Ten music artists that ruined music | RANT WARNING
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- MY LINKS
Become a Patreon! / andyedwards
Or if Patreon is not for you you can make a donation: paypal.me/Andy...
Donate to The JELLEYMAN'S HERITAGE ARTS CHARITY:
www.paypal.com...
The Andy Edwards Video + Audio Archive: / collections
Facebook: / andy.edwards.drummer
Instagram: / andyedwardsdrumlessons
Prog Dog: / @progdog-c6o
Contact: andyedwardsdrums@gmail.com
More links you might find interesting:
Listen to my music here: andyedwards.ba...
Instagram: / andyedwardsdrumlessons
My UA-cam Drum Channel: / channel
Andy's Fusion Spotify Playlist: open.spotify.c...
Andy's Prog Spotify Playlist: open.spotify.c...
If there is one thing that has ruined music, it's the Idol-type shows. While these singers have good voices, these shows are just glorified karaoke contests as there is no original material.
To me it’s the commodification of music. We’ve gone from artistic expression to production line sausage making made to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
I’d give that theory the thumbs up. Correlates too, it all went downhill when that stuff appeared, and continues to this day.
You are conflating cause and effect. These programmes were a response to the collapse of the music business model due to the arrival of Napster and online streaming. To prevent themselves going out of business the labels defaulted to safe mode. That meant only signing people who had proven they had an audience. The test for this was these tv shows. A Bowie or a Floyd would never be signed again as they would be too much of a risk. The money now has to be made immediately. No record company is going to invest in an artist who may take years to become a success.
the "Diva" 🤮
Speaking as someone who was suckered into appearing on such a show (The Voice Of Germany 2014), I 100% agree. Not only have these shows reduced music to an even more throw away, bit sized, disposable product, they ended the career of many a great singer before they could gain any real traction… After I ‘lost’, no-one gave me any advice, helpful tips or opened any doors. The ‘concept’ is simply - You’re out! Who’s next?
The tragedy with Madonna is that women's empowerment is reduced to self-objectification, flaunting your sexuality which, unaccompanied by ideas and culture, has the opposite effect of the message she purports to be expressing, while trivializing and reducing women. It's a ploy to win over an impressionable audience as well as a display of how pathetic and vacuous the artist-consumer relation can become.
Hmm no her lyrics are rarely sexual. She draws on German expressionist film, British dystopian sci-fi, modern American ballet, yea she pushes gay, trans, race and SM stuff to attack conservatism and anti-male feminism. There is a vast body of academic writing on her work, especially in Europe, and from serious American feminists like Camille Paglia. In terms of cultural impact she's comparable to Warhol. I'm defending her without owning a single album of hers haha.
@@tommeadows-ie2xb "Hmm no"
Nope you’re incorrect
Feminism or “women’s lib” was always bullshit, the method for cracking the family nucleus. All pop music has been driving us down a road we didn’t understand till now
@@michaelwills1926 I respect your right to your opinion, but in my opinion, it is spoken from a position of cultural insecurity. That's what a lot of conservatism is about.
Ed Sheeran - The king of mediocrity - Music to get the lift to.
Or away from. If you can find that particular lift, please let me know.
@@Maltloaflegrande :)
When I listen to him, I find myself forgetting the melody as the song is being sung. I looked up the lyrics to one of his albums. It was the most generic, artless "poetry" I've ever read. A perfect fit for his music. Seems like a nice guy though.
It would have been B side material back in the day.
Ed Sheeeshran 🙄
My wife said she was going to divorce me because of my obsession with The Monkees.
At first, I thought she was joking - and then I saw her face...
Hahaha! Good one! This really cracked me up. Gotta go, the last train to Clarksville is about to leave.
😂😂😂😂😂😂
you made my day🤣🤣🤣
And after seeing her angry face, you thought, I'm A Believer.😁
That's an A-1 dad joke.
My teenage kids grew up with Spears, Sheeran, and Kanye. Now they listen to Zeppelin, Beatles, and Blue Oyster Cult. I'd like to think i caused it but the real reason is the creativity of 70s/80s music.
I so know what you’re saying, but it’s all a cog in the social and culture engineering machine. Unfortunately
I skip the beatles but the others you listed are great!
Simon Cowell has a lot to answer for. Actively discourages contestants from presenting their own material because, as he has said, “how would we know if they are any good if we don’t know the songs”. So all you get is covers. 🙄
Simon Cowell doesn't actually pretend to be anything more than TV oriented entertainment. He makes that pretty clear.
The one exception is Alejandro Aranda from American Idol 2019 (right before the pandemic). His run from week to week was a wonderous thing. Go back and look at it on video! It's like watching a Prince or a David Bowie. He composed all of his own songs (unless specifiically assigned a cover) and served as bandleader for the A.I. house band on all his performances, and was UNREAL both on guitar and piano.
Starting with his audition, each Alejandro performance left the judges and audience SPELLBOUND AND IN AWE. I don't know why his run on Idol doesn't get more attention. It was Hall of Fame level. ua-cam.com/video/GvCvvIIgr00/v-deo.html
@@robertwiles8106 Thanks I'll check him out 👍
...Simple Simon? lol
I mostly blame the 90's and the rise of the 'vocal artist'. These people (Micheal Bolton, Mariah Carey, Celine Dion etc) had some talent but used it for evil. The bland, putrid, lifeless, tacky, phony pop/R&B/soul that these artists belted out repeatedly somehow convinced people that they were listening to someone musically important.
The 'artist' and their immense talent quickly became more important than their music...a sad situation that continues today.
That's women's music. They wouldn't listen to real music unless they thought it could get them with a guy they had the hots for.
They're no different from people like Pat Boone, Frank Sinatra, Engelbert Humperdinck and Donny Osmond in previous decades.
@@John-k6f9kpretty much, all the way back to Bill Haley and the Comets
Rick Beato had a recent video about the death of bands, replaced by solo artists for the convenience and profit of the labels.
@@DerekPugh-uj4yd You thusly could blame Frank Sinatra and Three Dog Night for the Fall of the Roman Empire.
What about blaming Dancefloor DJ‘s for playing Records who displayed 3 Times more Extra Bonus Beats then actually Melody Parts, or the fixed Playlist System of Broadcast Syndicates.
I really do not think that any of the Mentioned Musicians had or has the Power to Destroy Music.
If it comes to bad Music, Dealers but also the Consumers through their „Selbstverschuldete Dummheit“ (Self inflicted Stupidity) are to blame if you want to search for a Scapegoat.
I remember when Madonna's Sex book came out. I was working in a printing and graphic reprographics business and one of the blokes brought it in for the lads to perv over. It was so dismally unerotic we spend most of the time critically looking at the print and binding quality. Madonna was "Sex" rather than "Sexy "......her music was just dispiriting....never has so little talent gone so far.
Your right about Madonna...
Ray of Light is a great song, plus a few other tracks off that album.
That's too much. I had exactly the same experience - working in a print shop when a co-worker brought in the book.
Spot on couldn't have put it better. Just like U2's rise was an industry contrivance to sell their processed version of post-punk aimed mainly at the sons of dull conservative America, the types who would have been into Peter Frampton or The Eagles in the 70s. Madonna's contrived catholic iconoclasm was their selling of the erotic or 'sexy' element previously associated with the genuine article like Donna Summer or Debbie Harry but in Madonna's hands aimed at the 'liberated' impressionable daughters of the conservative types who would have been into Linda Ronstadt or Debbie Boone a decade earlier.
OMG. the binding. Let's me put it this way: Spiral bound books and sheer stockings are not a good mix.
Remember that song video killed the radio Star from 1979. I have always taken that song to mean that the visual aspect of music is more important than actual musicianship. And here we are 45 years later stuck with this crud
And Spotify killed the video star!
The Buggles nailed it.
as well as Radio Gaga
That song was genius, in my opinion, so much of a Zeitgeist bundled up in it. At least to a 9-year old like me. At most it was tangential to this whole process, kind of like Kraftwerk, while the song is actually good in itself. In fact, the song called "Video Killed the Radio Star" didn't actually need the visuals of a video.
That Ella Fitzgerald is glorious to listen to but a bit of an eyesore to look at.
Susan Boyle sounds great but looks like a fire hazard.
Dis-honorable mention (early 2000s era): Limp Bizkit.
While truly awful, I don't think they were actually very influential. They were more like the end product of all these other influences, and while massively popular for awhile, didn't pioneer any trends that still influence music today.
@@zaneblack3094 - That whole NuMetal thing was just a blip.
Just don't blame Korn, Deftones or Mike Patton, its not their fault
They were awful.
@@IzunaSlap Korn were right on the thick of it.... Guilty as charged.
At last! I've been waiting for the Nuremburg Trials for musician since the mid 80s.
LMAO
Lol
Well, this video also uses twisted Jewish logic, much like those trials.
Thinking Robert Zimmerman, and the entire 60s top-down cultural revolution, was organically "counter-cultural" and authentic could only be believed by the most brainwashed generation in human history: The Boomer; the generation who peddle such absurdities as "Strange Fruit" being the greatest song of all time.
If you can't see the clear and direct link between the 60s cultural revolution(which you love) and Cardi B's "WAP (which you hate), life must be so confusing for you.
60's British invasion caused drug proliferation and introduced the USA to Hindu and Buddhist religious cosmic debris....the invasion was literal....now folks would take a knee and gets squared up the rear then stand on their own feet andf fight.
The boomer embraced the vaccine with zealous aplomb! Neil young was their leader! Counter culture my arse!
Kanye West is the one which I truly don't understand why they are a celebrity with 22 Grammys. Who buys it? It's no wonder he hooked up with The Kardashians....these people are The Monkees of rich celebrities for no other reason than that they are rich celebrities that the entertainment industry for some unfathomable reason decided needed to be there. Just as an aside, Cher gave us autotuned vocals.
“Influencers” influencing yutes and naive adults
Kanye’s work as a producer got him to where he was. He also made hip hop about personal feelings. As for what turned out, well …………
A download is considered a buy now. Forget albums.
I can't answer this question without being labeled a racist.
Disagree. Kanye’s musical production is quite original. And catchy. And the lyrics are at times hilarious. “I ain’t saying she no gold digger, but she ain’t hanging with no broke N….” For me he completely deserves his place (and I’m a Zepplin type rock head)
The Devil wouldn't reveal himself to us as some kind of dictator. He'd wear the sheep's clothing of Ed Sheeran
Or Donald Trump 🍊🐷👹
I think when elvis started doing those cheesy movies his music was just as bad and totally manufactured.
Agree. That was solely down to his parasitic manager Colonel Tom Parker who couldn't leave the USA due to not having a green card. He was an illegal and not a real Colonel.
That was the fault of his very poor management.
I think Whitney Houston ruined singing for most female artists going forward. Her refusal to hold a note, and instead warble all over the place like a gymnast, has led a zillion singers in her wake to wobble madly to the point where being 'in tune' becomes a moot point. Whitney did it better than most, but inspired a shit-ton of awful singing in her style that still hasn't gone away (unlike Whitney - thanks!).
Whitney was great. The problem wasn't her but all the pretenders who tried to copy her style. This has reached an extreme today where every time there is a new singer who becomes popular, I hear about 20 others sounding the same. There is almost no originality in today's popular music.
@@nyobunknown6983 that's what I'm saying - she could more or less do it, but she dead, and that style lives on as some kind of R&B wonderfulness that really just sucks in her successors. So yeah, she ruined singing.
@girthbloodstool339 Her voice was very good. Her song selection as releasing singles were mostly mediocre at best.
That’s right out of the church. Its purpose is to lift the spirits of the congregants who need something transcendent to get through a tough life. Stevie did that. Prince could do that. Michael did that. Luther did that. Aretha did that. Right out of the church.
@@pauldecoster Correct. The term for that type of singing is Melisma and was around long before Whitney Houston.
Only ten? - I can think of hundreds 🤣
I hate rap. Always have, always will. Beginning of the end for me was rap becoming huge at the start of the 90s. Rap is so shitty a genre it took not long before it had to be built around pop hooks of the past in order to keep being relevant...
H.m. 💥💥👏👏👏👏👏💯
Couldn't agree more!
I agree - I call it the cancer of music - and now this cancer is spreading even in country music - which was the last place you could hear melodic stuff
I don't even consider it music. Yet, it's in every: Movie, tv show, video game, commercial, break at a sporting event....
Not book stores though. That's where the smart people go. 😅
@@p.d.l7023 (C)rap
It s not true that Andy Warhol put the Velvet Underground together. He took them under his patronage, got them gigs, "produced" their first album and added Nico to the band for the first album, but their original formation had nothing to do with him.
I mean he thinks the sex pistols were an “organic” “working class” band so its not surprising he wouldn’t understand VU
Right! Her entire ouevre with the VU consists of three songs. Reed reportedly was bitter that Andy wanted her to sing songs he wanted to sing.
Erm, Warhol did NOT assemble the VU. Reed met Cale before he met Warhol; basic research.
erm 🤓☝️
@@hoimoitoigoi nob 'ead
he put them together with Nico who was actually a lot more talented than they were. She was on their first and only charting album "produced" by Warhol. Without his support we would not know about VU at all.
@@tommeadows-ie2xbNot true. Let’s assume that when Lou Reed finished with the Velvets in 1970 they were still largely unknown and obscure to most people. Yet Lou Reed went on to have a relatively successful solo career because he was a unique songwriter and a real talent. That alone was enough to get people to revisit his back catalogue with the Velvets which indeed they did. The Velvets are one of the most influential bands of all time and cited as a major influence by countless artists to this day which to my mind makes their legacy a positive one. Not sure how Andy thinks they were a negative influence on music especially given Lou Reeds unquestioned songwriting chops. The Velvets were the antidote to the summer of love. There’s always enough space for everyone in the music market.
"Dave Grohl, the Max Bygraves of rock." That was my highlight of this video!
I would add the emergence of auto-tune which is personified by Cher in the 90s. I can't stand it when it's used heavy-handed. Nails on the chalk board.
The problem was not Cher (she's got an incredible voice btw) but the artists who started using auto-tune as the norm, mainly to hide the fact that they can't actually strike a note, and not just as a sound effect as Cher did.
@@80sWonderchild True, but the first successful mainstream song that it was used on was Cher's "Believe". She (or her producers) were the instigators for its broad use today. It had been used to some degree earlier but those songs were never hits. Since then it's become "mainstream". But if she hadn't used in that song or it hadn't became a hit then maybe we wouldn't have it today.
@@MrT115 I agree. Something similar happened with Vocoder. Some artists used it randomly, whereas Daft Punk used it for most of their songs.
@@80sWonderchild Nowadays general public thinks that that autotuned voice is the incredible voice.
@@menninkainen8830 General public maybe, I'm a GenX music junkie lol 😂 😂
Kurt Cobain stopped taking H and realised that he'd married Courtney Love - we all know the rest...
For me the greatest ruination visited upon music was the carpet bombing, mass consumption and endless hype brought on by hip-hop-rap. It was the Poleaxe that decapitated everything. 30 years ago I said it was a musical dead-end. I still think it is.
Yes!! For while Kanye is deservedly on this list, the scourge of hip-hop had already been around for at least two decades before him. I'd choose RUN-DMC (the first household rap star) or N.W.A. (the first successful gangsta rap artist) absolutely for this list. Hip-hop, along with the dance-pop popularized by Madonna and then homogenized through Britney, are the twin devils of modern pop music.
@@spiritof6663 Someone agrees with me for once. Most music trends last a few years and then morph into something else something new. Rap-Hip-Hop Just went on and on and on. It's so bloody dumb, boring and inane.
@@saintgeorge6706 I agree with you entirely. Left to it's own devices , Rap Hip-Hop would have been a short lived musical fad which would have soon died out, had it not been so relentlessly pushed by "the machine" for decades.
@@jonathanj.7344 I ordinarily get rained on for my unacceptable harsh views regarding the turgid ugly tripe that is hip hop rap. How this primitive niche music from another time and era went international and lasted decades after it's natural life span is a mystery. Seriously a lot of people bought and listened to this soulless sludge dressed up as music and kept it going to the present time. All I can surmise is that a lot of people really have shit for brains.
@@saintgeorge6706 After coming up with awesome genres that defined the best of American culture like jazz, blues, R&B, rock'n'roll, soul, and funk, one after the other in rapid succession in the 50 years from the 1920s to 1970s, it both astonishes and saddens me to think that the black community has not moved on from hip-hop in the 45 years since it began to take off. You are exactly correct, it's stuck like glue for decades and indeed has been at the top of pop music now for at least 35 years. This is NOT natural; most musical genres peak and then move on after 5-10 years in the sun. It's like, when are people going to get tired of this and move on?? The answer is, apparently, *never* . I was born in 1975 so I've had to live with the dominance of the genre for most of my life, wondering year after year when it was going to end, and am now resigned to the simple fact that it will never end and thus, is the literal death of music. There IS some rap/hip-hop that I like, but it has been a poison overall. Something happened--I don't know if this is all just a dark CIA psyop plot or what, all I know is that it has had a mind-numbingly crippling impact on our culture. And from the community that had previously come up with all the best musical genres just before that!
I can't dance like Britney Spears is the name of my solo album.
I was a huge Monkees fan- they had some good songs that actually hold up pretty well over time. Two great singers in that band.
I agree
But mostly their songs were written by hired gun songwriters…
I ran home from school to watch them every day too in the 70’s…!
But don’t try to convince anyone they had much more than basic musical talent…
@@RB-oc7ti I think Andy is right-they wanted to be a real band so bad that they became one for awhile. No, they weren't Tull or Zepplin, but pretty good for a TV band- even Jerry Garcia gave them some props one time in an interview.
@@RB-oc7ti Was really surprised "The Porpoise Song", the Theme from "Head" was written by Goffin/King. I like Carol's demo version too, esp.with the latin mass included. Monkees most pyschedelic song. Wonder if the "Wrecking Crew" were involved.
3 good singers
The Fall WERE a great band and Mark E Smith WAS a twat. They're not mutually exclusive facts. He was an incredible lyricist and the Fall were probably the single most influential band in post-punk (even to this day) after VU. 90% of neo-punk and so-called underground bands I hear now are heavily Fall-derivative. I suppose that this is precisely your point, but except to the extent that the imitators of these bands were often lacking in creativity and originality, neither the Fall nor VU "ruined" music. Did Zeppelin "ruin" music because they spawned a legion of derivative and less-talented imitators? Or because the Robert Plant-type screechy blonde wailing front man became the norm? The fact that you don't like the critics who lauded VU and the Fall and who hated Genesis and Yes doesn't mean those critics were wrong about VU and the Fall. It just means they were wrong about Genesis and Yes. :) (I love all these bands btw though I dislike the Ramones.)
I said Velvet Underground were great...I did. The Fall?? bad memories of twatty people at art college....
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer But it seems you think the critics are wrong about them because those critics don't like prog.
@@AndyEdwardsDrummerThe twatty people at Art College probably put 'The Fall' in the same basket of 'poet'' as John Cooper Clarke et al. and never put The Fall in the 'music' category for them to ruin
'Glamourised incompetence' is a great phrase 🙏🏾 Summarises a lot of popular 'music' since about 2000 (with a few exceptions). The amount of music in most popular music since about 2000 is very close to 0% 😢
I think Coldplay ruined music not only it was terrible music, but ironically it also set a new reference for what many people considered "good music". People really do love Coldplay for the music, they love it for the right reasons, they are music lovers. Except that it isn't good music (and it opened the door for other bands to do totally bland music that is considered good music).
Corporate Rock at its worst.
good call...so many of the bands the kids listen these days (I assume, or maybe just the ones I hear in shops) seem inspired by that whiny MOR dross... like that Noah guy... dunno the rest of his name. godawful
Best description of Coldplay I ever heard, and I can't remember who it was who said it unfortunately, but they were spot on: 'Coldplay is band for people who don't actually like music'
I disagree with your critique of Kraftwerk entirely. The notion of them being 'soul-less' is, for me, missing the whole point. Kraftwerk had a very classical (in the sense of music made before the recording era when orchestras and musicians, and in particular opera singers, did not employ techniques that are ubiquitous today - namely vibrato, which was a technique used on fretless instruments to compensate for discrepancies of pitch and was looked upon very unfavourably by live audiences then but sounds very strange to modern ears without it - the awful Witney warble anyone?) and rooted in a European based approach to melody. Their approach to melody was simplistic and diatonic - which I think is their greatest appeal. Of course, this simplicity appeals to non-musicians looking to form a Joy Division or whatever because it's the easiest to replicate and their use of machine technology is equally accessible but some of the most beautiful, and soul-full music ever made has this degree of simplicity in it - Satie and the best of Miles Davis are great examples. This un-soulfullness is, I think, because we have been brought up on flat-fifth nonsense as being somehow related to musical authenticity, when it is entirely the opposite thing. That 'blue-note' thing is a device and nothing more - it doesn't engender authenticity to a musical ear and is now a laughable parody of something rooted in issues like social freedom from slavery (which it never was) and authenticity in rock music (stolen and regurgitated endlessly). That screaming guitar guitar solo is more artificial than anything Kraftwerk produced. And this comes from a guitar player of over fifty years playing (and still playing) in that genre.
Live Aid played a massive part in sterilizing creativity as does now the over dependence of AI and technology.
can you explain more why live aid sterilized creativity
Read David Hepworth's new book. And he was there!
@@grahamnunn8998 can you give the conclusion of the book why music went dowhill from there
@robertsteinberger5667 his book is about how rock stars never retire now. Many got their career rebooted by live age.
He argues that Live Aid began the age of the spectacle - like Glastonbury today, where the crowd is just there to be at Glastonbury, the music is secondary.
@@grahamnunn8998Old artists live on because they know the old audience doesn’t want to renew their taste.
So new old cheap music and new new cheap music is made because there is an audience, a huge audience for it.
And old artists don’t need to make new old music, because the audience only want to hear the old music.
And why are both music styles cheap? Because they are highly formulaic. You don’t need AI to make copies of what is already made.
Andy Edwards is fishing in the pond of that old audience.
Just like Rick Beato.
There are loads of fishes to catch, so why shouldn’t the two of them carry on?
Came for the rant, stayed for the philosophical essay.
Andy, I’ve recently stumbled upon your UA-cam output and I have to say you really are a grumpy, middle aged, opinionated Midlander. That’s something I can really identify with so keep up the good work! I disagree with a number of the things you say but there’d be no point watching your channel if I just agreed with you.
I used to think it was just my advancing age that meant I didn’t enjoy modern music as much as older stuff but I’m now thoroughly convinced it’s just not as good and a lot of the points you made in this video do resonate with me. I would also like to lay some blame on production/songwriting teams like SAW, Mark Ronson and even Rodgers/Edwards for just homogenising the output of the artists they work with so that they become an extension of their brand rather than helping the artists grow by building on the unique attributes they already have.
A few years back on allmusic, I left a 3-star review of a Velvet Underground album that had an overall 5-star rating from both fans and the site. To me the sound quality is horrible and only a few of the songs are engaging.
I went back about a year later to check my review and make sure I still agreed with myself. THE REVIEW WAS GONE. So, that's one way the music industry protects its icons: no criticism allowed.
For fans of music like Velvet Underground that's supposed to be challenging and evoking a strong emotional response, a 3 out of 5 review is probably worse than a 1 out of 5. At least a 1 star means you feel strongly in some way. I wonder if a 1 star would have stayed up?
I would think in context, Pat Boone ruined rock & roll way before the Monkees when the entertainment industry had him cover Little Richard's Tutti-Frutti, as well as Elvis Presley's entire catalog at the time in an attempt to sanitize the salaciousness of rock&roll.
I was describing this video to my wife and she made exactly the same point.
anyone produced by stock aitken and waterman
@@kaned3570
Yes, cold, calculated production line muzac.
Mowtown showed that production line music can be made with great heart, soul and passion
Judas Priest still do not have the guts or integrity to release the tracks they did with them.
@@damienfoyerdid they realy?
@@damienfoyer
Couldn't have been any worse than Captain Sensible's horrific solo singles, which somehow sold bucket loads more than the Damned punk classic New Rose.
@@Carbogggthats not very happy talk
Popular music is definitely at a really low ebb. The charts have become a total irrelevance. Sell 20 copies of an album at a car boot and you're in danger of becoming a bestseller. Of course there is still much great music out there but it has to be sought out. The soundbite - style over substance - has never been more zeitgeist for the mainstream.
While the pop charts have gotten worse, the top 10 in any year was generally not the best music of it's time.
I haven't looked at the charts since 2005. The last thing I remembered was My Chemical Romance taking no 20 in the UK Singles chart with Helena. A moment I realised that the charts barely mattered much
@@EncoreASMR Me neither, and I have never been a fan of Pop per se. But it's inescapable as background noise. And that noise is definitely a lot more annoying than it used to be.
@@orlock20 Absolutely.
I call Linkin Park the Backstreet Boys of Rock music.
The 1940’s WW II generation insisted Alan Freed and Elvis Presley destroyed “good music”. Eight years later, The Beatles had some haters from that first “Elvis generation”. The hippies of the late 60’s caused a division amongst the earlier pop music fans, some of whom went to the earlier Elvis/Bill Haley sounds, others went to country music with Jerry Lee Lewis & Conway Twitty. The Disco arrival in 1975 divided some Rock fans, some of whom liked the sounds of KC and Donna Summer, and some who went on to Boston, Kiss and corporate sounds like Styx. There was yet another divide in 1977 with Punk’s entrance, dividing those devoted to Led Zeppelin and those embracing the Ramones & Clash. Today there is a battle over Taylor Swift, both sides digging in their heels on the internet. What does all this mean? THE MORE THINGS CHANGE, THE MORE THEY STAY THE SAME.
They’re all right. Classical music is the APEX of western civilization’s artistic output. So yeah each generation did make music dumber and dumber…
Wrong. Modern popular music really is very bad. Been to the dental hygienist lately and had to list to the radio? It's brutal. No wonder people are lining up for the experimental vaccine. They've lost hope.
The inherent relativism of your reasoning is destroying your argument. It hides the fact that today's "music" is dead, worthless zombie dross all across the line.
Pop bands and pop music are a key component of cultural programming, since 1955
Nickelback and Creed are probably the two most hated bands of the last 30 years for ruining rock but if they started up now playing the same songs a lot of people who claim to hate them would be telling other people that there are these two great bands playing 'real' music...
In your summing up ("it's all the Emperor's new clothes") that must go for Kraftwerk as well then? Golly! Ralf and Florian introduced Kraftwerk to the popular music scene with their hard to copy musical aestetics and musical background. Is Kraftwerk responsible for what artists later copied so poorly?
very good video Andy. BTW, you could do a philosophy sunday about the negative and positive impact of Art Criticism in general. As a visual artist, I am always frustrated by the way the visual art gatekeepers, the critics and curators, who are mostly "word" people favor art that they can "talk about", and the "crit talk" becomes a vortex that suck in new artists who try to direct their art to what the critics valorize. And we now have this horrible scenario where the art world is a spin zone, where identity of the artist and the brand and "the MESSAGE" are over valorized, and real counter trend art is excluded by the very gatekeepers who hypocritically proclaim to be pro-innovation, but in reality are the force working (perhaps unknowingly and unwittingly) against innovation.
More than any 10 Artists, I think MTV played a huge part in the decline of pop music!
People started to ask "have you seen the latest video by X" more than they asked if you heard their latest song.
MTV also lead to the decline of the once hugely popular and important Top Of Ths Pops. That shows demise lead onto there being less and less interest in the charts. Never mind a band or solo artist having a number one, at one time it was a big deal having a top ten or even top 20 or 30. Bands/Artists could have, long, successful careers off the back of just a few big hits. Everyone, from kids to grandparents knew the popstars and their songs during the golden eras, whereas today, the only Taylor Swift song I know is Shake It Off. A song I do like btw
Wow. That is the one and only Taylor Swift song that I know also. What are the odds?
Music was always spoon fed to the mass audience and MTV, VH1 and CMT replaced the radio which was on the take anyways. The idea that people would go to the record store and look for unknown acts is overblown. The internet did more damage to the pop scene because it allowed people to listen to music old and current for free. Not only could they listen to it for free, they could listen to what they wanted to listen to at any time. The local music scene became a chore to go and listen to hoping that the music was good.
@@orlock20
There's a big and significant difference between hearing a song on the radio and watching a video of a song on MTV.
Listening to the radio you judge a song entirely on what it sounded like, which was definitely not the case when MTV arrived.
I remember being in a Birmingham city centre record shop the day Michael Jackson's Thriller video premiered in the UK. The shop was absolutely rammed but they were there to watch the massively hyped video, not to listen to a rather average pop song. There is no way that song would have been anywhere near the hit that it was without that hugely expensive video and the ridiculous amount of hype which surrounded it.
I completely agree with the rest of your post though.
@@Carboggg Pop stations play maybe 200 or less songs per year and genre stations play maybe 40 per year (sometimes the same 40 every year). That's far fewer than the 10s of thousands of songs made per year.
But MTV really didn't hit the UK until cable in the mid to late 90's. It only appeared on Sky at the end of the 80's and most people didn't have Sky. I would argue Top of the Pops started to decline when Pop music began dying in the early 90's due to the anti 80's kick starting, along with SAW becoming so ubiquitous that anything sounding overly poppy was rejected by the public. Dance music became the new pop, and the Indie bands were resolutely un-poppy. The very notion of 'being entertaining' for a band in the mid 90's was anathema. I watched Top of the Pops struggle to be relevant through the 90's saying it was slowly dying - I said the same about mags like Smash Hits. Then when cable came along the audience for BBC started to dissipate even more, lowering the viewing figures, then the internet hit and... it was all over. The handful of pop acts the 90's produced (Steps, S-Club, Spice Girls and some Girl 'Bands', Take That and some boy 'Bands') were not enough to sustain the show. I think it was dying by the start of the 90's and just slowly lost more and more relevance (and viewers). Watch some of the classic eps on IPlayer - in the 70's it's tacky but fun, 80's it's got a silly 'party' atmosphere which seems to fit not matter who the artist is (they were more stylised and visual which worked, and the music was more melodic), then you get to the 90's eps and it becomes... what's happening? It just stops working.
Your rant mirrors my thought exactly. Thanks for standing up to the machine…
I don't listen to any of these ten music artists that "ruined music." I explore what music has to offer and slowly but surely I discover the music I enjoy. It is almost never the biggest artists spoon-fed in media.
Lots of very relevant points, Andy. And well articulated. Thank you for being courageous enough to express your thoughts.
Herbie Hancock's linear notes on Jaco Pastorius' first album came to my mind listening to you :
"... Of course, it's not the technique that makes the music; it's the sensitivity of the musician and his ability to be able to fuse his life with the rhythm of the times. This is the essence of music. ..."
I've been saying for years now that mainstream music has, for the most part, lost its idealogical dimension. Music as a carrier for ideas has been one of the reasons I've felt so attracted to it, so I sometimes feel a bit lost in today's musical landscape. Hopefully, we've got artists like Louis Cole, Mono Neon, Jacob Collier, Cory Wong, The Fearless Flyers, etc. who seem to be doing their thing. At least their music sounds "right", aligned with who they are (to me, at least).
If you put an infnate number of chimpanzees in a studio with instruments for an infinate time would the eventually write 'Hey Hey we're the Monkeys!' ?
Do you think the hedonism of the 70s&80s convinced the music companies to promote bland easily controlled corporate gimps rather than talented flawed extrovert artists that fly loose.
Yes I do
Bland music was always popular Those classic stations sorted out the bad stuff some of which was not popular in its time.
Fantastic breakdown of our sorry state in music. In a way, I noticed all of these while they were happening.
I don't know if you will use it for evil.
Thank you for talking about Linkin Park. I grew up in the 90s and I could never understand how anyone cared about them.
It's what I used to call whiner rock.
They do have one great song: New Divide. But that's about it 😊
I don’t think artists ruined music🤔
I think overuse of technology did🤷♂️
And I think you yourself, Sir, have explained just that quite well ✌️
"All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted, not so coldly charted: It's really just a question of your honesty. Yeah, your honesty.
One likes to believe in the freedom of music, but glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity, yes."
One of the most cutting article reviews I ever saw was “this is pseudo-philosophical claptrap reduced to the level of a Rush lyric”. Personally I love Rush and I love Neil’s lyrics
The worst thing in music or any art is the critics
Nah, I'd say probably the money is the worst part. You can at least ignore critics if you want
and at the same time we need critics. How many albums get released every week, thousands. Someone needs to filter out and advise what to listen to and not and in the end you can mak eup your own mind about it.
@@robertsteinberger5667 agreed! Nothing wrong with expressing an opinion.
Without critics you sit in the void. And critics works are art in intself.
@@robertsteinberger5667 you may need them I sure don’t
Andy, please never change! This is one of your best videos so far, the Ed Sheeran part made me laugh so hard. cheers!
Brilliant video Andy!! One of your best IMO. Great work!
Brilliant sarcasm!
Yeah, the Ramones. Leather jackets...check, white t-shirts...check, ripped jeans...check, tunes...damn, I knew we'd forgotten something.😂
@@punkfloyd-m9k that’s not funny. Lmao.
I would have replaced the Ramones with the Sex Pistols because the Sex Pistols were a label created band while the Ramones were a gimmick band.
@@orlock20 have ever been to a Ramones show ?
If this is satire, great. If you actually believe this, you're out of your mind. Their 1st 3 albums are literally greatest hits each. They've inspired millions.
Songs are the Ramones greatest strength. Instantly catchy, a no nonsense return to what made rockn'roll great. With prog, the emphasis was on musicianship, sometimes to the detriment of the tune. Both styles have substance, they just place value in different areas. Lightning fast downstrokes could also be considered a progressive technique.
Andy Warhol did not create or put the Velvet Underground together. The Velvet Underground was a band that played at Max’s Kansas City and other bars and clubs that Warhol frequented. Warhol subsequently invited them to play with his Exploding Plastic Inevitable and later he recorded them (as an executive producer, with Tom Wilson doing the real production [and where is that Tom Wilson video you said you were going to do about a year ago?]).
The Ramones were pseudointellectual and pretentious????? They were the antithesis, they were silly, comical (Dumb and Dumber), and great.
"Now I’ve gotta go and tell'em. That I’ve got no cerebellum."
Top 40 Pop music has always been corporate grist. In the 70s the media had to invent a Progressive Rock Chart. The artist were taking over so the corporations quickly latched hold of garage bands, called it Punk to regain control. Good music still exist but it’s not found on Spotify list..
Boney M, Milli Vanilli, New Kids On The Block, Aqua, Kylie Minogue, Cheer, Britney Spears, Modern Talking, Kiss and Donnie Osmond. In no particular order. They're all criminally rubbish.
Oh yes, there is order. Modern Talking is the lowest point of Music ever.
@@ml-ei3nzNo, they're all equally horrible.
Aqua was briliant. One of the best Videos ever.
Saw Kylie Minoge for a 5 Minute Cameo with Nick Cave on a Live Open Air in Bern Switzerland in the 90ties.
Then she had her great Comeback at the Olympic Games in Australia. Glamour Pop vor Glamour Boys and Glamour Girls.
She was never somebody to destroy something.
If you get past the scandal, that Milli Vanilli record is really, really good.
Can't Get You Out Of My Head is undeniable (by virtue of the fact that I can't get it out of my head.)
@@Sanpablo147 Can’t get you out of my Head is a stroke of Genius.
For this Tune alone Kylie deserves our eternal Adoration.
This is a conversation a lot and I agree with many of these choices. I have two nominations for brilliant musicians that destroyed music. The first is Miles Davis. Bitches Brew is a brilliant album. Unfortunately, there is a direct line from Bitches Brew to "Smooth Jazz." The other one is David Bowie. Before Bowie, the music was primary and the show and staging were secondary. With Bowie, the frontman also became an actor, dancer and entertainer and the staging gained equality with the music. Some bands did this brilliantly, but there is a direct line from Bowie to the nameless, faceless pop diva with backing dancers lip-synching to pop pabulum, and Madonna and Spears are part of that tradition.
"Rolling Stone magazine rated Phish as the top band of the 1990s in a reader poll conducted in 1998. The poll recognized Phish for their live performances, loyal fan base, and unique fusion of musical styles, making them a standout in that decade. Despite not being mainstream, their improvisational style and cult following earned them this recognition."
Unfortunately, they don’t really know how to do songwriting well. Good at jamming I guess?
Couldn't disagree more with Rolling Stone about that. And I disagree with most of what they print.
I bought a Phish cd just to see what they were like. - I played it once and then just chucked it in the trash. - It did NOTHING for me.
Watched Phish in a live video and they were awesome. Went into their catalogue and experienced the exact opposite.
@@Woldsowl227 Junta, Lawn Boy, Nectar and Rift are brilliant records up there with the classic prog albums of the 70s. Don't care what anyone says. And I hate Rolling Stone magazine but they were right about this. Phish was the best band of the 90s and quite possibly still the best rock band still touring now.
No matter the genre if a band repeats itself often enough,the music just becomes formulated and dull as dishwater and worst are the bands that copy them stylistically. The problem is music is a subjective thing and most music I do not want to be subjected to.
Stop with The Monkees! First 45 I ever bought was I'm A Believer when I was 13 years old. Daydream Believer is in my top ten singles of the 60's. And I love Last Train to Clarksville. So, no. Just, no. I don't care what "influence" they did or didn't have.
They have great songs indeed ,Mr Edwards was talking about how they were created.
Ha! I'm A Believer was also my first 45... first record I ever bought, period. Still got it. Still love The Monkees. My love of pop started with them, and I've retained that over the decades, as I developed appreciation for "serious" genres like prog, metal, jazz, Classical, etc.
Stepping Stone and Pleasant Valley Sunday were my favorites.
Andy makes a good point but against the odds the Monkees did make good records. The first manufactured boy band (?) but they just about got away with it I think. There was a freshness and innocence about them; a sunny optimism before the darkness of the late '60s set in. They had a couple of good singers too and weren't without talent. Nesmith was a favourite of mine.
Calm down, fanboy. He didn't diss your idols, he merely pointed out the obvious limitations and that they were the prototype "artificial" band.
The Monkees weren't created to be The Beatles. They were signed to act in a TV show about a band that acted like The Beatles in their film, A Hard Day's Night. It just happened that the music they made for the show was so good that they had some big hits. Most of the hits were written for them by Boyce and Hart, Goffin and King, or Neil Diamond. But all the Monkees wrote songs and Mike Nesmith wrote almost every song that he sang for them. What ruined Hit Radio was the corporate takeover of radio stations where just a few people would decide what would be played and what would be a hit.
You’re like the agent provocateur or anarchist who walks into a large peace protest, throws a pipe bomb, then quickly walks away, finds the nearest pub, orders a pint and giggles while watching the live coverage of his exploits on the pub TV.
Yes...and I enjoy the fact that I am not criticizing these incredible artists. And I stated that at the start. But some here will still fall into the bottomless pit of their own ego/self hate, where they cannot deal with someone drawing attention to the shortcomings of any band they have decided they like....see if you can spot those here?
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer
I, for one, appreciate that your provocations are generally well thought out with intention. Just a side note, I did find it curious that almost all your selections are American.
Thank you for another informative and thought provoking video Andy!
Whatever Artists you chose to illustrate your point there will always be people who take exception to your choice/s, but your general point is well made Andy; and, not having as deep an interest in popular music history as yourself, and never having worked within the industry, as you do, I'd also have also pointed a finger at The Velvet Underground for what they (appear at least to) represent; artificial, pretentious hype...now if that turns out to be an inaccurate assessment then it's still a very popular one to this day well over 50 years later.
(As an aside to that, even if a band starts off genuinely original, authentic and unique...as soon as the Industry gets it's grubby hands on it it becomes tainted...it's like a pairing of quantum entangled sub atomic particles, just the attempt at observation changes it. Some of the most successful and enduring Artists changed, evolved and grew themselves without any outside interference from the industry or their own fans...but they are few and far between)
Related to this topic I've seen a couple already and you've no doubt done several other, highly informative and entertaining videos discussing the Corporate/Technological drivers of the slow death of Popular Music, some of which are listed below.
The invention of Synthesizers/Sampling
FM Radio/Payola/Music Programming
Digitalization
The invention of the compact disc
The World Wide Web
MTV
File Compression MP3 Streaming & MP2 Radio Broadcasting
Pro Tools Logic Ableton etc
Digital Audio Workstation/Quantization
The Loudness Wars/Brickwalling
Auto tune
I know you like to revisit and refine your work so I'm wondering if you'd consider combining these two strands/elements in a future video at some point (if you haven't already)? I think that would really add more weight to your argument (if any were needed to sway the, as yet, unconvinced)
He does love his click bait. I think that’s one of the things that ruined music. Old guys unable to find a new lane so they just shit talk everything new.
@@spellman007
You’re not wrong. The algorithm behind all this is exceptionally good at incentivizing clickbait, outrage and controversy. And every time I click and comment, I feel like I’m aiding and abetting it. Might be time for me to step back and focus more on why I’m on this platform in the first place. 🤔
Great video Andy! Bravo! more!
There are so many to choose from,but what about clothes manufacturers that ruined jumpers🤔
Thing is about the 60s and 70s you could have bands like Herman's Hermits, the Monkees, Love Affair or Bay City Rollers, manufactured but with great pop songs because there was so much great stuff and so many brilliant songwriters that contriving a band didn't matter and it didn't dominate the music scene though the idea had been sown.
What we have today is probably not even so much the music industry manufacturing artists on us. With the likes of Swift and Sheeran it's almost like the very corporate establishment and their technocrats are using all their apparatus, media, advertising and indoctrination techniques to inflict these performers on the masses and decide for them these are their superstars.
Because people today are so totally media nurtured, gullible and conformist, there's less inclination for them to develop or take unique enjoyment in their own musical tastes. I'm truly astonished at the music even older people my age tolerate today and don't find an utter vexation to the mind and soul. Maybe it's because so many people live through their children or grandkids and psychologically associate these dreadful sounds with them. I even saw Nigel Farage come in to do his conference speech today like a boxer's ring walk or darts player's entrance, to some awful teenage rap track or whatever they call it today.
Herman's Hermits came together organically in Manchester well before they had any interest from a record company. Like them or not, they were no less genuine a group than any of the Merseybeat groups up the road in Liverpool.
@@johnnhoj6749 So did Love Affair and the Rollers originally but all these bands were controlled by the record industry to the 8th degree. The only thing that set them apart from The Monkees is that they weren't originally a concept of record or tv executives.
I will watch it just to see if Marillion had a part in ruining
music
Apparently not , but perhaps flogging a dead musics in a bland way isn't enough?
Fantastic band which has never “flogged a dead musics” or anything similarly unintelligible . Was just listening to them in the car and they’ve enriched my life
No but Kraftwerk, another of Andy’s favourites, did apparently help to ruin music.
@@Chiller11 Do you think Andy actually likes Kraftwerk, or does he just think they were far more influential than they were given credit for? I can't see Andy listening to Kraftwerk in his car for pleasure.
@@ConorHanley cheap imitation of Genesis and they didn't bother hiding it 😅
Seems like he likes the British iterations and dislikes the American versions of these eras of rock
I can remember when the pop scene was a social/cultural phenomenon, when rock bands ruled and everyone followed the top 20. The music was everywhere, hairdressers, supermarket, the workplace, even in the school canteen queue. What happened? The energy of the pop scene evaporated with the phasing out of bands, and it's been "replaced" by the bigging up of football (soccer). Now when you tune on the radio or go the CoOp store, it's vintage hits.
The studio is looking good, cheers!
I hate Canine Waste (sorry Kanye West). He is self proclaimed as a genius, but he has made no unique contribution to Hip Hop. Everything he has produced and been derivative, and uninspiring, yet he struts around like he is some kind of messiah. The originators of the genre like DJ Cool Herc, Kurtis Blow, Grandmaster Flash and Grandmaster Melle Mel have something to shout about, but like true artists they don't. West has brought nothing to the table, and have proved the adage, those who have nothing to say, shout the loudest.
"Toxic" and "I'm a Slave" are brilliant songs? Are they?
Yes...incredibly produced
Linkin Park becoming popular was the moment at which I said to myself "Well I guess this is the point where I'm too old to relate to popular music anymore". I was 30, and I was right.
“Only Sick Music Makes Money Today” - Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche circa 1900 ad
The Monkees begat the Banana Splits. The Banana Splits begat Kiss. Kiss begat Insane Clown Posse. The pretentiousness in the Velvet Underground was mostly manifest in Reed’s lyrics which were dime-store Bob Dylan attempts. Nirvana were a poor man’s Big Star/Pixies. I don’t even consider Madonna and Brittany Spears as musical phenomena, they are media-hyped fashion ghouls.
Oops. I think you did it again.
Velvets, Sometimes you want quirky simple lyrics rather than tuneless repetitive dross. - Sister Ray compared to Dylan’s turgid Isis and Joey.
It’s all staged and psychologically calculated. All of it. Once you see it you can’t unsee it
We agree with that any new artist NEEDS to have a huge social media/internet presence to have even the slightest chance at getting noticed. As a young unknown band, that hates tik tok and Instagram, what can we do to get noticed???
Oops!... I did it Again is a masterpiece though. Richard Thompson's cover makes that clear if it wasn't already.
Go to a major concert: The Who flogging a deadly nostalgic nag just like the Stones. The giant digital screens, the merch, the enforced booze discards. Never again.
The rise of Whitney Houston destroyed popular music, it was grandma music and because it was so popular music companies have been churning it out ever since.
She replaced feeling and nuance of delivery with larynx and technical delivery, something music never recovered from
Let's be fair, if you're going to call Linkin Park whinge-rock (which they are), you can't really go and praise Radiohead in the next breath. I'd also say Cher deserves a place on that list more than Britney simply for popularizing Autotune, which has been a blight on the industry for over a quarter of a century now. All that said, you've got my sub, keep up with the spicy takes.
But Radiohead are good
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer They're great but I can only do them in small doses because they're in that negative nineties miasma of navel gazing lyrics. Unrelated, but I have another of your videos playing now and almost sprayed water all over my workstation when you started doing your REO Speedwagon impression. You're 10/10
@@AndyEdwardsDrummeris that an objective fact or just your opinion? Are you a creep & a weirdo?
Andy, your choice of Velvet Underground is ludicrous and unfounded. But you're forgiven because you are still a youngster. 1) Warhol did not produce the first release with Nico and the others. That was Tom Wilson (produced Zappa's Freak Out) with Cale. Warhol only put up the money for the recording which was a round $2000. 2) it was declined by several major record labels, 3) it largely got bad reviews and was a commercial flop. 4) it got almost no airplay whatsoever, even on alternative non-commercial FM and college stations that I grew up. 5) pretentious? This explains your youngster rant. VU's music and Reed's lyrics beautifully reflect the New York City angst and bohemian street underground that was so much of Reed's own life, quirks and self-destructive behavior in the mid to late 60s (having grown up outside the city in 60s myself). Then you ignore their influence which is certainly at the next tier perhaps below the Beatles, Dylan, Kraftwerk, Eno jokingly commented to the poor record sales of the first album saying that nevertheless anyone who bought it went on to start a band. So real facts give no credibility to your assumptions for VU being on your list. In fact, it is precursor to Americana Prog, which you also dont seem to grok yet. There is an Americana whimsy too. The Brits dont own whimsy,
@@richardgale5369 “rock and Roll” by VU was a big hit on NY city radio, lots of people bought their Loaded album. I do agree with you about some of what Andy said but VU was a real band that my friends went to see, the retro hipster fashion thing was much much later. The VU fashions weren’t fashionable in the sixties they were a beatniky folk rock band but the Exploding Plastic Inevitable were legendary shows. That was in the Northeast USA, I’m sure it was different elsewhere.
@@richardgale5369 American Prog ? American Whimsey. Interesting. Please elaborate. Andy this is a good idea for a video
Next week:The ten most disturbing jumpers.
As always, a fascinating presentation by Andy.
Things like Napster, Apple music, MTV and Idol shows perfectly killed the focus on music in music. These artists you mentioned made perfect use of that to rise to the top without having to focus on the quality of their music at all.
For every great song there are a million better songs that were never recorded
By 100,000 artists that no one will ever know.
Wow~! Velvet Underground. I didn't see that coming, but yeah. I see your point.
Remember music is a subjective matter.
But not entirely
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer I hear you but it has to be. The worlds biggest Cliff Richard fan is just as valid in his opinion about Cliffs music as the worlds biggest Frank Zappa fan is about Franks music.
what do you mean as valid? Is a Nazi's political opinion also valid?
@@AndyEdwardsDrummer I’m talking about music, don’t try and amplify my comment to something it is not. You can objectively cite Hitler as an evil and a bad idea, whereas music is subjective just like all art is. Pretty low blow you tried in my view. I thought you were better than that.
@@smalltown2223 What makes it different? Why is one objective and the other subjective. Isn't both examples simply of what people think is good or bad? And is your opinion that this comment is a low blow also objective or is it just your opinion?
Thx Andy. Truly great stuff. With (really) great authority I can tell you that the same journey has been happening in parallel in many other areas of human creative endeavour. Film TV, Gaming, etc.
Olympic opening ceremonies. Super Bowl half time shows.
It should be obvious that popular music is spiritually dead, this is a good attempt at an autopsy.
The Beatles are the most influential band of all time .. but Nirvana is very close behind in that they managed to turn rock music from a fun loving genre to an expression of depression.
G'Day Andy
I enjoyed hearing your insights and concur with much of your conclusions. I have arrived at a similar standpoint as a person deeply interested in music and as someone who has for many years practiced composing and recording music with all the passion I can muster, in the privacy of my own garage. I have some difficulty just fitting in with mainstream society as a family man with full time blue collar employment let alone navigating the perils of the arts industry. I have never been able to afford fancy equipment and have never been encouraged enough to want to perform or prioritize promotion . Instead like probably many many others, I make my music, by myself, and share it as often as I can (which is rarely) with my family and associates or anyone interested, which is usually no one. I suppose the interesting thing here is I'm not viewed as a musician because I'm not out there doing it on the big stage with all the trappings so to speak. I don't even know many other musicians. I'm interested in the discovery of a new tone, a different way to resolve a stanza, ways to evoke an interesting atmosphere that can describe feelings. or amplify a mood or illustrate a story or an idea. I love discovering obscure, home recorded music because I feel more in tune with that aesthetic. But really I'm just a man talking to himself. Music is a powerful way in which human's communicate with each other. Nothing I hear in popular music today communicates to me much beyond "buy me".
The Monkees were a legimate musical presentation. The way that the band was organized was different than bands that started out in garages, but non the less they were an assembled group of people. John Lennon was assembling a group of people, too, when he put together The Beatles. And, I might add that John had commercial success in mind, when he was putting together The Beatles. The difference between The Beatles and the Monkees is that the Monkees were assembled by a group of people, outside the band (Don Kirshner, if I remember right), with the purpose of not only presenting music, but presenting a comedic drama, as well. And, the job responsibilities, were distributed differently between the respective bands. The Beatles had songwriting as part of the job description. The Monkees had other people assigned that task. The Beatles were more self contained, and they did not have a Television show as their main product. This said, both groups involved a group of people assembling music. The word "organic" that he used here is kind of an attempt at creating an image of a particular type of organizing. Whether a group of people organize a musical presentation in a board room or in a garage, they share this in common: It's a group of people getting together, assigning responsibilities, and working toward a musical product. Yes, The Monkees and The Beatles do share something in common. This said, The Beatles had to be much more talented, individually, in order to fulfill their indvidual job responsibilities. The individual members of The Monkees didn't have to songwrite, play instruments on recordsings, etc. The Monkees organization distributed the work to a larger group of people. Also, people like a hard scrabble story with a happy ending. The Beatles story was gritty. The Monkees story was hygienic. There wasn't much real drama in the Monkee's story. So, they weren't seen as being "as real." The Beatles story gives them the ambiance of being genuine, because of their hard fought fight to get to the top. The Monkees have no story like that. They have catchy tunes, but no back story, to add drama to their journey. But, make no mistake about it: Both bands were singing love songs to sell to teeny boppers, in the beginning of both bands careers. They were both selling a product. They have these things in common. The Monkees were more like a Broadway production than a rock band, in how the organization was put together, and in terms of job responsibilities within the Monkees organization. (PS: The Monkees are not a con job. They actually sang on their records. Yes, they were actors with the instruments, because they were not the ones playing on the recordings. However, this is not the same as Milli Vanilli. Milli Vanilli, who basically pantemimed. The Monkees actually did sing on their own records. ) Lou Reed was a hack. He could barely play his guitar. He was a poser. His songs were simple. One of the interesting part of Andy's presentation is how he ties music to culture. He de facto sees legitimacy when music is tied to "authentic culture." Personally, I think that they are two separate things. As far as I'm concerned, music is a sound and feel. You can play just as effective blues sitting in a comfortable chair in the suburbs, as you can being down in the Mississippi Delta. Music is a sound. Sounds can be learned. Music is not attached to social movements, or culture, as far as i'm concerned. The authenticity doesn't come from singing about economic conditions. It comes from prowess with playing an instrument or singing, and possibly connected to writing. I don't agree with Andy's authenticity test. Finally, Andy: If you're up for it, critique my tune. ua-cam.com/video/tUMieGC32-0/v-deo.html
Was not expecting a dig at the Fall; whom i was just listening to, before I watched this video. Mark E Smith might be a tosser but I still like to listen to em. ( edit: might *have been)
Going way back, you should start with Glenn Miller and the big bands sucking the life out of jazz.
Andy, is there an element of ..so much has now gone before, it's already been said. Originality becomes more difficult, at keast to an extent.
You have obviously overcome both postmodernism and idealism and come to the realization that we've moved on since then
where does one buy tickets for this?
I blame MTV, Boy Bands, Simon Cowell, rap, country, glam metal and those artificial bands/singers (Madonna, Brittney, Mariah, Bolton, Sheeran, Celine, Shakira,Cindy Lauper for example) ruined music. To some extent Punk also ruined music. There is no more innovation in music anymore. It has become boring and uninspired. My tastes go from Heavy Metal to Prog Rock to Jazz to Classical and any mixture there of. Rock has become a generic term now which is unfortunate. I hated that stupid rock and wrestling combination that was pervasive in the 1980's. Everything is about the pretty boy and pretty girl image on the TV screen. There will never be music like we had in the 1960's - the beginning of the 1980's. We had the best. Every band was different and inspiring.
Alice In Chains introduced grunge into the mainstream, not Nirvana. Nirvana takes the credit due to Never mind and Cobain’s suicide. But yes, I blame grunge in general for destroying rock once and for all. I also blame NWA and gangsta rap (also West Coast like Seattle grunge) for destroying the music industry and American culture in general. With black American men in a self-destructive mode, popular music had no future beginning in the’90s. ‘90s R&B was actually my favorite genre of American music as a kid in high school. I enjoyed the list and thanks for reminding me of Velvet Underground significance in taking the blues and soul out of rock and roll! But at the end of the day, I ultimately blame the NOSEY record executives for restoring the industry, as they tend to do with every sector of society they enter.
Good points! The Industry pulled the money on rock. Black Flag bassist Chuck Dukowski told me this when I was recording with him. He knew folks in WEA ELECTRA etc. He said - They pulled the money. It is going to other formats of entertainment. He was right. It was not any artist in particular. The Gods said no more. They do not want to promote strong men. This is the NWO gender shift platform and it is real. Just look for it, and it is global. Social Engineering is the heart of Pop Culture "Counter Culture" to replace Christian Culture.The Beatles were concocted in Tavistock Think Tank. They got dressed, given songs to sing and had studio sessions players do their albums. Let It Be was them and it sucked so bad (Phil Spector). George Martin said it himself that they were rubbish. He was ordered to manufacture them. Ask Graham Nash, Joni Mitchell, Jagger (who was also promoted by Tavistock). Entertainment is smoke and mirrors. Movies are not real either. Many artists were manufactured. The Wrecking Crew did all the Byrds albums, Buffalo Springfield etc. Wake up. I like Oasis as they DO their own stuff and you can tell. They are on and off a lot, like Neil Young after he left his fake band. There are some good books on this, but many have this culture as a religion and they get upset. They cannot sober up. I love YES and Wishbone Ash and you can tell they do their own stuff. They are on and off a lot, and they CAN play. Real players are often spotty as it is hard to come up with "genius" stuff all the time. A polite way of saying a band was handed their songs is "Outside Writers/"Collaborators" etc. Aerosmith had a LOT of "help" even in the earlier days as did KISS etc. The entire genre is knee deep in mediocrity.