General Music Chat

have NOTHING redeeming to offer musically. I've seen local bar bands who are musically head and shoulders above almost any of the "rock stars" on MTV. What qualifies someone as a "rock star?" Do you think fifty years from now somebody is going to LISTEN to a Britney Spears CD? How about a Justin Timberlake CD? Are they "rock stars?" In my book a "star" in any genre of music has to have somethig redeeming to offer MUSICALLY. I don't care if they can show off their belly buttons and synchronize their dance steps. God bless them if they make millions of dollars (most of them blow it in a few years anyway). As far as I'm concerned you're a "star" if you make good music and make some money playing it. The world of entertainment is full of hyped up "stars" who have no talent. It seems like everyone is looking for a fresh new face. The MUSIC is almost always secondary. Who's the "it" girl in music? Who's the new "stud" in country music? Who gives a sh*t? The people who last for years and years in music have to have something to offer musically. That applies to big "stars" or your local bar bands who play for many years. I guess that kind of makes me a "star." I"ve been playing on and off in bars for over 25 years. I'd rather listen to me any day than Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake. Later...still playing music after all these years fisherman bob

Interesting point, Bob. I guess its worth noting that many of the people who later became known as "Great Masters" in music were certainly not the Britney Spears of their day. Frederic Chopin was a humble, introverted piano teacher living in a small apartment in Paris. Johann Sebastian Bach's offiicial title was Church organist and kappelmeister in a local church. Point being, the true height of their fame and public appreciation came long after they were dead, and obviously because their music spoke to something sublime and powerful to humanity.

Call me crazy but I do not see any Britney Spears or Justin Timberlake material making that grade, a century hence.

I would say the vast majority of the crap I hear today won't be played five years hence. Later...

Much as music changes and morphs over generations, so has the term "star". At one time it was based on someones talent; be it performing, writing, acting, singing, sculpture, painting...etc.
Unfortunately, in this new Millenium we're forced to endure the "pre-fabricated" culture that is about "looks and money". The star of yesteryear is no more; nowadays it seems to be if you want your name lasting longer than a 3 minute song, you have to get the paparazzi following you not for your tour, but for your offstage antics...basically negative attention. "Smear your own name before anyone else gets a chance" appears to be standard fare of todays "star".

Talent? who needs talent when most "now" female artists look like they just walked out of a "Playboy" photo shoot, and i might add, the younger looking the better. "Dress like a slut...check, can she maturbate onstage...check, can she dance...check, does she sing...who cares; we got ourselves a STAR".
So we can thank our corporate sponsers and ourselves for allowing our tastes to be relegated to tasteless.

I agree with the opinions here. To me the actual music is what it's all about.
Music.
Good music; period.
.
Now, if you want to talk about "Rock Stars," well then, that's a different topic, isn't it?
That topic would be listed under "Finances," "Money," "Profit," or the like, huh?
or, maybe under "Beauty Pagents?" "Opportunists?" "Charletons?"

Ha.
Go back to, oh, let's say before 1945 . . . no rock stars, as we know them . . .
Now, let's say you could look at a movie of every musician/composer since, oh - how about the year 1200 or so?
And, now delete from existance any composition not performed or written by beautiful or handsome people (by today's shallow standards).
.
. . . wonder what percentage of excellent music would be left?
. . . h m m m was Ameduus a good - looking guy, or not?

I think that if you listen to any accepted great (or just well-known)musical composition, whether it be from "Beethoven" to "Yes" to "Leo Kottke,""Pink Floyd," "Peter, Paul & Mary," . . . you'll find that most people don't know what the performer looks like . . .
. . . or care.
. . .
Hey, people, . . .
You may die . . .
. . . but if you're outstanding, your music will not.

<snip>...The star of yesteryear is no more; nowadays it seems to be if you want your name lasting longer than a 3 minute song, you have to get the paparazzi following you not for your tour, but for your offstage antics...basically negative attention. "Smear your own name before anyone else gets a chance" appears to be standard fare of todays "star"....<snip>.

True. But to be honest, Fran, the public is highly culpable in that because we have become a culture of what they call "Train Wreck TV". We love a gory accident and will rubberneck the thing as long as its in our vision. When artists self destruct, it makes good entertainment for such a culture. Pretty sad isn't it? Given that, the much maligned papparazzi are really just giving the public what they crave.

if it keeps the cash registers jingling. Haven't we heard enough about Britney? SHE NEVER HAD ANY TALENT TO BEGIN WITH. I COULD CARE LESS IF SHE OR ANY NO-TALENT "ROCK STAR" SELF-DESTRUCTS. All the attention Michael Jackson gets is ridiculous. When was the last time he put out anything musical worth a sh*t? I guess if you can't dazzle them with talent then baffle them with bullsh*t. Later...

"What is the voice of song, when the world lacks the ear of taste?" - Nathaniel Hawthorne

OOh Rythmn man, I love that quote. Very astute and true.

Gotta be luck, so much crap that's big today certainly isn't "on the charts" because it is good!!

I consider my music career a success because we are in a position to have good people, a good local following, and we make enough money to sustain the group and get paid once in awhile. That's what it's all about for me, to have some fun!

Hold the addictions please.

I personally don't think we'll ever see groups with longevity like the Stones without some serious change in the music biz. As long as the public is content to be told what is popular by what the media puts out there than we'll just keep seeing the "fad" of the week.

I don't think a mere "change in the music biz" will produce more bands like The Stones in the future. The rise of those bands was inexorably tied to the enormous and abrupt social upheaval of the 60s and 70s. I don't see another one like that one coming for quite some time.

HEY did you see>? Music Mage is back.. heh lol

I don't think a mere "change in the music biz" will produce more bands like The Stones in the future. The rise of those bands was inexorably tied to the enormous and abrupt social upheaval of the 60s and 70s. I don't see another one like that one coming for quite some time.

True. But we will see it again, probably sooner than you think. Everything is cyclical, like the french proverb "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Whether classical or folk or punk, every genre re-evolves or is revolutionized by someone breaking the current trend and creating a new one. On one hand you would think that everything there is to be created musically should have been done by now, with history having been recorded for thousands of years, but yet I sometimes think "There are 12 unique notes on a keyboard, discounting octaves, how many times can those notes be rearranged into new songs? But of course the possibilities are seemingly infinite. Like the Mandelbrot Set, or any fractal, a basis in something so simple, with limited rules, can develop into something so artistic and magnificent in it's beauty and complexity.

Music is like that to me.

Hell... Life is like that.

HEY did you see>? Music Mage is back.. heh lol

You could set your watch by it.

And, by his exits.

I don't think a mere "change in the music biz" will produce more bands like The Stones in the future. The rise of those bands was inexorably tied to the enormous and abrupt social upheaval of the 60s and 70s. I don't see another one like that one coming for quite some time.

True. But we will see it again, probably sooner than you think. Everything is cyclical, like the french proverb "The more things change, the more they stay the same"

Whether classical or folk or punk, every genre re-evolves or is revolutionized by someone breaking the current trend and creating a new one. On one hand you would think that everything there is to be created musically should have been done by now, with history having been recorded for thousands of years, but yet I sometimes think "There are 12 unique notes on a keyboard, discounting octaves, how many times can those notes be rearranged into new songs? But of course the possibilities are seemingly infinite. Like the Mandelbrot Set, or any fractal, a basis in something so simple, with limited rules, can develop into something so artistic and magnificent in it's beauty and complexity.

Music is like that to me.

Hell... Life is like that.

Music, yes. But it doesn't operate on our timelines, and I have to say with all the apathy these days in several areas, I don't see a cultural revolution like what happened in the 60s happening for quite a long time. The citizens of Rome are far too happy with their bread and circuses.