Reputation and taste changes in Music

[Howj Begg]

So this is a thread idea shamelessly stolen from ilx, where they are discussing shifts in public taste over time, and i thought it would be interesting for CAB to weigh in as well. Over there they are having a heated debate about Zappa, but certainly the consensus seems to be his rep is as low as it's ever been. So I'll kick off with some thoughts of my own (mostly):

- Apart from the big 60's names, mid 60's psychedelia doesn't seem to be much in favour atm
- Miles Davis seems to have almost entirely eclipsed Coltrane in terms of jazz godhead.
- Bruce Springsteen' stock seems to be as high as its ever been
- Has solo McCartney overtaken solo Lennon for millennials?
- Does anyone give a fuck about REM anymore? (stolen from ilx)

Obviously anedcotes from people who teach music, work in the biz, or who talk to young people about music would be appreciated. No need to support anything you say though, this is a perfect thread for pure 'gut feeling' speculation.

[Petey Pate]

Over there they are having a heated debate about Zappa, but certainly the consensus seems to be his rep is as low as it's ever been.

Among who?  In general I don't think many 'classic rock' fans have a lot of time for Zappa[nb]Tom Scharpling seems to typify this in a funny way[/nb] but I don't know of him being widely hated in other circles.  Because Zappa's oeuvre is so varied (and inconsistent) people tend to specify which version of Zappa they like and dislike.  From my experience it's usually the early Mothers albums which are more popular, and stuff like Sheik Yerbouti which gets dismissed.

Does anyone give a fuck about REM anymore? (stolen from ilx)

Stewart Lee does, a bit.

http://thequietus.com/articles/06324-stewart-lee-interview-favourite-albums?page=6

I've not heard anyone talk about REM in recent years and I don't recall ever hearing one of their songs being played on the radio either.  Is it just me?

[great_badir]

I think Frank Zappa's rep is the same as it always has been - some love him, some hate him, most don't know much beyond things like Bobby Brown (Goes Down) and Valley Girl.  As Petey said, with such a varied output in terms of both style and quality, people tend to pick their favourite period.  For example, I LOATHE the Flo and Eddie stuff (with the exception of Chunga's Revenge), and am not particularly precious about anything from '78 to '84, whereas many others would think that that is a sacrilegious statement given that, live at least, that's typically considered as his peak.  I don't know of many artists, other than Prince, that have released such a wide range of work that ranges from genius to unlistenable shit.


General opinion of prog rock has been massively overhauled in the last few years, and it's now as popular and revered as it has been since the late 70s. 

[Monsieur Verdoux]

- Has solo McCartney overtaken solo Lennon for millennials?

Not in my experience. He has a certain 'novelty factor' by virtue of still being around and releasing high profile collaborations here and there but solo Lennon seems to still be the first port of call for the younger people I know who want to explore beyond The Beatles. The myth that Lennon's music is somehow inherently more profound prevails in abundance to this day. That said, the sort of pop you hear in coffee shops and twee indie film soundtracks bears the unmistakable influence of 'McCartney' (1970) and 'Ram' (1971). So for musicians, McCartney may now have more cultural cache, but millennial consumers still like to buy their Lennon T-shirts to go with their Kurt Cobain ones.

[great_badir]

millennial consumers still like to buy their Lennon T-shirts to go with their Kurt Cobain ones.

And their Ramones ones.

[confettiinmyhair]

- Bruce Springsteen' stock seems to be as high as its ever been

Always seems to happen around election time. He seems to have a resurgence whenever America tries to find it's identity and pride.

[NoSleep]

- Apart from the big 60's names, mid 60's psychedelia doesn't seem to be much in favour atm

What definition of psychedelia? Does this include bands like Cream or Jimi Hendrix Experience? (The)Soft Machine? Are the Stooges psychedelic (they all used to be high in LSD live in their early days)? The experimentalism of the mid to late 60's gave way to "good old rock'n'roll" (in the form of bands like The Faces) as record companies regained their grasp of what the fuck was going on (many of the amazing records of the late 60's are ours to listen to only because the record companies had no clue what was "happening" and, thankfully, signed everything that moved).

- Miles Davis seems to have almost entirely eclipsed Coltrane in terms of jazz godhead.

Hardly an eclipse. Kind Of Blue and A Love Supreme both regularly feature as the two top jazz albums of all time as well as making the top ten (or at least twenty) in all genres. Why not mention Mingus, Monk, Parker or Ellington, the last two registering much lower than their level of importance. Or even Ornette Coleman.

No Charlie Parker in RYM's top 100 jazz albums. Miles and Coltrane hold 1 & 2 respectively (reaching 11 and 17 in the overall chart).

No Charlie Parker albums to be found in the top 500 (I stopped looking at that point).

[Petey Pate]

No Charlie Parker albums to be found in the top 500 (I stopped looking at that point).

Charlie Parker wasn't really alive long for enough to release many, if any, albums, having died in the early 50s.  Most of his output is available through collections of recorded sessions or live concerts.  If you change the chart to include 'live' and 'archival' there is one Charlie Parker album at #190.

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/album/charlie_parker/jam_session_f2/

Surprised to see an Electric Masada record at #59, didn't realise they were that popular.  There's a few other selections which arguably aren't really 'jazz' so much, like Carl Stalling and Angelo Badalamenti.

[Smeraldina Rima]

This sounds like a joke but I think The Shins' reputation went downhill after Garden State.

[Nowhere Man]

Bing Crosby has almost been entirely forgotten by most people under the age of 50 except for at Christmastime. Which is a shame because he's always been one of my favourite singers and he was the undisputed most popular singer for 20 years.

[NoSleep]

He's no 1 artist of all time (counting US & UK chart entries only) according to this site: http://musicvf.com/all.artind

[CaledonianGonzo]

- Does anyone give a fuck about REM anymore? (stolen from ilx)

I chanced upon this feature on the 25th anniversary of Out Of Time just the other week:

http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/1053-an-oral-history-of-rems-out-of-time/

Michael Stipe's recent re-emergence as a solo performer has also garnered some column inches.

[holyzombiejesus]

When I worked in a second hand record shop, we couldn't give Fleetwood Mac LPs away. We used to regularly end up putting Tusk, Tango in the Night and Rumours in the £1 bargain boxes. The same record shop now sells out of them as soon as they go in the racks, usually charging around £15. No-one was very arsed about Black Sabbath either.

I agree with the comments about mid-60s psychedelia, especially compared with when I was in my youth (late 1980s) and everyone was in to Bam Caruso and those Edsel reissues and whanot. Does anyone give a shit about Syd Barrett any more. Later Floyd seems to be perceived as the superior stuff nowadays whereas I'm sure the Syd era used to be the one that the kids went for.

[Petey Pate]

He's no 1 artist of all time (counting US & UK chart entries only) according to this site: http://musicvf.com/all.artind

Ha, number three is Paul Whiteman and his Orchestra.  He doesn't seem to get mentioned as much as in discussions of early jazz artists despite being more commercially successful in his era than say, Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington.  Even other white jazz artists of the time like Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller seem to be more widely known and revered nowadays.

Looking at that Rate Your Music chart of most popular jazz albums again, mid '70s Miles Davis albums like Get Up With It, Dark Magus and Agharta appear to be significantly more highly regarded than they were at the time.

[thecuriousorange]

I'll tell you whose hits[nb]the ones from 10+ years ago[/nb] are all over drive-time radio now.

Craig David. He's not a joke anymore. I even heard some people praising him in an un-sarcastic way.

[Brundle-Fly]

If you'd had told me twenty three years ago that people today would be talking about Take That as part of the great British pop pantheon, I would have choked on me bottle of Two Dogs.

[Nowhere Man]

Ha, number three is Paul Whiteman and his Orchestra.  He doesn't seem to get mentioned as much as in discussions of early jazz artists despite being more commercially successful in his era than say, Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington.  Even other white jazz artists of the time like Benny Goodman and Glenn Miller seem to be more widely known and revered nowadays.

Looking at that Rate Your Music chart of most popular jazz albums again, mid '70s Miles Davis albums like Get Up With It, Dark Magus and Agharta appear to be significantly more highly regarded than they were at the time.

Unfortunately the likes of Paul Whiteman and Bix Beiderbecke are not much more than a footnote for most jazz enthusiasts. I get the feeling people seem to view white people playing jazz music, as "not being proper jazz" or something, despite their early innovation. Which is a real shame if you think about it. In fact I was disgusted that Bing Crosby didn't get a single mention in Ken Burn's documentary, considering that he not only innovated more than anyone else how singers sang with a microphone, but Bing also influenced the types of songs Louis would cover for the rest of his career and also worked with Bix, Whiteman, The Mills Brothers, Duke Ellington, The Dorsey's as well as Satchmo.

[hewantstolurkatad]

So this is a thread idea shamelessly stolen from ilx, where they are discussing shifts in public taste over time, and i thought it would be interesting for CAB to weigh in as well. Over there they are having a heated debate about Zappa, but certainly the consensus seems to be his rep is as low as it's ever been. So I'll kick off with some thoughts of my own (mostly):

- Apart from the big 60's names, mid 60's psychedelia doesn't seem to be much in favour atm
- Miles Davis seems to have almost entirely eclipsed Coltrane in terms of jazz godhead.
- Bruce Springsteen' stock seems to be as high as its ever been
- Has solo McCartney overtaken solo Lennon for millennials?
- Does anyone give a fuck about REM anymore? (stolen from ilx)

Obviously anedcotes from people who teach music, work in the biz, or who talk to young people about music would be appreciated. No need to support anything you say though, this is a perfect thread for pure 'gut feeling' speculation.

Nah, Davis is more accessible (up to a point) so people are able to reference him more, but I'd still say their pretty tight.

Springsteen has benefitted hugely from being such a likeable guy. That kind of thing has a lot more value than it did decades ago, similarly Lennon has been brought down a lot (although he's still ranked higher than Macca) from being such a gigantic wanker.

REM are in a weird spot where, with such easy access to such a wide range of music, loads of people like them but they'd struggle to make anyone's favourite band list. Whereas in the 80s/90s they probably benefitted more from that indie mass appeal vibe thing they had going on

60s psychedelia stuff has really died a death though, my guess is it's down to more electronic stuff finally sounding competent enough that bluesy psych seems extremely dated in comparison.

[Dr Rock]

I've got an NME Book OF Rock Or Whatever from the early seventies - Joan Baez gets a whole page. Does anyone listen to Joan Baez these days?

[thecuriousorange]

If you'd had told me twenty three years ago that people today would be talking about Take That as part of the great British pop pantheon, I would have choked on me bottle of Two Dogs.

In the late 90s, Gary Barlow would have been fortunate to get arrested after trying. But he's gone from pop punchline to national treasure.

[Nowhere Man]

How popular is Tim Buckley these days? Because i've just listened to Happy Sad[nb]after listening to Starsailor a few weeks ago and not really getting it[/nb] and realising he's actually bloody great.

[Phil_A]

It's funny to consider Blur getting all the awards at the 1994 Brits, and then coming back to perform and receive a lifetime achievement award in 2011 and getting loads of "Who are these old geezers GET THEM OFF" comments on social media.

I think the recipient of that of award in 94 was Elton John, so presumably Blur's (admittedly not very good) performance must've been as tedious for the kidz of 2011 as Mr Dwight was for me back then.

[purlieu]

Does anyone give a shit about Syd Barrett any more.

I suppose it depends where you look, but I still come across lots of love for Syd online.

Mind you I honestly have no idea where all these consensuses in this thread are actually coming from.

[Steven]

I only listen to the Syd Barrett Pink Floyd stuff, always have. It's a ramshackle load of nursery rhyme mess, but lovely.
The point when they were all coming into the studio separately to record their parts and overlaying in a mix to pretend they were a band under Gilmour was shit. Money etc is good, cos of the riff, but even he said Syd came and played a bit of guitar over a track that was meant to be overlayed backward, fit on the first take. Fuck you Dave.

[DukeDeMondo]

McCartney's post-Beatles stuff is now rated higher than Lennon's post-Beatles stuff because it's clearly fucking better, is my take on it. I mean Jesus Christ. Anyone that would want to listen to Mind Games or Walls and Bridges over RAM or Wild Life of an evening is clearly fucking demented.

Also, when are the Jim Reeves t-shirts gon be on sale in H&M?

Fuckin Jim Reeves, man. https://youtu.be/_rYVDaaHowQ

[Steven]

McCartney's post-Beatles stuff is now rated higher than Lennon's post-Beatles stuff because it's clearly fucking better, is my take on it.

Well, no shit.

[NoSleep]

Unfortunately the likes of Paul Whiteman and Bix Beiderbecke are not much more than a footnote for most jazz enthusiasts. I get the feeling people seem to view white people playing jazz music, as "not being proper jazz" or something, despite their early innovation.

I gave Whiteman's music a try but it's a bit insipid to my ears. I'd say Bix gets a better deal as a jazzman than Whiteman generally, as he's regarded for his own playing rather than anything else, which makes him a noted voice in early jazz. Plus dying young and not making many records as leader means there's little record of him as much more than a sideman, compared to Whiteman's expansive career. Whiteman's rep rests on being a bandleader and composer and I guess he was what many people wanted to hear at the time, but it hasn't stood the test of time. He did commission Gershwin to compose Rhapsody In Blue but his role has been eclipsed by that of the composer (natch). I always thought that Duke Ellington damned Whiteman with faint praise by calling him the "King Of Jazz" whilst declaring his own music "beyond category" (albeit not in the same breath).

What immediately comes to mind (from Donald Clarke's book on popular music) is that Pat Boone was charting regularly in the 50's whilst Sinatra appeared much less frequently, but Boone has been similarly forgotten.

[Nowhere Man]

McCartney's post-Beatles stuff is now rated higher than Lennon's post-Beatles stuff because it's clearly fucking better, is my take on it. I mean Jesus Christ. Anyone that would want to listen to Mind Games or Walls and Bridges over RAM or Wild Life of an evening is clearly fucking demented.

Also, when are the Jim Reeves t-shirts gon be on sale in H&M?

Fuckin Jim Reeves, man. https://youtu.be/_rYVDaaHowQ

A 'FUCKING' MEN and its gonna take his death for the public to realise he was almost always better, with exceptions like Day In The Life, Strawberry Fields and I Am The Walrus. But then again, what would the likes of Taxman and Come Together be without his inventive basslines? Or would A Day In The Life be anywhere near as amazing without his middle section? I've always thought that he doesn't get enough appreciation for how much he contributed to John and George's tunes.

[CaledonianGonzo]

Hmm......I'd have said that the consensus view has shifted way more in Macca's favour in recent years. 

Granted he shot himself in the foot at the Olympics,  but I'd say post headlining Glastonbury the 70s / 80s dismissal of him as a mawkish family entertainer has been replaced by the view that he was generally the more cutting edge / provocative and playful of the two.

e.g.:

http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/16651-ram/

[Wet Blanket]

I've tried and tried with McCartney's solo work but barring the odd track it all sounds like fluff to me, and often cloyingly whimsical fluff at that. That genre of polite pop music does nothing for me. The Carpenters are apparently cool now too, but I don't like them either. Nod doubt Daniel O'Donnell will be up for a reappraisal soon.

I did like that one Macca wrote for Rhianna recently.

John Lennon's mid-seventies albums aren't much cop either, but he never had the opportunity for any kind of career renaissance a la Johnny Cash or David Bowie, what with being murdered like that. I don't think the digs at his personality are entirely fair; we only know a lot of his worst characteristics because he was so brutally honest about himself in his lyrics and interviews.