I'm done, stick a fork in me!

[Jazz]

If there needs to be anymore proof of how people look at music today, here it is:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76232,00.html

Here is a quote:

"Musical knowledge aside, it should be noted that pop stars are much more entertainers than they are musicians these days. Songwriters, producers and record labels often shape performers' sound and image, leaving the stars themselves as simply spokespeople with little creative input."

You would think I'm mad about the lack of creativity, but I'm actually mad about the term "musical knowledge" which they used to refer to knowledge of guys like David Bowie. Now that musical knowledge is trivia info about pop stars and their albums (this one was released only in Japan, one printing in 1983 and it has the alternate version of blah blah blah) people who study and study music are increasingly obsolete.

[jazzypaul]

people who study and study music are increasingly obsolete.

Not at all. You can't be a Flaming Lips, a Radiohead or a Kyuss (and thusly, Queens of the Stone Age -- all of the same cats) without knowing some serious musical shit. And there are recent history cases like Metallica, where the original bassist (Cliff Burton) was a music theory know it all. Yes, they have become a little less frequent, but there have always been Monkees, David Cassidys, Leif Garretts and Johnny Bravos. Not to mention, those session musicians that play BEHIND Christina, Britney and Avril are all monster players that could kick most of our asses. But they sold out so that they could drive the escalade with the 22" inch wheels. Makes me want to sell out. Get to look at Britney's ass all day and make mad cash. Life should be so tough.

[Jazz]

Hahaha Jazzypaul!

Yeah you're right. You know what the funny thing is? You can ALWAYS tell when the musicians have studied, their music tends to make more sense. That baroque counterpoint element in Metallica always freaked me out.

[bombastic]

There's only one thing wrong with what those musicians playing behind spears are doing- selling their souls to the generic revolution that is gradually taking over this artistically starved american culture.

[jazzypaul]

ooh Bombastic, if only we could all live by your ideals...

[jomina]

So we're back in tin pan alley as far as the music business is concerned. At least people admit it now - they would have not sone so so readily 30 years ago (back in the age of the "singer-songwriter").
Once upon a time, music was the high watermark of popular culture. To be a popstar was something that more or less everybody aspired to. Music attracted many of the best and most fertile creative minds - people who were not necessarily musicians, but who had ideas, a far more precious and moneyable commodity than straightforward technicity. Western culture has changed (again) over the last 30 years, and music has receded somewhat, particularly since the early 80s: When I was a teenager computers and programming were absolutely unkewl. What is more hip now than to be a top game designer, or 3d artist, or to run your own Linux server. Seeing these shifts in perception are vital if we want to understand why music is the way it is now, and why it really fails to capture the imagination in the way it once did IMMHO.

[3pointdeli]

while i agree with what that article is trying to say, it should be pointed out that they did a terrible job (hey, it's fox news.) on one hand, these new pop stars are ignorant because they don't know pre-reagan/mtv era music history, but on the other hand they say that "not all young music sensations can be dubbed ignorant." then they mention that pink and christina aguilera hired the leader of four non blondes...a very shitty *90s* band with a popular *MTV* video....to produce their albums.

WTF?

[Coypu]

The point is that mainstream pop music is shit? What has this to do with jazz and didn't we all know this before?

[Jazz]

Firstly, read my post again it has nothing to do with my evaluation of pop music as a genre.

Secondly, I started a new thread for this so I wouldn't clutter up other more jazz-related threads.

Thirdly, if musical knowledge is becoming trivia knowledge and actually studying music is becoming less and less respected then it bodes ill for the jazz musician of tommorrow.

Satisfied?

[Coypu]

There will always be people who live for their music and they will learn what it takes to create their music so I don't think that there is any need to worry.

[jazzypaul]

Well, jazz, the thing is, there is part of musical knowledge that needs to be trivia knowledge. I know what separated Miles' quintets from each other because of that knowledge. Red's not on Dr. Jackle from Milestones because Miles and Red got into a fight during the recording session. Miles' comping behind Trane and Cannon sounds completely different than Red's would. Hmmm, why is that? Helps to know the trivia. Not to mention, it goes hand in hand with how obsessive you are about the music. The more obsessive you are about it, the more you're willing to know the inner workings (especially the inner workings thereof). My jazzer friends all play a game with me called stump the hippie (my nickname.) They barely, if ever, win. This is good because I get to pass on knowledge to them about these sides, and it allows for me and them to know what to check out, what to avoid, and why they may be looking for album X. Don't let anyone EVER tell you that that is not completely important. Because it is.

[clifton]

Those of us who care about music must do everything in our power to keep music alive. This includes those seemingly minor details about arguments before a session, such as Miles arguing with Red. (Actually I thought Garland's absence on "Dr. Jackle" and "Sid's Ahead" came about because Red showed up late). We live in difficult times for art, and we must keep music alive. Whether it's Clifford Brown or James Brown, keep music alive. BTW Britney and similar insults are backed by synths and drum machines as much as by real musicians, at least in the studio.