being created by bands, and some of it can still be heard on rock radio.

 

[landtuna]

I'll take a mediocre Pearl Jam record (not one of my favorite bands by any stretch) over any track by Asia or most of the output of 70's bands like Styx and Journey (bands that started out great but turned corporate and sounded increasingly interchangeable) any day.

I'm not sure what you are calling "corporate". Every band seems to develop their own identity and in some cases that means songs in their catalogs do sound somewhat similar. Some others are all over the map but imitation, as they say, is the sincerest form of flattery. In some cases it works and in others it doesn't. Michael Buble doing the Johnny Mathis songbook is a waste of time. Personally, I have favorite songs by both Styx and Journey in my library but like most other bands I didn't like all their stuff. Journey had a very distinctive lead vocal to naturally he sounds the same on every song but I don't call that "corporate". That is just Journey's unique sound. BTW, how do you like their new lead singer?

I'm sorry to hear you gave up on rock after 1984. You missed out on a lot of great rock music. And there still is some great rock music being created by bands, and some of it can still be heard on rock radio.

I literally get a headache if I tune in to a current rock station. I can honestly say I cannot think of more than half a dozen songs (or bands) I've heard in the past 20 years that come close to the ones popular before the mid-80's. And the Pop genre is many times worse. One reason I guess that virtually every commercial background you hear now on TV comes from the Golden Age of Rock and Roll. I've got thousands of those "old" songs in my library and I don't have to depend upon a PD who thinks he/she knows what I want to hear.

 

[TheBigA]

I literally get a headache if I tune in to a current rock station. I can honestly say I cannot think of more than half a dozen songs (or bands) I've heard in the past 20 years that come close to the ones popular before the mid-80's. And the Pop genre is many times worse.

Once again, today's bands aren't aiming their music at you. You're quite a bit outside of their demographic. They're aiming their music at their social group. The goal of music radio is to play music that will attract a large number of people who like something. If that is music that gives you a headache, then so be it. Just because it gives you a headache doesn't make it bad music. Not all music is going to appeal to all people. That's why we have so many different kinds of radio stations.

 

[Avid Listener]

Once again, today's bands aren't aiming their music at you. You're quite a bit outside of their demographic. They're aiming their music at their social group. The goal of music radio is to play music that will attract a large number of people who like something. If that is music that gives you a headache, then so be it. Just because it gives you a headache doesn't make it bad music. Not all music is going to appeal to all people. That's why we have so many different kinds of radio stations.

Today's bands don't "aim music". Only the suits who run record labels or radio stations "aim music", as if it were a commodity like soap or soft drinks. Musicians create music.