Elton John Fans

[Dusty Chalk]

Give me,oh say 5 bands of the last couple of years with either a lead singer that could hold a note ...Name them so i can check them out.

Chris Isaak for one.

[shokhead]

I've heard most those bands and they dont do much for me. I did get 3 doors down and liked it. I'll just keep looking for more good blues instead most the newer stuff i dont like. I feel sorry for you guys going to concerts now adays. Its all about generation,been there,done that.

[tentoze]

Was wondering if J could stay away from this one......

[Troy]

>Bob Dylan?

I thought Time Out Of Mind was perhaps a bit overrated, but Love & Theft was the best Dylan rec I've heard since Blood On The Tracks. You're a Dylan fan? I have to disagree with you on this assessment. The irony is that it has everything to do with yr comments on the nature of r'n'r being a young man's game. It's the artists that adapt to age & don't keep trying to make the same r'n'r record that expose the Rolling Stones for what they are--a nostalgia act that'd fare far better if they made a reggae rec or a blues rec or, hell, an Oi! rec. Instead of the same mediocre original rock music recs they've been turning out for 25 years now. The Dylan rec is nothing of the sort.

heh, Hi J.

No, I'm not gonna argue with you about Dylan. Personally, I can't tell the difference between what supposed to be a good Dylan album from what's suposed to be a bad Dylan album. I don't like any of them.

The Stones won't EVER do anything unexpected for the same reason that a new James Bond or Star Wars movie won't do anything unexpected- because they don't HAVE TO. The marketing department will scream "Don't mess with the franchise, we're ALL getting rich!" The public will still throw $ at them, sight unseen- expecting exactly what they get.

BTW I don't have a big problem with artists selling their tunes for commercial use, whether you or anyone else find the tunes in question to be iconic or not. In some cases it's not even the artist's decision; in others it represents a better payday than they ever saw. Read up on some of Pete Townshend's exploits with BMI over the years. He also pointed out that if someone's view of one of his tunes is so 'iconic,' then it's pretty darned shallow of them to allow a commercial usage of the song to affect their memories of the song so profoundly

Townshend's full of crap. It can't help but dilute the meaning of the song. It cheapens it, makes us think that HE doesn't take his own song/art seriously.

It's his, he can do whatever he wants with it, but I know all about creating artwork for usage that makes you squirm as an artist. Been there, done that. So his shallow comment is only him getting defensive when he should really be looking in the mirror when he says it.

BTW, that "Petra sings the Who" disc. Gah! Yeah, she can sure carry a tune, but jeez, I didn't like Bobby McFerrin either . . .

[Hawkeye]

There is an interesting article in the NY Times today by Jeff Leeds titled, "Fade-Out: New Rock Is Passé on Radio" which among other things, touches on some of the discussion in this thread. Read it if you get a chance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/ar...html?th&emc=th
Certainly don't agree with everything in the article but if radio stations, and by extention rock artists, are indeed suffering from a bit of an identity crisis, they have to look no further than the mega-corporations such as Clear Channels which is are single-handedly responsible for turning off more listeners than it realizes. Perhaps a bit OT, but interesting reading nonetheless.

[Troy]

There is an interesting article in the NY Times today by Jeff Leeds titled, "Fade-Out: New Rock Is Passé on Radio" which among other things, touches on some of the discussion in this thread. Read it if you get a chance.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/ar...html?th&emc=th
Certainly don't agree with everything in the article but if radio stations, and by extention rock artists, are indeed suffering from a bit of an identity crisis, they have to look no further than the mega-corporations such as Clear Channels which is are single-handedly responsible for turning off more listeners than it realizes. Perhaps a bit OT, but interesting reading nonetheless.

Oh, we love it off topic here. Besides, who the hell wants to talk about what Elton John really does with his wee wee?

Hawkeye, you are preaching to the choir about the whole clearchannel screwing the industry up at this board. We're all a bunch of cranky old farts who have seen it all before.

[MindGoneHaywire]

>Townshend's full of crap.

Disagree. I think that he did a record like Sell Out as far back as 1967 says something. Part of which is that music can be considered, in a world of commercial considerations, outside of those considerations.

>It can't help but dilute the meaning of the song.

To who? I don't entirely disagree that it probably does for most people with fond memories of a given song. But he more or less claims that it doesn't dilute the meaning of the song for him, and he's the guy who wrote the damn thing--that is to say, the one individual whose perceptions of the meaning of the song trumps those of anyone else, at least on some level. (And that doesn't mean that because a rock star doesn't like a song he wrote, doesn't mean someone else isn't allowed to like it, so don't put words in my mouth.) People are going to sell products whether or not his songs are attached to advertisements, and people are going to like his songs whether or not they're used for a period of time in an ad campaign--right? Given that he's had to pay performing rights organizations for the privilege of performing his own songs, I'd be willing to give him a lot more slack in this area than I would even if I looked more harshly than I do on rock'n'rollers allowing their songs to be used in commercials. Now, maybe it's a bit over the top for him to strongly claim that it shouldn't influence anyone's perceptions, but not everyone watches much television & a lot of people aren't as exposed to commercials as others.

>It cheapens it, makes us think that HE doesn't take his own song/art seriously.

In what way exactly? You take something less seriously if it has the ability to sell products? At one time his song, his art, was used to sell the record it was released on. Now it's used to sell cars. In both cases it's only capable of being effective in this regard if it appeals to people on some level. That's an added value, to show that the song can be used for more than one thing. I don't know about you, but what cheapens a song for me is hearing it too many times in too short a period of time. Commercials can achieve this, yes, but only if I'm exposed to them. And a guy like PT selling a song might strike me as greedy, perhaps, or it might cheapen him in my eyes, but it's certainly not going to make me feel that he doesn't take his own work seriously.

>It's his, he can do whatever he wants with it, but I know all about creating artwork for usage that makes you squirm as an artist. Been there, done that. So his shallow comment is only him getting defensive when he should really be looking in the mirror when he says it.

Well, I have a feeling you know more about it, probably a lot more, than I do, but I've been there & done that also. And the bottom line is that PT's not a jingle writer, but a guy who wrote songs that have seen a 2nd life functioning as jingles. Not something that we as fans necessarily like to see, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel that he's full of it because he sold some work (leased is more like it) & some boomers feel betrayed. And it would seem he cares as little about those boomers as he apparently did when he wrote the songs that ended up on Who's Next.

[Troy]

This belongs in it's own thread rather than being lost in this stupid EJ thread.

>>Townshend's full of crap.
>Disagree. I think that he did a record like Sell Out as far back as 1967 says something. Part of which is that music can be considered, in a world of commercial considerations, outside of those considerations.

No way. You can't have it both ways. It would be like Neil Young selling "This Note's for You" to Budweiser. You can't thumb your nose at commercialism with a song and then turn around years later and sell that song to use for a commercial.

Hell, who knows. Maybe you CAN in this upsidedown world filled with sleepwalking morons with no ironic sense. BUT I don't think you should.

>>It can't help but dilute the meaning of the song.
>To who? I don't entirely disagree that it probably does for most people with fond memories of a given song. But he more or less claims that it doesn't dilute the meaning of the song for him, and he's the guy who wrote the damn thing--that is to say, the one individual whose perceptions of the meaning of the song trumps those of anyone else, at least on some level.

Nonsense. His view of his songs is the perceptual aberation, not the millions that bought and love them. He wrote the thing, his connection with the song is vastly different than everyone elses. Who cares if it dilutes it's meaning to HIM? He has a vested interest in that dilution.

>People are going to sell products whether or not his songs are attached to advertisements, and people are going to like his songs whether or not they're used for a period of time in an ad campaign--right?

Until you hear "Won't get fooled again" used to sell tampons.

What you are really saying is "officer, everyone else was speeding, why not let me speed too?" Selling the song because if PT doesn't, some other rock star will is a pathetic excuse of an excuse.

>Given that he's had to pay performing rights organizations for the privilege of performing his own songs, I'd be willing to give him a lot more slack in this area than I would even if I looked more harshly than I do on rock'n'rollers allowing their songs to be used in commercials. Now, maybe it's a bit over the top for him to strongly claim that it shouldn't influence anyone's perceptions, but not everyone watches much television & a lot of people aren't as exposed to commercials as others.

Yeah, and the over the top strength of his statement only SHOWS that he must feel guilty about it.

And you are being a pollyanna about TV/pop culture immersion levels of the public at large.

>>It cheapens it, makes us think that HE doesn't take his own song/art seriously.
>In what way exactly? You take something less seriously if it has the ability to sell products?

Not if it has the ability. If it's actually sold for that use it can quickly lose all credibility for any other meaning depending on how popular the add campaign is.

>At one time his song, his art, was used to sell the record it was released on. Now it's used to sell cars.

Vastly different. You telling me that you can't SEE the difference?

>In both cases it's only capable of being effective in this regard if it appeals to people on some level. That's an added value, to show that the song can be used for more than one thing. I don't know about you, but what cheapens a song for me is hearing it too many times in too short a period of time. Commercials can achieve this, yes, but only if I'm exposed to them. And a guy like PT selling a song might strike me as greedy, perhaps, or it might cheapen him in my eyes, but it's certainly not going to make me feel that he doesn't take his own work seriously.

Unconvincing argument. You/he are just scrambling for excuses. Frankly, I hope he loses sleep over it. I would if I were him. Your fighting tooth and nail over such an indefensible position is half admirable, half amusing.

>>It's his, he can do whatever he wants with it, but I know all about creating artwork for usage that makes you squirm as an artist. Been there, done that. So his shallow comment is only him getting defensive when he should really be looking in the mirror when he says it.
>Well, I have a feeling you know more about it, probably a lot more, than I do, but I've been there & done that also. And the bottom line is that PT's not a jingle writer, but a guy who wrote songs that have seen a 2nd life functioning as jingles. Not something that we as fans necessarily like to see, but that doesn't mean I'm going to feel that he's full of it because he sold some work (leased is more like it) & some boomers feel betrayed. And it would seem he cares as little about those boomers as he apparently did when he wrote the songs that ended up on Who's Next.

You're right, PT's a punk. Always has been. Doesn't give a damn about what others think of him at all. Seems to be softening as he gets older, witness his defensive posture on this subject.

Look, the songs are his to do with whatever he wants. If he wants a new generation to think that "Goin Mobile" was written for a cellphone company so he can buy a new Bently GT with the $, I say "Go for it Pete!" But I think he's a total sell out for doing it, the VERY thing he parodied when he was a young man!

[shokhead]

Again,we dont know who even has the rights to these songs,do we?

[MindGoneHaywire]

>You can't have it both ways. It would be like Neil Young selling "This Note's for You" to Budweiser. You can't thumb your nose at commercialism with a song and then turn around years later and sell that song to use for a commercial.

I agree with yr point, except that I see Sell Out as mixing in just a bit of fondness for commercialism--parody, not biting satire, not a hack job. But that's just my perception. I understand that someone else might see it differently. I've not read a ton about this record, but listening to it gives me the impression that PT was expressing a romanticism for the experience of listening to the radio with a 'childhood' sort of vibe that obviously resonates through a lot of his prime Who period & is similar to some of what you hear on SMiLE. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. If you don't know that I'm wrong, then look at it from that point of view for just a moment. If it were a clear-cut case of the scenario you're describing using the Neil Young example then I'd agree...but I've never seen it that way. And keeping in mind that the Who weren't exactly the pinnacle of 60s idealism...I remember people thinking it weird that one of their '60s bands' went on a tour with a corporate sponsor (Schlitz). And I remember Entwhistle loudly proclaiming that he never drank beer (or malt liquor), and that he didn't care what the sponsor thought of his not endorsing their product.

Also, Shokhead brings up a good point: who does own the rights? If Townshend doesn't--which wouldn't surprise me, and for a lot of reasons--then you'd think he wouldn't have argued as much w/the interviewer who complained about having My Generation kinda ruined for him. Except it's PT, and I get the feeling that if he decided he felt a certain way, he'd pursue that line of reasoning even if he wasn't profiting. The comments I know he made about BMI are difficult to read in terms of why he had to pay them & how that relates to whether or not he holds the rights. But there are quite a few things I remember over the years that suggest to me that management & business sense were perhaps not their strongest area.


>His view of his songs is the perceptual aberation, not the millions that bought and love them. He wrote the thing, his connection with the song is vastly different than everyone elses.

Well, that's sort of what I was trying to say, except I didn't want to make it seem that as the creator he had an insight nobody could possibly share. I mean, that's probably valid, at least in this case, but it can be elitist to a fault.


>Who cares if it dilutes it's meaning to HIM? He has a vested interest in that dilution.

I'm not sure I follow you here. If he is in fact diluting the meaning, which I don't necessarily buy, then he's devaluing the song while someone's making money from the licensing, which is not necessarily him.


>Until you hear "Won't get fooled again" used to sell tampons.

Come on, that'd sure beat the crap out of hearing anything being used to sell a car. Good idea. You should be an ad exec.


>What you are really saying is "officer, everyone else was speeding, why not let me speed too?" Selling the song because if PT doesn't, some other rock star will is a pathetic excuse of an excuse.

That's not what I was trying to say--not as a rationalization, anyway. More a point of fact.


>the over the top strength of his statement only SHOWS that he must feel guilty about it.

I don't know about that! The guy's pretty f*cking strange. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if he really didn't care one way or the other & was just playing the contrarian. That said, I do try to take him at his word, difficult as that may be. Clearly it's impossible for you, which is fine for you, but you're also correct in pointing out what a punk he really was. Given that it did take some measure of...something to rebel against holy Woodstock, I try to give him the benefit of the doubt. Certain comments he's made lead me to believe he is truly speaking his mind most if not all of the time, which makes me doubt he was putting anything on with the over the top comment you say reveals guilt. I see defiance, but I can't imagine he feels he has anything to feel guilty about.


>And you are being a pollyanna about TV/pop culture immersion levels of the public at large.

Someone forcing you or anyone else to watch?


>If it's actually sold for that use it can quickly lose all credibility for any other meaning depending on how popular the add campaign is.

Again--to who? There have been plenty of popular ad campaigns with pop songs & some get annoying, but...lost their credibility? I thought music was this great art we all love. I like the emotional argument that using a great song in a commercial can damage its credibility, but I prefer the intellectual argument that says if you really love a song & think of it as great art, that being used in a commercial shouldn't ruin it for you.


>>At one time his song, his art, was used to sell the record it was released on. Now it's used to sell cars.

>Vastly different. You telling me that you can't SEE the difference?

Interesting that you ask a question relating to vision on the topic of something that relates to hearing, don't you think? Sure, there's a difference, and I didn't think I had to slip a qualifier in at this point. But there's also a sameness which I don't see you taking into consideration--or any of the boomers who felt betrayed because My Generation was used in a commercial, for that matter.


>Unconvincing argument. You/he are just scrambling for excuses. Frankly, I hope he loses sleep over it. I would if I were him. Your fighting tooth and nail over such an indefensible position is half admirable, half amusing.

Like I really care all that much...listen to Psychoderelict lately? I just think the boomer whining, while it has a small point, is somewhere between annoying & ridiculous. They were probably also disappointed that he wouldn't let Michael Moore use Won't Get Fooled Again in Fahrenheit 911 (though that suggests that he does own the rights to his stuff, although he might've signed some of the earlier stuff away early on & learned a lesson quickly, who knows, no pun intended). The guy is...eccentric, can we not agree on this? But I see a contrarian consistency in this area that runs through his work & his words. He never was what people wanted him to be & I think most of 'em never really got that since they were conditioned to hearing his music played back-to-back with music made by people who were the people they wanted them to be, at least in public. What happened at Woodstock didn't convince them that he didn't give a damn about their ideals; neither did Who's Next; neither did corporate tour sponsorships; neither did commercial licensing of his songs, and also what wasn't licensed. His work cements him as a cornerstone of 60s counterculture, whether his values were consistent with it or not. And I'm not saying all of this because I necessarily respect him so much for this or that reason. I do, however, find him interesting as hell. And I find his arguments to be--when you consider to the source--more convincing than you apparently do.

[shokhead]

Songs are like the bible. Different people will read and hear it different. I heard groups being interviewed about there music and what some songs meant and it wasnt anything like what we as listeners thought they meant for all those years.