--- Zachary Steiner <zsteiner@butler.edu> escribió: > I throw Beck and Jim O'Rourke in for consideration.

Beck in particular, as he has made no two albums that sound the same--or like any one else for that matter. I don't see the Dylan connection, sorry Efrén.

Really? Not even in his folk albums?! Maybe I'm losing my mind. ___________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más... http://messenger.yahoo.es

At 11:28 AM 11/12/2003 -0500, Zachary Steiner wrote:

I throw Beck and Jim O'Rourke in for consideration. Beck in particular, as he has made no two albums that sound the same--or like any one else for that matter. I don't see the Dylan connection, sorry Efrén. Neither musician--nor the Strokes, White Stripes, or any of the other critics' darling of the month--will save rock from the current morasses. The best we can hope is that the best of the worst will make music that is enjoyable.

I agree that Beck seems like he's in a holding pattern now (the latest one sounds like bad Nick Drake). O'Rourke is a good example too but he hasn't really broken out into any pop market yet (even as part of Sonic Youth though that'll cerrtainly help him).

Rock artists certainly have to earn their dues, though an artist can unleash something like Freak Out! on the world as a debut.

Zappa's a great example, esp. as he was able to cause a stir at the outset and reach the pop market also. I guess I'm just a little disappointed that a lot of artists today aren't willing to risk more of their standing to do something more... risky, edgy, unexpected. I think that someone like Madonna pushes buttons more in terms of cultural mores than in terms of music as she goes from album to album so I don't think I'd count her here. Since you brought up Dylan, he was another one to add with Beach Boys and Beatles as he managed to alienate a lot of old fans when he went electric and stopped writing protest songs- I'm sure a lot of people thought this was just some pathetic bid at a more commercial market but I don't think he had any sure-fire guarantee at the time that he'd make as much headway in the pop stakes by doing that. Best, Jason

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 12:16:04 -0500 Zachary Steiner wrote:

A friend of mine said that O'Rourke couldn't be poppy even if he tried. He did and had very enjoyable moments on Eureka, etc; however, there is certainly enough to alienate pop fans. The noise interludes or that endless shaker solo between songs, which tries even my patience. It's not groundbreaking; it's just from a genre that doesn't sell well.

Same feeling here. I thought that Jim's breed of pop was intended for people who are not interested in pop (specially the ones who feel guilty when caught listening to music with strong emphasis on melody and rhythm). Some people saw EUREKA as a proof that O'Rourke could succeed at anything he tried. I feld that he succeeded only if your level of expectation is not too high (or if you really have a poor opinion of what talent and genius can go in pop songwriting). Patrice.

At 09:47 AM 11/12/2003 -0800, Patrice L. Roussel wrote:

On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 11:51:10 -0500 Perfect Sound Forever wrote:

...

Zappa's a great example, esp. as he was able to cause a stir at the outset and reach the pop market also.

But you have to put Zappa back in the counterculture movement of the sixties. People did not buy Zappa just for the music.

Interesting point but is that to say that in Western countries in the '60's, avant music had the potential to also be pop music? (which is a contradiction in terms, right?) If so, some of it still didn't meet certain criteria, otherwise we'd also hear AMM and Soft Machine on classic rock stations (not that you hear Zappa much there, come to think of it). Since someone else was asking about Dr. Dre, his production with NWA and on the Chronic changed the whole sound of rap. Since then, I don't think he's done much worthwhile. Best, Jason

HI, Whereas he is artistically significant,

he is not exactly an influential pop musician of the time. Zach

There's something curious about this. "Everyone" sounds like Zappa but nobody likes Zappa. Mr. Bungle, Fred Frith, Ween... all of them have denied any influence. I don't know, it seems as if it had become uncool to acknowledge his importance despite having released some of the most remarkable albums of the late sixties/early seventies. ___________________________________________________ Yahoo! Messenger - Nueva versión GRATIS Super Webcam, voz, caritas animadas, y más... http://messenger.yahoo.es

on 11/12/03 11:06 AM, Sean Westergaard at seawes@allmusic.com wrote:

as a long time zappa fan (starting in elementary school in the 70's), believe me, liking zappa has NEVER been cool.

what do you say Skip? (who is also known as a serious zappa-phile)

You always have one or two friends who can go all the way out on the Zappa limb with you, but largely, he doesn't have a high approval rating. This doesn't mean I like all his records. If ever a guy put technique over content and locker room jokes over soul, FZ is guitly of this for long periods. On the other hand, anyone who does not like "Inca Roads" is likely a pinhead. To put it mildly, a large collection of FZ will not get you laid. In ffact, among women, many of his albums are contra-indictaed. There's an episode of LAW & ORDER where the nerdy pervert suspected of killing a co-ed has a THEM OR US poster on the wall of his dorm. That says it all. skip h

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:53, Gavin Castleton wrote:

There are far more innovative producers in Hip Hop. But one must remember, if you start doing anything really innovative with hip hop, than it can no longer be called "hip hop."

One could make this tired accusation about any genre. Remember when they derided Coltrane as "anti-jazz"?

My comment wasn't unfounded. Anticon has been virtually blacklisted for their various attempts to steer hip hop into something more abstract. I'm not saying Anticon is good or bad, I'm saying that their attempts are not welcome by the majority of the hip hop community. Perhaps it is because they're white. There is a strong distaste amongst hip hop creators for the idea of white people abstracting an art form they recently abducted. I disagree that you could make that "tired accusation" about any genre. Purists are not nearly as prominent (please note, I didn't say "Purists don't exist in any other American music forms") in any other American music form as they are in hip hop. You don't hear people getting angry at Radiohead for pushing rock in a more electronic direction. You don't hear anyone crying about what Rachels has done with classical music... the idea of a pop purist is hilarious. But in hip hop, purists are in the majority. Even the most sparkly of MCs rap about how everyone else is a sell out. That's the point. And black (or "african americans" if you're afraid of being called a racist) hip listeners and performers are not excited about the advent of yet another hijacking (though most would argue it happened already, way back in the 80's). And they're not quiet about it. And the negative result of that clinging is that hip hop is veritably stagnant. When anticon or El P try to push it outwards, they get shunned. When Outkast do it, it's "innovative." Reverse racism is just as stupid and detrimental to the art form. Neither is pushing out far enough in my opinion. If you want to shout racism to avoid the discussion, go for it. but I'd say that's the more "tired accusation." If you don't think race plays a role in the perception of hip hop by a nation of music listeners, than you're not only naive, but you don't listen to hip hop. For the record, yes, I listen to a lot of hip hop. And I'm white. And having explored much of the US underground hip hop, I find that most producers that consider themselves makers of hip hop are constantly segregated into sister genres like "trip hop," "electronica" and "drum n bass." Gavin PS. Yes, I'm wearing a white sheet over my head as I type. Joseph Zitt wrote:

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 14:53, Gavin Castleton wrote:

...

There are far more innovative producers in Hip Hop. But one must remember, if you start doing anything really innovative with hip hop, than it can no longer be called "hip hop."

One could make this tired accusation about any genre. Remember when they derided Coltrane as "anti-jazz"?

_______________________________________________ zorn-list mailing list zorn-list@mailman.xmission.com To UNSUBSCRIBE or Change Your Subscription Options, go to the webpage below http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/zorn-list

.

Joseph Zitt wrote:

On Wed, 2003-11-12 at 16:49, Gavin Castleton wrote:

...

My comment wasn't unfounded. Anticon has been virtually blacklisted for their various attempts to steer hip hop into something more abstract. I'm not saying Anticon is good or bad, I'm saying that their attempts are not welcome by the majority of the hip hop community. Perhaps it is because they're white. There is a strong distaste amongst hip hop creators for the idea of white people abstracting an art form they recently abducted.

"virtually blacklisted"? Among the hip-hop aficionados that I know, Anticon has all the buzz. But it might help that they're local.

Watch their previous collegues flee and disassociate themselves. Slug, Sage, Grand Buffet... and few others with wacky names. Yes, they still sell some albums to white college students. And they're doing well in Europe. But compared to someone like Aesop Rock, I believe they're floundering.

...

I disagree that you could make that "tired accusation" about any genre. Purists are not nearly as prominent (please note, I didn't say "Purists don't exist in any other American music forms") in any other American music form as they are in hip hop.

My experience differs. One thing I hear from almost any genre is a disdain among the people who claim to be deeply into the music for anyone who is getting well-known. Rock people diss Radiohead, jazz people go after Matthew Shipp, electronica people slam Paul Oakenfold, classical people hate, well, just anyone other than Maria Callas, and I just had to endure a fifteen minute tirade from some bhangra purists about Panjabi M.C.

I think you are very right - it is very hard for people to share a musician they think they raised. But that's not a rebuttle to what I was saying. I didn't say anything about garnering national attention and money (though hip hop purists generally frown on those that flaunt it) --- that's still considered an achievement. I was talking about the white producers/mc's who try to alter the basic forms of hip hop MUSIC. Scorn for white hip hoppers making money is another issue.

...

You don't hear people getting angry at Radiohead for pushing rock in a more electronic direction.

Maybe *you* don't.

I hear Bends fans bitch about the lack of guitar in recent material. But I don't hear anyone say anything about them "insulting the foundations of rock and roll."

...

You don't hear anyone crying about what Rachels has done with classical music...

Classical people rarely have ever heard of Rachels.

...

the idea of a pop purist is hilarious.

Oh yeah? Tell that to the person who ranted to me yesterday about how Madonna has messed up the clarity of her music since "Ray of Light".

Who are you hanging out with? Were they saying that Ray of Light was her last "clear" work?

...

For the record, yes, I listen to a lot of hip hop. And I'm white. And having explored much of the US underground hip hop, I find that most producers that consider themselves makers of hip hop are constantly segregated into sister genres like "trip hop," "electronica" and "drum n bass."

And then there's symphonic progressive rock, RIO progressive rock, metal, death metal, thrash metal, and the like. In what sense is it unusual that a genre contains subsets?

I think in most cases the musician WANTS to spearhead a subset or new genre. But in hip hop, I think it is less the desire of the producer and more the segregating effort of the purists. I wouldn't dare say that hip hop is the only music form with subsects. That would be dumb.