Dance said:

Good take. Especially the "new technology" issue.
It appears to have just added an additional layer of work (separating the wheat from the chaffe) for the listener in search of.

In the past you didn't have to apply for a research grant to locate the gems.
As a highly functioning adult with resposibilities, I (and i'm sure others that are in the same boat) just don't have unlimited time to devote to it.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

Dance said:

As you know, there are always going to be artists who are derivative. Sometimes they can make something enjoyable, but they're out there. And, to paraphrase Jimmy Breslin in Summer of Sam, I love and hate hip-hop equally. It revolutionized the musical and popular culture, but, eventually drained of its context and diversity, it suffocated music in the end, not to mention the community it was supposed to speak for.



I was talking about an "answer" to the QUESTION, not the artists. Essentially, the question was, who are the artists who display the prolific, innovative qualities found in artists of prior generations? Sometimes people can compare and contrast, but I see tA really asking, which artists will be someday considered legends on their own merits?



Absolutely.



Our perspectives are shaped by an increasingly outdated and consolidated model. True.




To most, yes.
[Edited 1/24/08 13:41pm]
[Edited 1/24/08 13:43pm]

"...but I see tA really asking, which artists will be someday considered legends on their own merits?"

How I perceived tA's question, too....

And why I tried to give some answers...IMHO

I understand where tA was coming from as well as others, and I was just saying that when you present that people stumble over that, and immediately go to a side by side even though that's not what tA meant. I still think that's a bit of a dangerous idea and hurts art because we definitely don't want that and I don't even think we necessarily want or need someone to tag "genius" or legend. That stuff as someone said is for down the line. What we want is a spark and authenticity.

Dance said:

I understand.....and it is all conjecture anyway....

Perhaps some of the blame goes not only to the record companies, but to the sheer number of people trying to make it as musicians. I have to assume there are more today than there have ever been.

It's not as easy to wade through all the junk to find the gold.

Combine that with the attitude record companies have about artists being disposable, and it's no wonder good artists are hard to find.

But in some ways music is getting better. You can walk into any random bar and you might find a guitar player who is killing it and going home with $20 in tips.

Back in the 60's there were just a handful of guitar players who could play that way, and now there are literally thousands. They're not groundbreaking like Jimi, but their technique is a lot better than George Harrison's was in 1966.

PFunkjazz said:

So what you're saying is that these artists I mentioned aren't worth that merit. That just proves my point. These are, IMO, pretty good artists that may someday attain the legendary status of the old school cats. Of course they probably can't match them as far as style. But the new school artists are pretty good at what they do. But it's like I said a few threads ago: I've just been noticing folks that are completely biased against today's music. It could be an incredibly talented one like Robert Randolph, but nooooo. You'd rather listen to "Axis: Bold as Love" for the 20,000th fucking time.

NWF said:

The biggest flaw with your examples is they are all derivatives. Maybe the flaw in Neal's supposition is based on artists who were original and innovative and that's the value in their recording legacy. Your faves, in some cases, are talented mimics.

RRFB is good to go see, but given a choice, I'll take AXIS for the 20,001st time.

NDRU said:

It may seem like more people are playing, but there doesn't seem to be many people really playing.

To me studying an instrument and doing an impression/stereotype of someone's playing or doing "complicated" noodling means nothing.

Those people are as much a part of the problem as the mess of people tinkering with synths and sampling. Good stuff has to come from an honest place. I imagine that's almost impossible in this culture.

Dance said:

I'm not talking about doing an impression or a stereotype, I'm talking about really playing.

It doesn't have to be revolutionary. Someone could just play blues and be playing with genuine emotion & musicianship.

...


I'm certainly not turning my nose up at the new artists. I'm constantly discovering new music that I love. But the reason I agree with that tumbleweed picture is that, in addition to those artists being there early enough to set artistic precedents or benchmarks, It's really a much different culture now. The conditions that produced those artists just don't exist anymore. (as tA pointed out, there has been a sea change). Everything has shifted. Most artists just aren't going to be given the time, money or enough of an audience to develop in the way artists from 30 to 70 years ago were. Artists now are lucky to get a one or two album deal, and if they don't provide some instant hits they're out. maybe better to go independent, but most just don't get the exposure or push there.

I always bring up Philip Bailey and Verdine White's points about the way in which Earth Wind and Fire were marketed in the early to mid 70's. The company didn't expect them to be an instant smash--they would have them tour, continue to hone their craft, and gradually build up a large loyal audience, one that they could count on over the years (and multiple albums).

Those artists in the original list are from a time when the Record Industry was still developing itself--nobody had been around long enough to say, "this is the way the record company should work, this is the successful business model", "You can't do this, or that"---it was basically being made up as they went along. I do agree that there was definitely more emphasis on the music itself during most of the 20th century. Whatever they were trying, there was at least the general sense that somewhere in the company there should be some Erteguns and Clive Davises, who knew about music and have an ear for what was out there.

That brings up the very concept of how albums and records were made then--honestly, they were operating with a different language and concept. Singers that knew about tension and release; musicians actually recording in the same room, playing together, sometimes with a full orchestra; Producers from that original period: from Teo Macero to George Martin, to Arif Mardin to Quincy Jones, Charles Stepney and Isaac Hayes, etc.--Record companies were paying for producers that had to at least have a working knowlede of the spectrum of music, From Classical, Jazz, Blues and Country to R&B and Rock, arranging charts; songwriters that actually studied their craft. A big difference from the digital age, when records became cheaper and simpler to produce, and certainly an entirely different idea compared to post Hip-Hop beatmeisters and samplers. And record companies aren't shelling out for anything like that anymore.

And the companies redifined their model. I guess from a business standpoint, they really had to-----they were losing so much money by the late seventies. Does anybody remember Casablanca chief Neil Bogart and his hype machine? They'd announce that an artist had shipped Double Platinum (that was huge back then), but the end result was that a lot of it was just that --shipped units, not actually sold, and huge numbers of unsold albums were being returned to the company. They eventually developed the system they're still clinging to now. Pick somebody, Hype'em up, hope for the quick returns, and dump 'em if they don't produce. Made a lot of money for a while, but now you've got absolutley no back catalog to depend on from these artists. I guess Pop Will Eat Itself....

One thing I have questioned since the mid 80's is record companies' insistance on only going after the Instant Smash. In redifining the business model, they began to concentrate all of their energy on the youth market, which honestly has been developing a shorter and shorter attention span over the years, with more and more multimedia to divert their time. Hell, adults certainly have money to spend, and I always wondered why there's consistently less and less emphasis on that market.


There are certainly artists out here with the talent, I just don't think they could be the equivalent under all the new circumstances. Again, it's really on the individual listener and how much they want to search and dig for the music now. It ain't coming from Radio, MTV and certainly not from The Majors.

In Crosstown Traffic, author Charles Schaar Murray quoted a record executive saying " Honestly, if a young Hendrix walked in here right now with that Imagination and Chops to Burn, I'd have to show him the door, because there's no money in it."

Recently someone posted on both Okayplayer and Rollingstone.com about attending a taping of The TV show, "The Next Great American Band". The poster claimed that after hearing a an extremely kool funk band, the first judge, John Reznik, voted yes, but the second judge, Sheila E(of all people)supposedly said “I love George Clinton, but I’m gonna have to say no, because Soul & Funk is not marketable!"



Yeah, that's sad and pitiful---- but hasn't the Music Industry really come to that sorry state now?


There's so much I'm diggin right now; I love the hell out of Soulive; I'm wish that oft-mentioned D'angelo/ Lewis Taylor collaboration had come to fruition, they were two favorites, but it seems they've both disappeared now(Sly Stone appears in public more often than both of them put together); Meshell Ndegeocello continues to amaze me; It's a shame Van Hunt's Popular didn't get released; I think it would have changed some perceptions about him. I'm sorry that the same happened to Bilal's Love For Sale. The Josh Roseman Unit album, Treats for the Nightwalker gave me that same sense of adventure I used to hear listening to new Miles or Weather Report while growing up; ditto with Charlie Peacock's "Love Press Ex Curio"; I hope somebody somewhere releases at least one album of Q-tip/Kamaal's recent output (shocking how such a well known artist can have that much trouble getting anykind of product out)-----

-----the list goes on. But I don't expect any of these artists to have the same far reaching impact of any of the original artists tA listed. Most just don't have the same chances, outlets, or consistent backing.






...
[Edited 1/25/08 15:23pm]

NDRU said:

It definitely doesn't have to be revolutionary, but you have to admit there's a blues stereotype. There are plenty of people playing "blues," but how much of it is anything more than canned background noise?

I can't mess with that stuff of people that want to keep something going or shine through uninspired tribute music.

Miles & paligap, very thoughtful takes.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

theAudience said:

In order to answer your question, you would have to recreate the conditions upon which those mentioned artists came about and see what other artists from now would rise. Since that's not possible, you have to analyze things in the context of which they are. For instance, a "quality catalog" would mean the artist would most likely have to be independant rather than on a major label. Search MySpace and you will most likely find those people because they are not encumbered by a music business that has set parameters that make it virtually impossible for an artist to attain success and be as creative as they can be.
That being said, let me take a poke at it.
Ray Charles - Raul Midon. Why? Because both overcame a handicap and proceeded to make music that was essentially "feel good" soul searching music. Ray did it on piano, Raul does it on guitar and "mouth trumpet"
Miles Davis - Terrence Blanchard. Terrence has the skills and plays with "consciousness of space" like Miles did. He's less flashy than the Marsalis brothers.
James Brown - Usher. Keep in mind that we are talking about being an artist within the context of what binds the individual to their own time frame. Even though Usher is definitely influenced by James and MJ, like James, at one point everybody was imitating him. If you start listing artists out now that emulate one performer's style, while it would be natural for the 30+ crowd to associate their influence as Mike, in truth it is highly likely that Usher was a bigger influence on them (Omarion, Chris Brown, Jonta, Mario, etc., etc., etc.,) They are all Usher's underlings more so than Mike or James. I'm speaking of James the performer, not the entity of James Brown as a whole. There are no conditions for another James Brown and hasn't been for about 18 years or so.
The Beatles - beats me.
Frank Zappa - Again, the parameters of showing innovation just aren't there in todays mainstream music market. The closest artist I can think of off the top of my head is Jack White. I say that because of his avant-garde approach in his style. John Mayer would be a better comparison as far as stylishness, ability to phrase well within the context of a song, versatility and fluidity but Jack is more "out there". John has done a better job of surrounding himself with great musicians, so I guess it would be a combination of the two. Jack + John = Zappa?
Todd Rungren - not sure.
Aretha Franklin - Rachelle Ferrell - both are magnificent singers and pianists. Both are excellent songwriters. Chrisette Michele has the potential to get in that range but again, you simply can't be as groundbreaking in a genre today as Aretha was. Erkah Badu also needs an honorable mention for bringing the female soul singer back into vogue. I tend to think of Erykah as more of a modern day combination of Chaka and Betty Davis although there are a few commonalities with Aretha as well. To be honest Mary J. Blige also qualifies because the both sing from the heart about their pain and that played a big part in the success of both of them in that they spoke from a place that many women could relate to.
Jimi Hendrix - Eric Gales. In the 90s, he was the next Jimi. His playing style - unique and innovative. He never made it to the height of success that would allow him to impact people the way Jimi did. There really isn't anyone now. Robert Randolph has the stage energy and style of a modern day Jimi although his playing in my opinion is nothing new. His passion, however, is exemplary.
There is no Sly-ish type band today. Lenny Kravitz brings the kind of message that Sly did - everybody just "be", we are all the same inside, etc.
Whew! This was harder than I thought it would be. That says less about the individuals and more about the business and how it is suffocating music today.
Oh, there is no Stevie. (I'll shoot anyone who says John Legend! )
[Edited 1/25/08 15:45pm]

paligap said:

You hit the nail on the head there Paligap. It's great to have an old head (sorry) willing to give the new cats a good listen.

BlaqueKnight said:

I already mentioned Of Montreal. In fact, one critic compared their album, "Satanic Panic In The Attic", to "Sgt. Pepper". It's just that y'all have your ears closed, like I said before.

NWF said:

What you're really saying is that because somebody's taste isn't in line with your own they're being ignorant or close-minded. It's not a point-of-view that opens itself up to any discussion. It's simply, "I'm hearing things right, and you're wrong because I don't think you're trying."

honestly, do we WANT "equivalents" of these classic artists or would it be better to have an evolution where a younger artist picks and takes from the established generation and creates something new (or at least something refreshingly borrowed)?

it's what i love about prince so much. he's not a james brown wanna be, or a jimi wanna be, or a sly wanna be. he's got a little of all three going on, and some little richard, some mick jagger, some joni, and so on and so on. but the way he channeled those artists when he was coming up and working out his own identity, it wasn't formulaic. it was organic. he was processing what he loved about these musicians and turning it into his own thing.

and in that regard, it's kinda silly when i hear people talk about "the new prince"...because really, prince is a very successful amalgamation of those who came before him.

and yeah, the first thing i thought when i saw the list was zappa--->beck, but i think that's a surfacey comparison. i think beck has a much more permeable take on pop culture than zappa did, and i think zappa's abilities as a composer were way beyond just about anyone living today, especially beck. i think they have a similar quality of irreverence and a similar appreciation for the random and the avant garde; i think often frank had some meaning or symbolism BEHIND his randomness if you cared to dig deeper (it was still extremely silly most of the time). plus, i think beck is on a different road than zappa. i don't think he considers himself a "serious composer". i think he's shown more interest in pop melody and his strengths as a vocalist over the past few years. zappa? not as much.

so yeah, there's my tangent for the thread.

it's easy to say "oh, amy winehouse is the new janis joplin", but that's just the surface details. i don't want a new janis joplin. i like the old one.

RipHer2Shreds said:

Give up.

There's a pack of people on this forum that just refuse to accept the fact that many people like what they like and that's all there is to it.

They act like they work for the artist's label or like they're banging them.

RipHer2Shreds said:

No, I'm not being snobbish about what I like. I'm not saying my music is the gospel and everyone must pay heed to it. That's totally out of line.

What I was saying is that bands like The Cardigans and Of Montreal has the same quality as The Beatles, and that's what tA was asking. But I think you're quick to disagree probably because you've never heard these acts. But for all you know, they could fall in line with the other new music that y'all don't like.

But that's not true. These are great pop sounds of the millenium.

Audience, what are you trying to prove here anyways? Are you saying that it's real easy to think that there aren't any artists today that match the caliber of those great artists of the past? Well, the way I see it, that was then and this is now. Sure, those old school legends set the bar, but there's still some great stuff out there that dares to match it. But then again, how can you re-create the magic of the old school cats? You can't. There will probably never be another Jimi or Beatles or whatever. But why try and do something that's already been done.

What I'd like to see is more artists with more cutting-edge styles. You know, artists really pushing music forward. They could be inspired by the sounds of the past. But they can make it their own and add something historically new and innovative to it. Many would say that it's all been done before, but I don't believe that's true. I think there's always room to strive for more new sounds.

Graycap23 said:

I agree with this list (I'm not familiar with Frank McCombs).

I would add to it Terence Blanchard, Harry Connick Jr., Norah Jones, Radiohead and Ani Difranco.

Nobody.... That's not known anyway. At least not yet. To be honest, Prince is the only cat that has come "the closest" to echoing any of the folks that u mentioned. And that's the cold truth.

blackguitaristz said:

On a "popular" level, I should say. He has had the most mainstream success at doing this. At bringing it to the masses. I just thought I would add that since that was the basis of my comment regarding Prince. I know, I know,..it's not "cool" to give P his props in the Non Music forum, but fuck it. I'm hip to all of the other folks mentioned.

I think maybe "finding equivalents" is not the real issue, but simply are there artists whose work will stand the test of time like the others. And I'd say yes, though I don't think there are as many. But in the last 25 years we've gotten decent music from

Prince
Radiohead
Nirvana
2Pac
D'Angelo
White Stripes
Chili Peppers
REM
Beck
Steve Vai
Bjork
U2
Erikya Badu

Okay, I'd definitely take the first list over the second, anyday! but those newer artists have contributed something lasting in their own way, I believe. And as Anx pointed out, they have their own styles. They're not the "new Ray Charles--because they're blind,"

Dance said:

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

PFunkjazz said:

cubic61052 said:

Maybe it's easier to explain using an instument as an example. Let's take Jazz guitar.

In my mind there's a lineage.

Charlie Christian:
Brought the guitar forward (via amplification and playing skill) as a true solo instrument.
His range allowed him to play the traditional Benny Goodman swing material and also hang with the more experimental Minton's bebop crowd.

Wes Montgomery:
His unique octave technique gave the Jazz guitar a larger voice when playing solo melodies.

George Benson:
Along with a bigger and more modern sound, he added a seriously funky R&B voice & rhythm to the Jazz guitar idiom.

Now of course there are a number of other guitarists that could easily be added in between and along side these 3 players but i'm trying to keep this simple.

I think this lineage approach to advancements (or simply changes) in music over time could also be applied to other musical elements (songwriting, vocal techniques, production, etc)


This is at the heart of what i'm trying to ask here.


tA

Tribal Disorder

http://www.soundclick.com...dID=182431

Dance said:

And sometimes the kid who's "killing it" has the trusty digicam and still nobody notices...