Yonge Street Revitalization (Downtown Yonge BIA/City of Toronto)

[freshcutgrass]

From my perspective anyway, the whole alt/indie sound..*whatever*... hit its apex with Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions. Recorded in a day on a single mike direct to a DAT machine in the church behind the Eaton Centre (that's my sketchy tie in to keep my post on topic). They paid the security guy $25 so they could stay an extra 2 hrs.

Image is completely irrelevant to creating good music.

Absolutely, but style is important in and of itself. And isn't it nice when bands can combine style and talent? Roxy Music and Bowie managed to do it in both the pre and post MTV era. I can even handle style over substance, if the style is that good. Sometimes you just want to have fun.

Sticking to the 1977 theme, while I liked a bit of all the genres happening at the time, I preferred Disco over Punk. While they were both very indulgent, it was Disco that had the better production values. Take a disco band like Chic. Besides having some very cool tunes, It died when disco died, but Nile Rodgers influence as a producer, songwriter, musician, composer, arranger, guitarist was, and still is...legendary. After helping to reinvent Bowie for the 80's with Let's Dance, he went on to invent Madonna...Like a Virgin is basically just Chic with Madonna singing vocals.

*edit* Oh yea...Daft Punk's Get Lucky is basically just Chic as well. Rodgers wrote it. produced it and that's his signature guitar on the track. Every time disco reappears from the dead, there seems to be a party. When's the last time you saw the people at the Grammys have that much fun? But I think I prefer the 90's disco revival ala Jamiroquai.

*double edit* Back to hip hop, Rodgers is also inadvertently responsible for what is arguably the first hip hop record...Rappers Delight by The Sugarhill Gang. You will see his name on the record as the co-writer. But only because he threatened to sue, because it's a complete rip off of his tune Good Times.

That's why I hate the entire hip hop culture...it's about getting ahead the easiest way possible, and being legal or not is of no matter. That's why gangs and drug dealing is completely linked to hip hop culture, and why hip hop music is about stealing it, rather than making it. And all the sugar coating about it being an "art form" isn't going to change that.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

You're right....despite it being a big deal, nothing really changed directly afterward. Sex, drugs & rock'n roll lost its mojo and that is what fuelled a lot of the zeitgeist that was Yonge St.

The only thing it did was drive out most of the rub 'n tugs and indoor sex workers. If anything, Yonge St. only got seedier after the Jacques murder and into the 80's with more peep booths, smaller fly-by-night strip joints, adult bookstores and more violence & x-rated films. It was an interesting contrast to the shiny new Eaton Centre on the other side of the street.

 

[MisterF]

Is there a connection between musical taste and Reading comprehension? I didn't say that.
And yea, I'm sure in 30 years, we will be arguing about who was the best rock band in history...Tool or Arcade Fire....we have long forgotten who Led Zeppelin, David Bowie or Pink Floyd was.

You're really getting all worked up over a minor difference in wording? For the record, what I was responding to was this:

The sheer depth, diversity, quality and quantity of talent that released music in 1977 alone crushes everything collectively done in the entire 21st century to date

Which is of course ridiculous.

And yes, Tool can absolutely be compared favourably with Floyd and Zeppelin. Many have done so quite eloquently.

There is no need to assume...all you need to do is know how to read. Does it say a list of "good" bands from 1977? No...it says "debuts" in 1977. I haven't mentioned anything about what I think was "good" from 1977.

Seriously? You posted that list in a response to my post and directly preceded it with a challenge to list current virtuoso musicians that could compete with 1977. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the list that follows would have music that you think is "good". A list of random debuts from that year in that post makes no sense. You might as well argue that modern cars don't have the style of old cars and follow it with a list of Soviet era Ladas.

 

[Lenser]

I just get sick of people latching onto trends. Be yourself. Stop trying to emulate other people with your fashion sense. Just put on a sweatshirt and do your thing. You're right, there were a lot of weird looking white bands in the 70s, but unlike today, the music is what mattered the most. Too many musicians are fixated on how they look today and don't put their craft first. I really don't care how people present themselves, I just get sick of bands and their fans that place such a large emphasis on their image and making the music secondary. Image is completely irrelevant to creating good music. But our culture has brainwashed people into thinking that the way they look is of utmost importance. Imagine Van Morrison or Rod Stewart in their heyday trying out for American Idol. They have two of the most unique voices of all time, but they would most likely be rejected because they're ugly guys. This is why I get annoyed with trendy looking people. They worry too much about things that don't matter. They're probably trying to fill some void in their lives in the form of tattoos, piercings, funky haircuts, etc...That sort of stuff will never fulfill people.

Put on a sweatshirt? What if you think sweatshirts are a fashion crime?

Thing is, kids always want to be part of a tribe. It's how you express yourself - within the safety of numbers, amidst people who like the same things, however superficial. You can't seriously expect youth to reject whole-heartedly contemporary cultural trends. It won't happen.

If you think visuals have sadly trumped the sound, the big sea change happened with MTV/MuchMusic and the rise of the music video. Once we went there we never went back. Now it's expected of any contemporary artist or band - the one-two punch of a good song matched with a good video. The audience seems to demand it. I don't know that we can ever stuff the genie back in the bottle.

As for punk being responsible for the dumbing down of music, I don't buy it personally. Punk was a reaction to the top-heavy gloss of top-40 pablum that was overproduced and treacly. As an art form, it was never supposed to be anything but savage and raw. It also had a shelf life. Playing the same few chords over and over again gets tired after awhile. But there are still bands which eagerly want to tap into the energy and urgency of punk. I'm not surprised. When it's good, it kicks severe @ss.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Seriously? You posted that list in a response to my post and directly preceded it with a challenge to list current virtuoso musicians that could compete with 1977. Any reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the list that follows would have music that you think is "good". A list of random debuts from that year in that post makes no sense. You might as well argue that modern cars don't have the style of old cars and follow it with a list of Soviet era Ladas.

Jezuz...why don't you just accept the simple fact that you misread it, rather than make up that rambling pathetic excuse. Something to keep in mind...not all posts have to do with "you" and some posts can have more than one theme (1977 is a running theme in my posts).

And yes, Tool can absolutely be compared favourably with Floyd and Zeppelin. Many have done so quite eloquently.

You could pick any band at all, and there will be those who think they are the greatest rock band in history. Maybe even...Arcade Fire!! ha ha They may be influenced by Zeppelin (what prog-metal bands aren't), but very few people would put Tool in the same league under any categories...albums, songs, influence, musicianship, popularity/sales.

If anything, Yonge St. only got seedier after the Jacques murder and into the 80's with more peep booths, smaller fly-by-night strip joints, adult bookstores and more violence & x-rated films.

By the late 70's, sex had become very gratuitous and completely mainstream. Yonge St just reflected that. People stopped buying paraphernalia and posters n "head shops", stopped buying music in record stores and stopped playing games in pinball/video parlours. What's left to fill the low rent space....sex and discount stores never seem to go out of fashion...they just get priced out to somewhere else. Also, strip club licenses are hard/impossible to get and are grandfathered in I think, so nobody wants to give that up.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Put on a sweatshirt? What if you think sweatshirts are a fashion crime?

If I could push a button right now and vaporize everyone wearing a hoodie....I'd do it.

 

[RippedLikeStinson]

From my perspective anyway, the whole alt/indie sound..*whatever*... hit its apex with Cowboy Junkies Trinity Sessions. Recorded in a day on a single mike direct to a DAT machine in the church behind the Eaton Centre (that's my sketchy tie in to keep my post on topic). They paid the security guy $25 so they could stay an extra 2 hrs.




Absolutely, but style is important in and of itself. And isn't it nice when bands can combine style and talent? Roxy Music and Bowie managed to do it in both the pre and post MTV era. I can even handle style over substance, if the style is that good. Sometimes you just want to have fun.

Sticking to the 1977 theme, while I liked a bit of all the genres happening at the time, I preferred Disco over Punk. While they were both very indulgent, it was Disco that had the better production values. Take a disco band like Chic. Besides having some very cool tunes, It died when disco died, but Nile Rodgers influence as a producer, songwriter, musician, composer, arranger, guitarist was, and still is...legendary. After helping to reinvent Bowie for the 80's with Let's Dance, he went on to invent Madonna...Like a Virgin is basically just Chic with Madonna singing vocals.

*edit* Oh yea...Daft Punk's Get Lucky is basically just Chic as well. Rodgers wrote it. produced it and that's his signature guitar on the track. Every time disco reappears from the dead, there seems to be a party. When's the last time you saw the people at the Grammys have that much fun? But I think I prefer the 90's disco revival ala Jamiroquai.

*double edit* Back to hip hop, Rodgers is also inadvertently responsible for what is arguably the first hip hop record...Rappers Delight by The Sugarhill Gang. You will see his name on the record as the co-writer. But only because he threatened to sue, because it's a complete rip off of his tune Good Times.

That's why I hate the entire hip hop culture...it's about getting ahead the easiest way possible, and being legal or not is of no matter. That's why gangs and drug dealing is completely linked to hip hop culture, and why hip hop music is about stealing it, rather than making it. And all the sugar coating about it being an "art form" isn't going to change that.

Personally, I don't care about image at all in regards to music. A band could stand on stage wearing sweat pants and white t-shirts with mustard stains on them and all I would care about is whether they move me. I think the whole Ziggy Stardust thing was pretty silly and too strange for my taste.

"That's why I hate the entire hip hop culture...it's about getting ahead the easiest way possible, and being legal or not is of no matter. That's why gangs and drug dealing is completely linked to hip hop culture, and why hip hop music is about stealing it, rather than making it. And all the sugar coating about it being an "art form" isn't going to change that." That's pretty spot on. Though, even Led Zeppelin stole a ton of melodies from other artists and didn't give any credit. At least they managed to make lots of completely original music to overshadow that.

 

[RippedLikeStinson]

Put on a sweatshirt? What if you think sweatshirts are a fashion crime?

Thing is, kids always want to be part of a tribe. It's how you express yourself - within the safety of numbers, amidst people who like the same things, however superficial. You can't seriously expect youth to reject whole-heartedly contemporary cultural trends. It won't happen.

If you think visuals have sadly trumped the sound, the big sea change happened with MTV/MuchMusic and the rise of the music video. Once we went there we never went back. Now it's expected of any contemporary artist or band - the one-two punch of a good song matched with a good video. The audience seems to demand it. I don't know that we can ever stuff the genie back in the bottle.

As for punk being responsible for the dumbing down of music, I don't buy it personally. Punk was a reaction to the top-heavy gloss of top-40 pablum that was overproduced and treacly. As an art form, it was never supposed to be anything but savage and raw. It also had a shelf life. Playing the same few chords over and over again gets tired after awhile. But there are still bands which eagerly want to tap into the energy and urgency of punk. I'm not surprised. When it's good, it kicks severe @ss.

Then substitute a sweatshirt with corduroy sweater.

Not all kids do. Maybe insecure kids with crappy parents. If they're instilled with confidence, they shouldn't feel compelled to "fit in". It is more understandable for young people to be part of a clique in their high school days/early20s. What's more sad is looking at adults like George Stroumboulopoulos, who still dress like they're 18. He's a 40+ year old man for crying out loud and he still worries about being cool. Trying to be cool is something one should stop caring about in their early 20s. It's pretty ridiculous that Steven Tyler still pretends that he's the same age he was when Aerosmith formed. Rock stars in general never seem to grow up and I guess that Peter Pan syndrome is passed through the culture via popular music and Hollywood actors.

How many bands produce videos anymore? Isn't the music video a pretty dead concept? MuchMusic and MTV don't even play music anymore. Heck, MuchMusic is now called, 'MUCH', as they station only consists of much of nothing related to music anymore. Now they just play wholesome reality tv shows that make kids even more superficial and callow. The genie will never be stuffed back in the bottle. Unfortunately music has become a product and is no longer an art form (with some exceptions). I can only imagine how much worse music is going to get in a generation or two, as future artists will be inspired by people like Katy Perry. In 20 years from now we'll be begging for the likes of Bruno Mars. It's hard to imagine music and young people getting any dumber than they are today.

Punk was also a reaction to the eclectic rock dinosaurs like Zeppelin, Floyd, etc...For me, if I want something savage I'll listen to some heavy metal (old Black Sabbath/Pantera). It's great a great outlet for aggression, plus it involves excellent musicianship; something that is absent in punk rock. I never understood what people saw in The Ramones or Sex Pistols that was so captivating; especially the latter. Mere power chords and fast strumming do nothing for me.

 

[Lenser]

Then substitute a sweatshirt with corduroy sweater.

Not all kids do. Maybe insecure kids with crappy parents. If they're instilled with confidence, they shouldn't feel compelled to "fit in". It is more understandable for young people to be part of a clique in their high school days/early20s. What's more sad is looking at adults like George Stroumboulopoulos, who still dress like they're 18. He's a 40+ year old man for crying out loud and he still worries about being cool. Trying to be cool is something one should stop caring about in their early 20s. It's pretty ridiculous that Steven Tyler still pretends that he's the same age he was when Aerosmith formed. Rock stars in general never seem to grow up and I guess that Peter Pan syndrome is passed through the culture via popular music and Hollywood actors.

How many bands produce videos anymore? Isn't the music video a pretty dead concept? MuchMusic and MTV don't even play music anymore. Heck, MuchMusic is now called, 'MUCH', as they station only consists of much of nothing related to music anymore. Now they just play wholesome reality tv shows that make kids even more superficial and callow. The genie will never be stuffed back in the bottle. Unfortunately music has become a product and is no longer an art form (with some exceptions). I can only imagine how much worse music is going to get in a generation or two, as future artists will be inspired by people like Katy Perry. In 20 years from now we'll be begging for the likes of Bruno Mars. It's hard to imagine music and young people getting any dumber than they are today.

Punk was also a reaction to the eclectic rock dinosaurs like Zeppelin, Floyd, etc...For me, if I want something savage I'll listen to some heavy metal (old Black Sabbath/Pantera). It's great a great outlet for aggression, plus it involves excellent musicianship; something that is absent in punk rock. I never understood what people saw in The Ramones or Sex Pistols that was so captivating; especially the latter. Mere power chords and fast strumming do nothing for me.

I dunno about that. Most kids feel compelled to fit in, including those brought up with confidence by your above-average parents. You have your choice of several distinct tribes. Some are less subltle than others maybe, but they're tribes nonetheless.

As for your claim about Sabbath beating punk, although I was raised on Sabbath and still like some gems from their first four or five albums, a lot of is is turgid sludge that fails to inspire me. I guess I don't find the same excellence you do. Ozzy was never a particularly riveting vocalist, especially compared to Robert Plant or Steve Tyler. I'm not going to debate why the Ramones are important; they are to me, even if they're nothing to you. So it goes.

And yeah, there are certain rockers who still pretend they are twenty. More power to them, even if they sometimes look pathetic. It's no worse than that peculiar dude Trump, with that floating cloud of hair-like weirdness hovering over his otherwise naked skull. Plenty of successful people look strange. Rock has been a pretty bad offender, agreed - probably because its primal energy is adolescent in nature. Sometimes that translates to people who, decades on, don't know enough to start dresssing a little less outlandishly. But whatever - rock is full of people whose stance is anti-establishment anyway and they like to wear that brash outsider status on their sleeves. Who am I to tell them differently? They made their money and their place in popular culture - good on 'em.

Nor do I buy into your dismal prognosis that music will only get worse with each successive generation. I bet the kids are alright! Fortunately, they don't subscribe to the type of abject pessimism you're expressing. Besides, popular music has long been about pumping out product; look into the history of the Brill Building in NYC and its legendary status as the place where hits were made. It goes back a loooong way. And that's only one example. The pop music biz has always been a calculating, cutthroat, cynical one. Really, since when has contemporary pop music not been about product? The point is, you can have successful product and still have great music; the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

 

[RippedLikeStinson]

I dunno about that. Most kids feel compelled to fit in, including those brought up with confidence by your above-average parents. You have your choice of several distinct tribes. Some are less subltle than others maybe, but they're tribes nonetheless.

As for your claim about Sabbath beating punk, although I was raised on Sabbath and still like some gems from their first four or five albums, a lot of is is turgid sludge that fails to inspire me. I guess I don't find the same excellence you do. Ozzy was never a particularly riveting vocalist, especially compared to Robert Plant or Steve Tyler. I'm not going to debate why the Ramones are important; they are to me, even if they're nothing to you. So it goes.

And yeah, there are certain rockers who still pretend they are twenty. More power to them, even if they sometimes look pathetic. It's no worse than that peculiar dude Trump, with that floating cloud of hair-like weirdness hovering over his otherwise naked skull. Plenty of successful people look strange. Rock has been a pretty bad offender, agreed - probably because its primal energy is adolescent in nature. Sometimes that translates to people who, decades on, don't know enough to start dresssing a little less outlandishly. But whatever - rock is full of people whose stance is anti-establishment anyway and they like to wear that brash outsider status on their sleeves. Who am I to tell them differently? They made their money and their place in popular culture - good on 'em.

Nor do I buy into your dismal prognosis that music will only get worse with each successive generation. I bet the kids are alright! Fortunately, they don't subscribe to the type of abject pessimism you're expressing. Besides, popular music has long been about pumping out product; look into the history of the Brill Building in NYC and its legendary status as the place where hits were made. It goes back a loooong way. And that's only one example. The pop music biz has always been a calculating, cutthroat, cynical one. Really, since when has contemporary pop music not been about product? The point is, you can have successful product and still have great music; the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

I'm not even a big Black Sabbath or heavy metal fan. Their first two albums are pretty good, but I rarely listen to them. Zeppelin is definitely my favourite band.

I heard Trump say that he maintains that haircut because he has been very successful with it; or something to that extent. I don't think rock stars are really anti-establishment; they're just immature and don't want to accept that they age. Tommy Lee still has the mentality of a 12 year old.

Can you blame me for being pessimistic? The quality of music has declined with each generation post 1970s. The 80s was full of cheese, the 90s were very depressing with grunge and gangsta rap, and almost everything from the millennium onward has been atrocious. There's a pattern there that I don't think is going to change; I hope I'm wrong. We don't exactly live in the most sophisticated of times, so there's not a whole lot for new artists to draw from, which is why there is such a resurging love affair with 80s pop in contemporary music. Then there are bands like The Sheepdogs that still think it's 1970 something. There's hardly anything new or fresh these days. There's no point in repeating the past. I'm not even talking about popular music, exclusively. Basically anything I've been recommended that isn't mainstream sounds sterile to me. There is such a lack of emotion in today's music. Most of it seems to be about having fun and is reluctant to truly express feelings of sorrow, longing. Not every artist needs to be poetic and articulate, but too much of what I hear today is just background party music. There's nothing today that can move me to tears. I need that catharsis in more music. I can only listen to the same artists so many times. I desperately want to hear new music that is unpredictable and makes me guess what is coming next.

re music being a product. Well, you are correct that pop music has always been a product, but at least in the past it actually demanded that artists be interesting and good musicians/singers. Now a days one doesn't even need a musical background to be a popular artist. Look at someone like Nicki Minaj. I've had bowel movements that were more inspiring than her. She has absolutely zero musical ability. She has a nice butt and is highly neurotic, so in other words, she's perfect for the modern music machine. She can't play an instrument, she can't sing, she can't write. She is just a gimmick. All she does is go into a studio and lays down some vocals to lyrics that were written by somebody else, and her pitch is corrected with filters -- then everything is edited and produced and her name is slapped on the final product. In the old days, if you couldn't sing well naturally, well then, you were out of luck. Only genuinely talented people could have musical careers. Now your run of the mill floozy can sell more records than Bob Dylan.

 

[Johnny Au]

Welcome to the age of Logic Pro, Cubase, Finale, Sibelius, and such.

No longer does one be able to sing or play a musical instrument. The singing is corrected using pitch correction, used in Logic Pro for example. The instrumentals can be added by using Finale (music notation software) and Garritan Instant Orchestra (software that adds in sets of instruments, hence the name; Garritan Personal Orchestra adds in individual instruments) for example.

Composing cinematic music is no longer something that requires a degree in music theory.

When I listen to national anthems these days, the lead singers all sing as if they never rehearsed (though there are exceptions, such as the singing of the Russian National Anthem during the 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Sochi (not done by a pop singer); notice how even during the singing of the Russian National Anthem during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver was not done by a pop singer, in contrast to O Canada sang by pop singers).

I know that pop singers can sing the Russian National Anthem, but it would probably be embarrassing if it were done in the Olympics.

 

[RippedLikeStinson]

Welcome to the age of Logic Pro, Cubase, Finale, Sibelius, and such.

No longer does one be able to sing or play a musical instrument. The singing is corrected using pitch correction, used in Logic Pro for example. The instrumentals can be added by using Finale (music notation software) and Garritan Instant Orchestra (software that adds in sets of instruments, hence the name; Garritan Personal Orchestra adds in individual instruments) for example.

Composing cinematic music is no longer something that requires a degree in music theory.

When I listen to national anthems these days, the lead singers all sing as if they never rehearsed (though there are exceptions, such as the singing of the Russian National Anthem during the 2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony in Sochi (not done by a pop singer); notice how even during the singing of the Russian National Anthem during the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver was not done by a pop singer, in contrast to O Canada sang by pop singers).

I know that pop singers can sing the Russian National Anthem, but it would probably be embarrassing if it were done in the Olympics.

The worst is when singers throw in all sorts of crazy vocal inflections when doing a national anthem at a sporting event. National Anthems are not open to interpretation -- they're met to be sung in a particular way. Strangely, Burton Cummings completely omitted God from our national anthem during the Grey Cup last year. I wonder what atheists sing when it comes to that part of the anthem. Do they just go silent?

 

[Lenser]

I'm not even a big Black Sabbath or heavy metal fan. Their first two albums are pretty good, but I rarely listen to them. Zeppelin is definitely my favourite band.

I like them too but the thing is, I don't really have favourites. That game doesn't interest me. Music is too rich a world for me to narrow it down to a single act. Zeppelin made tons of great music, no doubt about it.

I heard Trump say that he maintains that haircut because he has been very successful with it; or something to that extent. I don't think rock stars are really anti-establishment; they're just immature and don't want to accept that they age. Tommy Lee still has the mentality of a 12 year old.

To me, Trump is just one of zillions of guys who can’t handle going bald and go to crazy lengths to pretend otherwise. As for Tommy Lee, I don’t really know the guy. but let's face it: lots of people in the West don’t like to accept that death is inevitable. Entire industries are built around the celebration of youth and the denial of death. But I still think some aging rockers like to stick it to The Man by wearing their scarves and rags and spandex or whatever.

Can you blame me for being pessimistic? The quality of music has declined with each generation post 1970s. The 80s was full of cheese, the 90s were very depressing with grunge and gangsta rap, and almost everything from the millennium onward has been atrocious. There's a pattern there that I don't think is going to change; I hope I'm wrong. We don't exactly live in the most sophisticated of times, so there's not a whole lot for new artists to draw from, which is why there is such a resurging love affair with 80s pop in contemporary music. Then there are bands like The Sheepdogs that still think it's 1970 something. There's hardly anything new or fresh these days. There's no point in repeating the past. I'm not even talking about popular music, exclusively. Basically anything I've been recommended that isn't mainstream sounds sterile to me. There is such a lack of emotion in today's music. Most of it seems to be about having fun and is reluctant to truly express feelings of sorrow, longing. Not every artist needs to be poetic and articulate, but too much of what I hear today is just background party music. There's nothing today that can move me to tears. I need that catharsis in more music. I can only listen to the same artists so many times. I desperately want to hear new music that is unpredictable and makes me guess what is coming next.

I don’t even know where to start with that paragraph. It’s so far from my own experience that I just shake my head. I’m 53 and I hear awesome new stuff all the time. To me music is a continuum. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. If you honestly feel that way about music in general, I have to say I feel very sorry for you - because personally, I’d be miserable.

re music being a product. Well, you are correct that pop music has always been a product, but at least in the past it actually demanded that artists be interesting and good musicians/singers. Now a days one doesn't even need a musical background to be a popular artist. Look at someone like Nicki Minaj. I've had bowel movements that were more inspiring than her. She has absolutely zero musical ability. She has a nice butt and is highly neurotic, so in other words, she's perfect for the modern music machine. She can't play an instrument, she can't sing, she can't write. She is just a gimmick. All she does is go into a studio and lays down some vocals to lyrics that were written by somebody else, and her pitch is corrected with filters -- then everything is edited and produced and her name is slapped on the final product. In the old days, if you couldn't sing well naturally, well then, you were out of luck. Only genuinely talented people could have musical careers. Now your run of the mill floozy can sell more records than Bob Dylan.

I don’t want to look at the annoying empty shell that is Nicki Minaj and I sure don’t want to discuss the merits of your bowel movements. If Minaj constitutes your proof that music is going to hell in a hand basket, I’m afraid you’re going to have to dig up a lot more evidence than that to convince me. Minaj is a vapid creation of the media machine that the music business owns and operates. I would never mistake her for a real musician: she’s a celebrity with an entire machine behind her. We live in a culture which celebrates that more than ever. It can be hard to find true talent when you’re staring at the lights. But it’s there. It’s always been there. Anyway, I’m not going to try and convince you that it’s not as bad as you say it is - that would be pointless! Maybe we simply have different tastes, different ideas of what musical quality really entails.

As for Dylan, he is an amazing and exceptional man. Technically his voice and his guitar playing have never amounted to much, but he has the soul of a poet and a pervasive wisdom that puts so many other artists to shame. And so it is that, even being only merely competent in certain arenas, Dylan's other gifts are so pure and sublime he blows most other talents right out of the water. What an iconoclast. Only once in a few generations does someone like him come along. But I also have to say that I find it heartening that Neil Young and Bob Dylan could make a living with the voices they have - that tells me that not everyone has to have a technically masterful voice in order to make it big and reach the people.

 

[Johnny Au]

The worst is when singers throw in all sorts of crazy vocal inflections when doing a national anthem at a sporting event. National Anthems are not open to interpretation -- they're met to be sung in a particular way. Strangely, Burton Cummings completely omitted God from our national anthem during the Grey Cup last year. I wonder what atheists sing when it comes to that part of the anthem. Do they just go silent?

The Russian National Anthem had been rewritten a few times officially, all by the same lyricist! The original 1944 version had a mention of Stalin, then the anthem had no lyrics between 1953 and 1977, then had the lyrics reinstated, but without the mention of Stalin, then finally in 2000 when the current anthem was reinstated, but with completely different lyrics. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Anthem_of_Russia

I am an atheist, so I sing that line as "We keep our land, glorious and free."

 

[RippedLikeStinson]

I like them too but the thing is, I don't really have favourites. That game doesn't interest me. Music is too rich a world for me to narrow it down to a single act. Zeppelin made tons of great music, no doubt about it.


To me, Trump is just one of zillions of guys who can’t handle going bald and go to crazy lengths to pretend otherwise. As for Tommy Lee, I don’t really know the guy. but let's face it: lots of people in the West don’t like to accept that death is inevitable. Entire industries are built around the celebration of youth and the denial of death. But I still think some aging rockers like to stick it to The Man by wearing their scarves and rags and spandex or whatever.



I don’t even know where to start with that paragraph. It’s so far from my own experience that I just shake my head. I’m 53 and I hear awesome new stuff all the time. To me music is a continuum. It’s the gift that keeps on giving. If you honestly feel that way about music in general, I have to say I feel very sorry for you - because personally, I’d be miserable.



I don’t want to look at the annoying empty shell that is Nicki Minaj and I sure don’t want to discuss the merits of your bowel movements. If Minaj constitutes your proof that music is going to hell in a hand basket, I’m afraid you’re going to have to dig up a lot more evidence than that to convince me. Minaj is a vapid creation of the media machine that the music business owns and operates. I would never mistake her for a real musician: she’s a celebrity with an entire machine behind her. We live in a culture which celebrates that more than ever. It can be hard to find true talent when you’re staring at the lights. But it’s there. It’s always been there. Anyway, I’m not going to try and convince you that it’s not as bad as you say it is - that would be pointless! Maybe we simply have different tastes, different ideas of what musical quality really entails.

As for Dylan, he is an amazing and exceptional man. Technically his voice and his guitar playing have never amounted to much, but he has the soul of a poet and a pervasive wisdom that puts so many other artists to shame. And so it is that, even being only merely competent in certain arenas, Dylan's other gifts are so pure and sublime he blows most other talents right out of the water. What an iconoclast. Only once in a few generations does someone like him come along. But I also have to say that I find it heartening that Neil Young and Bob Dylan could make a living with the voices they have - that tells me that not everyone has to have a technically masterful voice in order to make it big and reach the people.

No band/musician or album sticks out above others to you?

I don't understand why Trump wouldn't just get a hair transplant is he is indeed troubled by his receding hairline. Must be an issue of money. He's pretty much like Nick Nolte in Down And Out in Beverly Hills.

Well, I am pretty miserable when it comes to modern music and culture. Other than that, my life is full of happiness.

Nicki Minaj is just one example of many, many horrible artists that are lionized by the hordes of airhead, cultural zombies today. The problem is, for most young people, the likes of her is what constitutes as real music, and being exposed to a band like Canned Heat would be a totally alien experience. Few people born post 1990 are well versed in music that was created before their conception, and as we get further away from the existence of great bands like Zeppelin, CCR, etc. they'll become even more obscure. Zeppelin is still appreciated today as their original fan base has passed their music along to their children. But will they still be popular in 50-100 years? The great rock bands from the 60s and 70s might be perceived the way classical musicians are today. How many people still listen to Beethoven: Unplugged in Berlin, for example?

I don't even really like Bob Dylan (though it is basically considered sinful to admit as much) -- I just brought up his name as he's one of the most influential artists from the last 50 years. I really don't see much that is impressive about him; same goes for John Lennon. The Beatles and his solo albums do absolutely nothing for me. I think George Harrison was the most interesting Beatle.
Dylan and Neil Young have enough decent melodies to make up for their horrible voices, thankfully.

I am an atheist, so I sing that line as "We keep our land, glorious and free."

But that's not the correct wording. Regardless of your stance on God, our freedom is due to the influence of Christianity in our culture (that is a fact) -- so objectively, we are free because of our faith in God. There's nothing wrong with admitting that, even as an atheist. The only really free nations are the ones that embraced Christianity. Look at how terrible human rights are in most of Asia, Africa, South America compared to the western world and Australia. But that is a discussion for another time and another thread.