Answer my son's musical question...

[locodos 5387]

5 minutes ago, Paul Wesley said:

* I'm aware that the "new" genre that Elvis brought to Americans was a straight-up ripoff of black music.  You could write a pretty persuasive thesis statement that every *new* American genre of music since the Civil War followed exactly that same pattern.

Bluegrass?

[Paul Wesley 3278]

Yeah, maybe.  I don't know.  Traditional folk music wasn't "new."  And the banjo was an African instrument, not a European one.  

[honolulu horn 6158]

Surly never disappoints. Which act had the most worldwide fame, played the first stadium show due to unprecedented demand for tickets, had every album release go to #1, had the largest TV audience for a musical act ever, stopped flights and traffic because of crowd size, held the top 5 spots on the singles chart in the same week, was the measuring stick for every musical act during and since their run, and still has new media content about them being released every year to huge audiences? 

Nah, it's probably Elvis or Michael. 

[jimmyjazz 45882]

2 hours ago, locodos said:

Bluegrass?

The Appalachian variety was pretty derivative of traditional Irish music.

 

 

2 hours ago, Paul Wesley said:

* I'm aware that the "new" genre that Elvis brought to Americans was a straight-up ripoff of black music.  You could write a pretty persuasive thesis statement that every *new* American genre of music since the Civil War followed exactly that same pattern.

I'm thinking jazz was a pretty new American genre of music and it WAS black.

[Guest]

So Beatles it is then?

[Jerry Callo 8695]

On 3/7/2024 at 10:51 AM, FirstTimeCaller said:

So Beatles it is then?

Pretty sure we decided it is Elvis.

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

On 3/7/2024 at 11:51 AM, FirstTimeCaller said:

So Beatles it is then?

Of course.

“Imagine four Taylor Swifts dressed in suits and ties.”

(Can’t remember who said it.)

I don’t look forward to that day but the whole world is going to come to a standstill when Paul actually dies for real.

[YGIFS 19449]

I never really gave that much thought because he still looks great and tours and even puts out new songs.  I vaguely remember watching TV when they announced Lennon had been killed.  My father was not a Beatles fan (more Motown and Blues), but he told me to remember the moment.  It would be many years later before I began to appreciate John and the Beatle's music.  I remember hearing about George's death, right in the midst when I truly began to appreciate his brilliance.  

But yes, when Paul goes...that will be a terrible day.  On the bright side, I'll get to tell my daughters what I've come to learn in my old age...'The Beatles' didn't change anything.  But their music inspired other people to go out and change the world.  

Live long and prosper Paul.  We're not there yet.

[jimmyjazz 45882]

3 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

I vaguely remember watching TV when they announced Lennon had been killed.

That was probably Howard Cosell on Monday Night Football (Patriots vs Dolphins in Miami).

[YGIFS 19449]

Murdered in Miami?  I thought Lennon was killed outside the Dakotas?  

[tbone_ 14106]

Led Zeppelin

This. Followed by The Rolling Stones.

Teaching opportunity for your kiddo.

[DixonHur 11292]

On 3/5/2024 at 3:32 PM, jimmyjazz said:

I'm thinking jazz was a pretty new American genre of music and it WAS black.

Music doesn't have a color.  Jazz, was primarily developed by black musicians, but that doesn't make it black music any more than rock is white music.

There is also no "stolen" music...aside from obvious stealing like Vanilla Ice vis-a-vis Queen/David Bowie.  All music is based, borrow, influenced, etc. by music that came before it.

If it speaks to you it's your music.  Period. 

[YGIFS 19449]

^ fair point.  

Obviously, there were thousands of black musicians over the years that were screwed over in terms of credits/licensing/royalties/etc . But every musician worth their salt digests from other musicians who came before them, regardless of color or nationality.  

John Popper of Blues Traveler fame gave this talk at the Butler School of Music at UT a few years back and said something to the effect of "Each time we touch our instruments, we are stealing from the past but giving a new chance to the future of music."  It's an evolving art and always will be.  That's the fucking point of it all.  To be sure, artists past and present should have more control and compensation for what happens with their work.  

All that to say, from the very first time my father played Motown and Delta Blues records for me in his den on his fancy Hi-Fi...I felt completely different.  And we would go for drives in his Volkswagen Jetta which had this weird setup on the steering wheel where there were four car horn sensors.  And listen to Dick Biondi and his oldies countdown show.  And my father would tap them alongside the songs just right so that the horn didn't beep, but he kept the beat.  And he'd tell me how Etta James led to Aretha Franklin and Sam Cooke led to James Brown and Elvis led to the Beatles and Muddy Waters to the Rolling Stones.  I would go on to play some piano, got pretty good at the saxophone, struggled with guitar, but played decent drums.  Then my lack of hand-eye coordination kicked in and can't play shit now.  But the other day, I strung together a little playlist for daughter.  She's super into Taylor Swift right now (as most girls her age).  But I put together a half dozen songs from John Prine to Taylor Swift with Nina Simone in there.  To demonstrate to her how music begets music and so on and so on.  And by the end of our walk listening to it, her eyes just lit up.  She intuitively got it.  She connected the dots and I think realized how all music is built upon other music.  There are songs and compositions that flow out from the artist to be dispersed into the world, but it's framed by material deep inside their brains and their souls.  Just like paintings, sculptures, literature...all things shining.  

[DixonHur 11292]

33 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

John Popper of Blues Traveler fame gave this talk at the Butler School of Music at UT a few years back and said something to the effect of "Each time we touch our instruments, we are stealing from the past but giving a new chance to the future of music."  It's an evolving art and always will be.  That's the fucking point of it all.  To be sure, artists past and present should have more control and compensation for what happens with their work.  

I know this isn't an exact quote, but the sentiment behind it is exactly how I feel.  I never played an instrument, but I listen to ALOT of music, and love when I can recognize the inspiration.  

It's especially true for me today as many new artists are reaching back to the 80's and 90's for their inspiration.  

[jimmyjazz 45882]

That's all well and good, but jazz is widely recognized as a unique idiom, and uniquely American at that, and the forefathers were largely black.

I mean, it's literally the only art form most scholars feel that the United States can claim as ours.  Maybe they're missing something.  Rap?  Dunno.

[DixonHur 11292]

24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

That's all well and good, but jazz is widely recognized as a unique idiom, and uniquely American at that, and the forefathers were largely black.

I mean, it's literally the only art form most scholars feel that the United States can claim as ours.  Maybe they're missing something.  Rap?  Dunno.

Doesn't that also describe Blues?  Not a music scholar, just asking.

[jimmyjazz 45882]

9 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Doesn't that also describe Blues?  Not a music scholar, just asking.

I'd say jazz and blues are quite different, which is a position that surprises a lot of people.  Jazz leans heavily on complex theory, whereas blues is more of an extension of gospel and the folk music of the deep south.  There are some commonalities, but you can't really take most Bill Evans charts and trace them to traditional blues.  Sometimes there is a common launching part.

[YGIFS 19449]

53 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'd say jazz and blues are quite different, which is a position that surprises a lot of people.  Jazz leans heavily on complex theory, whereas blues is more of an extension of gospel and the folk music of the deep south.  There are some commonalities, but you can't really take most Bill Evans charts and trace them to traditional blues.  Sometimes there is a common launching part.

Yep, this ^   

I know music history pretty well but am no expert.  But know people who are.  And 100 years later, there's still no consistent theory on how the blues and jazz (and eventually rock), melded together.  Which of course, is part of the brilliance of it all.  That we just don't know, we just feel it and the engine just gleams.  

To get down the rabbit hole-think about this.  There was a group of humans tens of thousands of years ago.  And a handful of them took to fashioning an animal skin over a rock to clap on top of, or singing, or strung a gut or thin grass over a piece of wood.  And  their simple beat and choral chants inspired one or two of their tribe to leave the cave.  To climb the valley, to traverse the mountain, and eventually take to the seas.  Because they were inspired by 'the Beatles' of their time.  The music didn't change anything.  But it injected itself into people, and those people went out on voyages of discovery and changed our fate.  And now to celebrate it, we have to listen to Jason Aldean and other related morons.  

But at least I was alive to hear from the works of Charles Mingus, Willie Dixon, and Sony Boy Williamson