F bombs & graffic language

[Mr Peabody]

At risk of alienation I wanted to see how you all felt about hard rock, rap & alternative bands peppering their lyrics with F bombs & graffic language. It seems that maybe artists feel they won't sell or aren't "legit" if they don't do this. On the other hand there are many artists in these genres that seem to sell great with none of the gratuitous language.

For me, to borrow a phrase from B B King, the thrill is gone. If you could call it a thrill. I remember in high school when Ted Nugent (I think I am dating myself) released Double Live Gonzo the buzz was all about him saying, " anyone came to be mellow can turn around and get the F out of here" and making mention of Nashville's cat population. Then in the 80's we had the big sensorship battle. I am not in favor of sensorship, if they put language on the recording I don't like, I don't have to buy it. The same as if it sucked for other reason I wouldn't buy it. I can't think of the Tool album, but it's the one with Stink Fist, this album has a very angry feel to it and wouldn't have the same impact without some of the language. I mean if they said "insert that digit in your annul orphus" it wouldn't have the same effect as what they actually say. On other recordings if you remove the language you don't miss it. It seems like it is there just because you can. Of course, maybe that's why anyone uses prophanity. I just think in music is a "been there, done that" thing and now it's more annoying than anything else for me.

Children will here this stuff soon enough without me playing it for them. I admit that if given the choice I buy edited versions.

I just wanted to see if I was turning into some kind of ultra conservative or if maybe anyone else agreed with me.

[Dusty Chalk]

I stand by two adages, "I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your ability to say it", and "they're just words".

Specifically, the former would be targetted at all the rappers and metalers who gratuitously spew those four letter words. I agree it's over done, I don't like it. But I will be damned if I will let any organization -- much less one even remotely related to the government -- decide which words I can hear, and which ones I can't. Only I can judge as to what offends me (and believe me, they do offend me). Personally, when that Pink Floyd lyric on The Wall tells how many channels and of what on the Teevee there is to choose from, no non-four-letter word can express the bile that is appropriate for the feeling. Alright, maybe "drivel" would work, but ...alright, bad example...anyway, Roger Waters chose to use that word, and I think that word works in that context. And if I don't like it, I don't have to buy it (but I did, like umpteen times, too -- but there are plenty of other words that I didn't).

The second adage is my own. When people get overtly offended over such words, they're giving power to words that they really don't want to give power to. They're allowing those words to offend them, when really, they would like to wipe it off their shoe, rinse it down the gutter, or whatever. So don't let 'em see you get offended, and they lose their power.

[Worf101]

words matter. Speech matters. The power to move with the spoken or written word is a keen double edged sword. With the spoken word you can have both Hitler and Ghandi. Such is its power. I feel like you Dusty, live and let live, and free speech whenever possible. But I don't give a blank check to hate speech that openly and actively advocated violence against any individual or group. Shouting "KILL (fill in the blank)" is not freedom of expression but incitement to riot and murder, that I do not condone.

Da Worfster

[Troy]

Swearing works in certain musical contexts, yeah. I'm not offended by it at all because in person I tend to curse like a sailor.

But when you are consciously writing lyrics, sitting there creating wordcraft, I can't imagine writing a bunch of 4 letter words into a song. It's too cheap, too easy and in the final anaylisis, just boring. It makes the writer look uneducated and illiterate.

Only children are really impressed by swearing. Adults have heard it all before. Adding a bunch of cursing to your music will make it appeal to 13 year olds, not adults.

[Gresh]

Swearing works in certain musical contexts, yeah. I'm not offended by it at all because in person I tend to curse like a sailor.

But when you are consciously writing lyrics, sitting there creating wordcraft, I can't imagine writing a bunch of 4 letter words into a song. It's too cheap, too easy and in the final anaylisis, just boring. It makes the writer look uneducated and illiterate.

Only children are really impressed by swearing. Adults have heard it all before. Adding a bunch of cursing to your music will make it appeal to 13 year olds, not adults.

Troy,

Agree with most of your points... Many of the artists that rely heavily on profanity are indeed uneducated and probably borderline illiterate... That's not to say unintelligent, because as I think we all know - it is 13 year olds who get a titter (hehe I said titter) out of profanity and buy these artist's products - the record companies know this.

On the other hand, sometimes a choice insertion of a four letter word is chillingly effective. Case in point for is Elliot Smith - just his whispered hush of "focked up" really conveys his sense of frustation and futility of a given situation.

I think no matter the genre, whether it's rap, rock, metal... profanity for shock value is cheap but in the proper contex can be an effective way of conveying thoughts...

On the same topic different spin... Does a comedian who uses profanity (Rock, Carlin) taking an easier way out than those who work clean( Cosby, Seinfeld)?

In the end, it's all sticks and stones...

[skeptic]

It fits the music perfectly.

If words could kill, I'd have been hung long ago. And as for skewering people when I feel like it, I have no reservations, no conscience and no remorse. But to anyone who thinks about it, these over used words are ineffective and rather than convey an insult to the person or object they are directed at, they speak much louder and clearer about the person who says them especially when used again and again. Like saying "have a nice day" they lose all impact. So what does that say about the singer (if you can call what these people do singing)? It says that he, like his music, is vacuous, vapid, insipid and a tiresome bore. (look up the first three if you have a dictionary and remember how to use it.) Then look at the mentality of the people who buy that music and go to those concerts and you will see why it has some commercial success. And to think that they not only let these people drive, they let them vote too. FiretrUCK that.

[kexodusc]

Music's more about image and marketing than ever before, so the profanity is to be expected, I guess. It doesn't bother me, though I find it boring and rarely adding anything to the performance these days. It was so much more intense when I was a kid.

I have to agree with Worf. Words mean something. I believe in free speech. I also believe in accountability. Everyone owes a duty of care to everyone else, that inludes the choice of words used, and their meaning. If the intention is art, I have no problem with profanity...if the intention is hate, I don't want to hear it.

[Troy]

Many of the artists that rely heavily on profanity are indeed uneducated and probably borderline illiterate... That's not to say unintelligent, because as I think we all know - it is 13 year olds who get a titter (hehe I said titter) out of profanity and buy these artist's products - the record companies know this.

Yes, they are shrewdly pandering to their target audience. So in that regard, they ARE intelligent. But the context I was talking about, these artists are gonna say f*** instead of another more concise word because thay CAN'T come up with that more concise word. The kiddies think its cool and badass because their parents and geezers like me roll their eyes and the pathetic cycle of illiteracy continues. In America today, stupidity is considered cool and inteligence is considered highbrow and dorky. A conspiracy to control the masses? Depends who you ask . . .

On the other hand, sometimes a choice insertion of a four letter word is chillingly effective. Case in point for is Elliot Smith - just his whispered hush of "focked up" really conveys his sense of frustation and futility of a given situation.

I think no matter the genre, whether it's rap, rock, metal... profanity for shock value is cheap but in the proper contex can be an effective way of conveying thoughts...

Absolutely. Re-read my first 2 sentences.

On the same topic different spin... Does a comedian who uses profanity (Rock, Carlin) taking an easier way out than those who work clean( Cosby, Seinfeld)?

Yes, I think so.

BUT

Carlin's genius is that he made comedy out of the fact that the words were obscene. He turned it around on itself. He will always be one of my favorites BECAUSE of this. Guys like Rock that spew constant 4 letter words conversationally, as part of their story telling style fall into the catagory of propagating people's inability to articulate. "If Chris Rock says f*** every other word, it's good enough for me". Thing is, Rock IS a really intelligent guy. And articulate too. He's just pandering to the lowest common denominator, going for the cheap laugh and for that, he gets very little respect from me.

[skeptic]

Yes image. I get a very clear image of the kind of people who like this kind of music. I get an image of thousands of screaming, yelling young fans filling Madison Square Garden, their brains numb on cocaine, heroine, marijuana, alchohol or speed, almost completely deaf so they barely can hear the blasting shrieking noise coming from a 50,000 watt sound system, thinking that if they can't remember it, they will have had a good time. Now what kind of tweeters did you say they prefer in their high end speakers? Bet there's no SET fans there.

[Resident Loser]

...any shock value...it becomes commonplace, unwelcome but commonplace...my objection to it all(and lord knows my language can be atrocious) is that it IS so commonplace...it has no meaning other than to offend...

I would rather see some sort of control than not...I don't want to be a captive audience...look at that stupid ball game with Toyota, or whatever her name is...I personally think sports and all the trappings about it are lame, but there are those who see it as a "family" sort of thing. Should they have been subjected to that banal stupidity?

Whether it's music, or film or whatever...it's all pee-pee, doo-doo, caa-caa...unfortunately, what sells, caters to the lowest common denominator...most of the audience are just slimey, low-class rat bags and the "artistes" are more than willing to provide a heapin' helpin' of verbal and visual excrement.

On a lesser scale, my wife and I find ourselves assaulted on a regular basis by tee-vee and radio ads...being forced to listen to crass and offensive(to OUR sensibilities) ads that exhibit behavior and music catering to that LCD mentality. Thank God for remotes, pity it can't be on auto-pilot.

jimHJJ(...and please, to those to whom the following statement might apply: kindly spare me the "free-speech" cr@p...)

[-Jar-]

Personally, when that Pink Floyd lyric on The Wall tells how many channels and of what on the Teevee there is to choose from, no non-four-letter word can express the bile that is appropriate for the feeling. Alright, maybe "drivel" would work, but ...alright, bad example...anyway, Roger Waters chose to use that word, and I think that word works in that context. And if I don't like it, I don't have to buy it (but I did, like umpteen times, too -- but there are plenty of other words that I didn't).

Yes.. that is definately one of the greatest "****s" ever uttered on record.

and while we're discussing that song, I've always wondered if the Gomer Pyle "Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!" was intentional or a brilliant accident. I seem to lean towards the former, but either way, it's brilliant...even though it took me a few years to come to that conclusion...

oh yea, and every explative in "Hooker with a Penis" is totally required. What rage that song expresses.. sometimes you just gotta let them loose..

-jar

[MindGoneHaywire]

[QUOTE=skeptic]It fits the music perfectly. QUOTE]

You're the guy who said "John Coltrane sucks," and tried to tell me that no brass or woodwind instrument can possibly measure up to a violin, so listening to a lecture from you on popular music is just as much of a waste of time as getting a veal recipe from a vegan.

Yes, profanity can be gratuitous in pop music, and it's been that way for quite some time. Gangsta rap probably has as much to do with this as anything else, though the Mentors came before gangsta rap. Though I found the Mentors funny, and the first N.W.A. album, too. Some of you got a blues comp from me a few years back which included an extremely profane Lucille Bogan track from 1935. It was an exception, not the norm, of course--on vinyl. There may have been a lot more of that sort of thing going on in after-hours bars and whorehouses, who knows. Obviously, the times have changed. But Peter's point, which was an echo of what Lenny Bruce once said, hasn't. I don't really care how much profanity is involved in a record, because if the music's good & it makes sense, then it doesn't seem gratuitous. I have heard plenty of records where the profanity was gratuitous, and I didn't like the music enough to overcome this--but I look at this as a music issue more than a profanity issue. I don't know if I can name a lot of records where I like the music a lot but the profanity seems gratuitous & that ruins the record for me. When it seems unnecessary, I'm not really interested. Sometimes it makes sense. My view on this parallels fairly closely my feelings about movies. I'll sit through a great movie even if I think the language is a bit over-the-top as far as cursing. If the movie's only good then I might wonder why they didn't just tone it down a bit. But if I don't like it at all, the profanity doesn't really mean all that much. I've seen loads of crappy movies that weren't particularly objectionable, language-wise.

The problem is how much of this is marketed towards, and heard by, children, who often have no context. It's a problem. Some say words can't hurt kids, but I think it's difficult to deny that anti-social & violent & even misogynistic imagery--and I'm not just talking about gangsta rap--have an effect on some kids. The rights of the artist rightly come first, but the effect on civility is something that I think can be denied. I really don't think that any record is going to cause anybody to go out and commit crimes--and if it is, it would've been a movie you could blame it on, or a television show, or a poor role model. But it'd be nice if children heard a little less of this stuff, or at least had someone to explain what some it means. Although it's not really tongue-in-cheek anymore, for the most part...not to mention that if there were someone around to properly explain what it meant, that person would likely be a parent figure who shouldn't let a child hear something like that in the first place. So here it's a thorny issue. But I think too much of it is made at times, and overall it's more a question of music imitating life, not the other way around.

[skeptic]

"You're the guy who said "John Coltrane sucks," and tried to tell me that no brass or woodwind instrument can possibly measure up to a violin, so listening to a lecture from you on popular music is just as much of a waste of time as getting a veal recipe from a vegan."

I guess you don't like my point of view or my opinion of "pop culture." Fine, I don't much care for yours either. Frankly you sound confused. On the one hand, you dismiss my disdain for it and then on the other you seem to have disdain for it yourself. Make up your mind.

That I think gratuitous profanity which as I said is just a tiresome waste of breath because it actually doesn't say anything except that the person who said it is likely a moron is an integral part of this mindless trash because "It fits the music perfectly" is a statement I'll stick with. Come to think of it, the moniker you chose for yourself "MindGoneHaywire" seems to fit as well. And your signoff "I don't like others" also seems to express your views towards life and humanity. Well, I'll give you this much, you don't try to hide anything. It's all out there for everyone to see and judge for themselves.

[Dave_G]

I agree with almost all comments.

A smattering of f-bombs, used properly in songs, can be very effective!

Like in a few XTC songs.

But in general the rappers and modern day "rockers" use it because the people who buy that stuff expect it and think it's cool to be tough and filthy. My 11 year old is obssessed with anything that has a "parental advisory" sticker on it.

I have about 1300 cd's and I bet only maybe 10 of them have any f-bombs or other cusswords.

And in comedy too yes cussing is funny if used properly and not what the person is leaning on. I saw Eddie Murphy once in concert and all he did was cuss and people were throwing stuff at him and booing and leaving in droves. It was NOT funny.

Dave

[MindGoneHaywire]

Skeptic:

I guess you don't like my point of view or my opinion of "pop culture."

It's not really a question of like or dislike. Perhaps if you provided us with a few examples I might look at what you have to say as having an iota of credibility. If I hadn't already had the singularly unpleasant experience of reading yr opinion on Coltrane and non-string instruments then perhaps I'd be a bit surprised at yr words considering you didn't mention even one title or artist. However, the effect is akin to Donald Duck telling us all about how he doesn't much care for opera. In other words, difficult to take seriously.

Frankly you sound confused. On the one hand, you dismiss my disdain for it and then on the other you seem to have disdain for it yourself. Make up your mind.

My mind's made up. My dismissal of yr disdain is based on yr crappy attitude. If you have any interest in yr opinion being taken seriously, then a slightly more informed analysis is in order. Tell us, how many rap records have you heard in their entirety? How many stickered CDs do you own? If the answer is anything but 'none' and 'none,' then please, enlighten us, and tell us why you feel the way you do. If those are the answers, then yr perspective on the issue is lacking, and all the more so based on yr previous comments in this and other forums.

That I think gratuitous profanity which as I said is just a tiresome waste of breath because it actually doesn't say anything except that the person who said it is likely a moron

Is this yr opinion of Lenny Bruce? How about Dick Cheney?

an integral part of this mindless trash because "It fits the music perfectly" is a statement I'll stick with.

Okay! Based on what? Surely there's a title or an artist you can point to considering how strongly you feel. Perhaps then we'll have an inkling that you understand that this isn't the black-and-white, yes-or-no issue you paint it as.

Come to think of it, the moniker you chose for yourself "MindGoneHaywire" seems to fit as well.

Glad you think so. It was a Steve Martin joke. I suppose you have a sparkling opinion of him as a comedian, as well.

And your signoff "I don't like others" also seems to express your views towards life and humanity. Well, I'll give you this much, you don't try to hide anything. It's all out there for everyone to see and judge for themselves.

Isn't it amazing, the judgments we can make about people based on signature tags and monikers? There are a few things about me I think you'd be surprised to learn.


Kexodusc:

If the intention is art, I have no problem with profanity...if the intention is hate, I don't want to hear it.

Hate inspires some art that I certainly think is worth something. Gil Scott-Heron, for example, and Public Enemy are the first two I would name when it comes to politically-inspired popular music. The problem with hate as an artistic expression isn't that it exists, in my opinion, it's just that it's been horribly overdone. That doesn't make it all worthless, however. As hateful as some messages expressed through music can be, there are always going to be a few that will catch my ear for some reason. It's a shame there's as much as there is, but it's easy enough to ignore much, if not all, of it.

Resident Loser:

...it has no meaning other than to offend...

That's a generalization that's not always true. Profanity and other colorful langage can be used in ways other than to offend, even when used gratuitously. A lot of the subject matter involved wouldn't sound right without profanity, and for the most part I think popular music is a form where rhyming is involved. If you want to make a case that there's a lot of laziness involved in gratuitous profanity, I certainly wouldn't argue against it. But I don't agree that this is the only reason for its use.

I would rather see some sort of control than not

Such as? Tell me about a control that's not going to prevent John Lennon from writing, recording, & releasing 'Working Class Hero' exactly as he intended it, or one that doesn't impinge on Fela Kuti's decision to name an album "Expensive Sh*t." You step on those, I've got a big problem with it. If you don't, then you tell me how you're going to distinguish between what you're going to control & what you're not going to control. And let me know if it includes the extremely profane 1935 blues record I mentioned in my post, while you're at it.

look at that stupid ball game with Toyota, or whatever her name is...I personally think sports and all the trappings about it are lame, but there are those who see it as a "family" sort of thing. Should they have been subjected to that banal stupidity?

No, but what's lost in all of that is that the woman's breast was exposed for a about half a second, and she had a piece of jewelry covering her nipple. My young nephews were watching that game, and they're not of an age where their parents should've had to have to explain that to them, in my estimation. The thing is, they would not have had to unless everyone made a big deal about it. Is a woman's breast that much of a problem? I don't like the idea that children would be exposed to something like that outside of the control of their parents, but for Pete's sake, it isn't that big a deal. Is it?

Whether it's music, or film or whatever...it's all pee-pee, doo-doo, caa-caa...

It is? I don't think so. That's a ridiculously broad overgeneralization, and it's simply not accurate.

On a lesser scale, my wife and I find ourselves assaulted on a regular basis by tee-vee and radio ads...being forced to listen to crass and offensive(to OUR sensibilities) ads that exhibit behavior and music catering to that LCD mentality

If you're willing to give what you see on television and radio the power to impact on your life that much, then you're going to be very upset, and for a very long time. Reports relating to the deterioration of morality in our society have been going on for a very long time. I wouldn't disagree that it's reached a level in our popular culture that's significantly higher than ever before, but I don't agree that it causes the problems that it's blamed for, and I think that the Puritanical fervor that often accompanies such diatribes is backwards & foolish.

As for free speech, you'll lose that argument every time. The interpretation of the First Amendment that we have does make such things legal, so don't tell me to spare you the 'free-speech crap.' It's the law of the land, so I would suggest you either find a way to live with it, or drum up enough support across the country for legislators that would regulate what the populace can say. A few potty-mouths is just that, nothing more. But it sure causes a lot of fuss, doesn't it? That's a lot of time wasted that could've been put to far more productive use, in my opinion.

[skeptic]

I would bet that in all of the postings on AR EVER, you would be hard pressed to find a more extensive analysis or critique than my review of John Coltrane's recording "A Love Supreme." I have gone to the trouble to sit at a keyboard listening to this disc note by note, phrase by phrase to take this composition and performance apart in the same way I would analyze a Beethoven Symphony. Why did I do this? Because in addition to DMK, several other people told me that if they could have just one recording in this world, this would be the one. I was determined to find out whether I could agree even if just to a limited degree that I found it an interesting composition or a compelling performace. I went in with an open mind, even a positive attitude and recognized that I sometimes have to allow time to intervine to warm to music I may not like or understand at first. I regret to say that after well over a dozen hearings, spanning several months, listening on several different sound systems including through headphones, I was not able to find anything admirable or likable about either the music, the performance, or the recording. That was the better part of a year ago. Recently, I listened to it again and I'm sorry to say my reaction to it hasn't changed. I think this angers you because it is diametrically opposed to your opinion of it. There are a lot of people in this world who are intollerant tyrants revealing themselves as soon as someone comes along who disagrees with their opinion of something they value. Perhaps this is you.

"Is this yr opinion of Lenny Bruce? How about Dick Cheney?"

I wouldn't give you two cents for either of them. And NO I am NOT a Democrat.

[MindGoneHaywire]

What this has to do with the posted topic I really don't know. 'A Love Supreme' isn't exactly typical of popular culture, not now, not 40 years ago, and I wasn't one of the people who said it was the only recording I'd take with me to a desert island, either. As for DMK, you could learn a thing or two from him, because he's a person who doesn't automatcially slam genres of music he knows little or nothing about.

I think this angers you because it is diametrically opposed to your opinion of it.

You grossly overestimate yr own importance. If you don't like Coltrane, that's fine; why should I care? Like whatever you like, dislike whatever you dislike. But don't tell me that a violin is the best instrument merely because you think it is. You have no idea what you're talking about. Which was obvious in yr wrongful and incorrect accusation of me as someone who is a drug abuser.

I'm waiting for you to give me a reason why yr opinion on pop culture matters, with an example or two if possible (I suspect not). You had some very pointed things to say about popular music, the people who perform it, and the people who attend performances of it, and since by yr own admission you conjured up this image, I'm curious to know what exactly you're basing it on.

[skeptic]

Pop music and pop culture cover a vast variety of styles and eras. Also a vast range of skills of performers as musicians. The best of them are "pleasant" in the same sense as a dish of ice cream, a cold soda on a hot day, or a hot dog at a ballgame. But just as they can never rise to being gourmet food, the best pop music can never rise to bridge the gap which would put it in a league with the fruits of a lifetime of labor by what are a relative handful of the world's greatest musical geniuses of composition and the incredible artists who have the talent and devotion to perform their work. On the other hand, most pop culture, being by definition commercial in the crassest sense looks for the lowest common denominator of the population to target it product to. In the 20s, 30s, and 40s, it was often young adults who didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to classical music or who wanted something lighter occasionally, In the 50s with the appearances of rock and roll, it was targeted at teenagers. As the 60s wore on, it was targeted at people in a drugged state of hallucination from the effects of marijuana and LSD. In the 70s and 80s the heavy metal music was targeted at the infintile mind which values shrieking and breaking whatever is in sight. Compare the behavior of rock performers of that era to infants in a crib and the similarity is obvious. And now we have gangster rap, a genre which not only extols crime and violence but is targeted at criminals and would be criminals themselves. Is that what people pay thousands of dollars for a sound system to listen to? What a joke.

I have deliberately left jazz out of this discussion so far because it is an entirely separate genre from classical and pop. It can be quite serious to be sure and it can be technically very demanding of musicians but IMO it can never rise to the same level as classical music. This does not mean that classical musicians can automatically perform jazz well or even at all. There are many who tried and were awful. I never said A Love Supreme was pop culture. IMO, it isn't. It's Jazz. And I didn't say Coltrane was not a fine saxophonist. I just don't think he attains even the heights other saxophonists do. Can a saxophone rise to the same level of expression and can a saxophonist attain the same height of virtuosity as a great violinist? IMO, not a chance. They are worlds and worlds apart.

As for attitude, I find yours as dislikable as you find mine. You would reduce all art to the same level and the same value. You would equate the outstanding and the extraordinary with the banal. You would compare what intrigues the most complex minds and entertains them for hours at a time with the babbling blather of the village idiots. And you would dismiss others who wouldn't as elitists you don't like. I for one am pleased to be in that category. My mind has NOT gone haywire. It is quite disciplined, trained, and under control.

[BradH]

Skeptic, you wrote:

"The best of them are "pleasant" in the same sense as a dish of ice cream, a cold soda on a hot day, or a hot dog at a ballgame. But just as they can never rise to being gourmet food..."

Food analogies are worthless when talking about music. I hear this "gourmet vs. hot dog" dichotomy all the time from music lovers who take an elitist view of a genre they dislike. Frankly, IMO, music and its effects on the listener are extraordinarily more complex than the enjoyment of food.

"On the other hand, most pop culture, being by definition commercial in the crassest sense looks for the lowest common denominator of the population to target it product to. In the 20s, 30s, and 40s, it was often young adults who didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to classical music or who wanted something lighter occasionally, In the 50s with the appearances of rock and roll, it was targeted at teenagers. As the 60s wore on, it was targeted at people in a drugged state of hallucination from the effects of marijuana and LSD. In the 70s and 80s the heavy metal music was targeted at the infintile mind which values shrieking and breaking whatever is in sight."

You essentially just compared the youth of the 20's, 30's & 40's to the headbangers of the 80's because they were all the "lowest common denominator" of their time, being served by a pop culture that is "by definition commercial in the crassest sense". Now, I take your caveat that the youth of the 20's thru 40's didn't have easy access to classical music (nor did any other age group, for that mattter) but, I believe, the real culprit for isolating classical music from popular culture lies in the classical music world itself as it became more elitist and openly snobbish. It's supported and funded, in large measure, by an audience that adores the trappings more than the content. Of course, you may understand the content but your attitude has all the old trappings. You can rail against popular culture until your dying day but, like the youth of the 20's, 30's & 40's, nobody will listen if the invitation includes being browbeaten.

"You would reduce all art to the same level and the same value. You would equate the outstanding and the extraordinary with the banal."

I know that comment was directed at Jay but I'll respond because I think it points to something that is crucial in this discussion. I think it's a mistake to compare the value of one genre of music over another. Every genre of art comes with it's rewritten rules, every generation desires to express its own new esthetic values. It even happens within the genres themselves. Look at the divided response to Stravinsky and the new era he heralded. See my point? So, I take the view of Lous Armstrong who dismissed the genre wars by saying there were only two types of music, good and bad. That wasn't just a witty quip, it was a profound truth.

"You would compare what intrigues the most complex minds and entertains them for hours at a time with the babbling blather of the village idiots."

Funny how people who claim to have complex minds can't understand that, simply put, Ravel can't go where A Tribe Called Quest did. Bo Diddley can't go where Gershwin did. And they were brilliant, one and all. It's just the nature of the beast. Music and its historical paths is so huge that the different genres are really not even the same art form. So why compare?

[MindGoneHaywire]

Part of yr problem is that you fail to grasp that it's precisely yr attitude that drives people away from appreciating classical music. In the 1930s and 1940s it was this attitude that led my father to realize that his music instructors were intolerant zealots. They disapproved of jazz, insisting to him that the work of Art Tatum wasn't even music. It's largely as a result of this attitude that he spent the past 60+ years playing jazz and Fake Book standards instead of yr beloved classical music. My experience was quite similar. I suppose you'd be surprised to know that a lot of classical training is wasted due to attitudes like yrs.

Another part of yr problem is the silly & uninformed things that you say. Such as:

in a league with the fruits of a lifetime of labor by what are a relative handful of the world's greatest musical geniuses of composition and the incredible artists who have the talent and devotion to perform their work

Yawn. There'd be a lot less of what you refer to as 'devotion' necessary if there were less of these attitudes. Musicians are just as affected by a reason not to perform a particular style or piece as they are by a reason to perform a particular style or piece. They are human beings who are entitled to choose for themselves what they may like or not like, not machines who must be trained to understand only that which people like you would foist upon them, to the exclusion of all else. It should be obvious that a person might well have more interest in performing classical music if their mentor is capable of holding back their disappointment that they actually might enjoy listening to or playing other styles of music also.

In the 20s, 30s, and 40s, it was often young adults who didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to classical music or who wanted something lighter occasionally

I see. And what about the young adults who had plenty of exposure to classical music, and chose to instead prefer Louis Armstrong, Cole Porter, and Bing Crosby? Give me a break.

In the 50s with the appearances of rock and roll, it was targeted at teenagers

Uh-huh. Like Vic Damone and Rodgers & Hammerstein, I suppose? Or are you going to tell me they weren't part of popular culture, either?

As the 60s wore on, it was targeted at people in a drugged state of hallucination from the effects of marijuana and LSD.

You mean like Motown & bubblegum music? Or the rock music that was inspired by classical music? You need to be just a bit more overly broad with yr generalizations, please.

In the 70s and 80s the heavy metal music was targeted at the infintile mind which values shrieking and breaking whatever is in sight. Compare the behavior of rock performers of that era to infants in a crib and the similarity is obvious.

Maybe yr mind in its infancy valued shrieking and breaking things, but mine didn't. And I must say, the behavior of rock performers from that or any era has nothing on the behavior of a good number of people with whom I was in the orchestra with in high school on field and performance trips. That would be performers of classical music, and generally not all that much younger than the rock performers to which you are referring.

And now we have gangster rap, a genre which not only extols crime and violence but is targeted at criminals and would be criminals themselves.

Well, of course! They have to commit crimes in order to afford the CDs, right? It is sort of curious that they would target the sorts of individuals least likely to pay for the CDs, but I guess we can never have enough criminals. Oh, just one thing: the crime rate's been dropping for a decade now.

I didn't say Coltrane was not a fine saxophonist. I just don't think he attains even the heights other saxophonists do.

No, that's not true. You said: "History or no history, I think Coltrane sucks." Those were yr exact words.

Can a saxophone rise to the same level of expression and can a saxophonist attain the same height of virtuosity as a great violinist? IMO, not a chance. They are worlds and worlds apart.

The fact that you do not believe a saxophone cannot rise to the same level of expression as a violin speaks volumes, especially considering that jazz saxophonists are often composing and playing simultaneously. So does the fact that you would look to make a direct comparison when it comes to virtuosity using one instrument that can emit only one note at a time and another instrument that is capable of emitting more than one. Not to mention that the physical demands involved in playing each instrument are completely different. But that's okay--a jazz saxophonist could never be the virtuoso a violinist could be!

It's not that far off from saying that a bicyclist will never travel as fast as a race car driver, while ignoring that the bicyclist may indeed possess more skill when it comes to guiding his vehicle, may understand more about when and when not to accelerate, and may have a stronger grasp on how to combat wind resistance. All of these are analagous in one way or another to making music, but people like you never seem to think about things like that. This is because you don't understand music beyond yr very small view of what music actually is (guess what: there's more to it than you realize), and this is why you choose to spout off about subjects that you know little or nothing about. Like the question posed by the first post in this thread.

The fact is, making music involves more than one type of technique at which one can be a virtuoso, but you choose to focus on only one (which of course makes sense considering that violinists performing classical music typically read off a chart, while a jazz saxophonist typically doesn't). Unless one is criminally stupid enough to limit their evaluation of a performer's skills on that one alone, there can be no truth to yr contention.

As for attitude, I find yours as dislikable as you find mine.

Not possible. You should disabuse yrself of the notion that you are one who appreciates music; you are its enemy.

You would reduce all art to the same level and the same value. You would equate the outstanding and the extraordinary with the banal. You would compare what intrigues the most complex minds and entertains them for hours at a time with the babbling blather of the village idiots. And you would dismiss others who wouldn't as elitists you don't like.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. Are you kidding? Go back & reread yr paragraph about pop culture. Aside from being mind-numbingly incorrect, it does what you have the gall to accuse me of. You're still the guy who put out all this bloated whining about the level of education our society must have sunk to if there was even one person on the planet who would choose a recording as worthless as "A Love Supreme" as the one they would be most likely to bring to a desert island. Remember that?

Surely not, since you seem to have also conveniently forgotten that I suggested that you produce even one example to support yr ridiculous contentions if you had any desire to be taken seriously. You have not produced even one. I suppose that's the sign of a mind that's disciplined and under control, huh? And, uh, trained. Trained to do what? Avoid answering a direct question when you've pontificated on a topic you know little about?

[mad rhetorik]

Pop music and pop culture cover a vast variety of styles and eras. Also a vast range of skills of performers as musicians. The best of them are "pleasant" in the same sense as a dish of ice cream, a cold soda on a hot day, or a hot dog at a ballgame. But just as they can never rise to being gourmet food, the best pop music can never rise to bridge the gap which would put it in a league with the fruits of a lifetime of labor by what are a relative handful of the world's greatest musical geniuses of composition and the incredible artists who have the talent and devotion to perform their work. On the other hand, most pop culture, being by definition commercial in the crassest sense looks for the lowest common denominator of the population to target it product to. In the 20s, 30s, and 40s, it was often young adults who didn't have the opportunity to be exposed to classical music or who wanted something lighter occasionally, In the 50s with the appearances of rock and roll, it was targeted at teenagers. As the 60s wore on, it was targeted at people in a drugged state of hallucination from the effects of marijuana and LSD. In the 70s and 80s the heavy metal music was targeted at the infintile mind which values shrieking and breaking whatever is in sight. Compare the behavior of rock performers of that era to infants in a crib and the similarity is obvious. And now we have gangster rap, a genre which not only extols crime and violence but is targeted at criminals and would be criminals themselves. Is that what people pay thousands of dollars for a sound system to listen to? What a joke.

I have deliberately left jazz out of this discussion so far because it is an entirely separate genre from classical and pop. It can be quite serious to be sure and it can be technically very demanding of musicians but IMO it can never rise to the same level as classical music.

The above tell me all I need to know about your musical biases. You're a total classical elitist. Just because it is in the "pop" format doesn't mean it is by default crass or stupid. Stop listening to what is played on MTV or CloudyChannel, and you can find a great deal of worthy music full of complexity, emotion, nuance, etc. It just requires an OPEN MIND, of which you are apparently lacking at this point in time. How about progressive rock? I have a feeling you might dig King Crimson, or (gah) Yes, or (double gah) Emerson Lake & Palmer. And what you dub "music targeted at an infantile mind" (metal) has evolved quite a bit in the past few years. If you like complex, challenging music, why not try bands like Meshuggah or Dillinger Escape Plan, who inject a good deal of jazz/fusion idioms into metal? Pretty crazy stuff. It would take years for most musicians, classically trained or otherwise, to figure out an album like Calculating Infinity.

That being said, I'll admit that I do have somewhat of a closed mind when it comes to classical. I have little or no use for classical music. It's a baroque, dated, stagnant, pompous art form, surrounded by a cadre of killjoy, snobbish listeners who spit on anything associated with the culture of the "hoi polloi" (this is also true of jazz these days, in that there is a growing elitist crowd there too). I will always respect and appreciate the talents of classically trained musicians and composers, but ultimately for the most part they just don't make music that I enjoy. Gimme Bob Dylan, The Stooges, Pink Floyd, A Tribe Called Quest, etc. etc. etc. etc. over Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, and whatever else you've got. If it touches me on an emotional/visceral/intellectual level, then it's all good.

And I didn't say Coltrane was not a fine saxophonist. I just don't think he attains even the heights other saxophonists do. Can a saxophone rise to the same level of expression and can a saxophonist attain the same height of virtuosity as a great violinist? IMO, not a chance. They are worlds and worlds apart.

Violin v. Saxophone is a total apple-to-oranges comparison. As Jay pointed out, they are completely different applications, with different musical roles. I won't argue that it takes a ton of skill to become a virtuoso on a violin (especially with the lack of frets and all), but it is also very hard to master the saxophone. Try replicating what Coltrane does on Giant Steps (good luck) and you'll see what I mean. Also throw in the fact that a sax player is often expected to play without a music sheet--they compose a good deal of it as they go. It takes quite a bit of talent to keep it from degenerating into a disorganized chaos, especially if they are playing as a band leader.

Coltrane doesn't "attain even the heights other saxophonists do?" Uh, right. Are we talking about the same Coltrane? You know, the one that played with Monk, Miles, and Ellington? Or some other scrub?

Sarcasm aside, Sonny Rollins actually took a temporary hiatus from playing in public after listening to Giant Steps. An excellent and accomplished player, heralded as a jazz great, actually refused to perform in public after hearing what Coltrane could do. 'Nuff said.

Anyway, Jay hit the nail on the head with his last reply. I just wanted to throw in my ramblings, as I usually do.

As far as explicit language is concerned, it doesn't bother me that much, and I will defend a musician's right to use it if he chooses. After all, sometimes the use of profanity is completely warranted. Yes, it can be gratuitous and stupid, and if it offends me I can choose not to listen to it. Same goes with Satanic/disgusting lyrics (think Slayer, Cannibal Corpse, etc.). When it comes to your kids, that's a judgement call. If you don't want them listening to it, don't encourage it. You have a say in what your child listens to, bottom line. Cheers.

[Troy]

That Skeptic guy sure pissed a lot of smart people off.

Not a 'Trane fan either. I always thought you had to be a junkie to enjoy his music. That may be a bit strong, but I just can't process his music. That part of my brain doesn't work. I just like harmony, traditional harmony too much.

Skeptic, there's artistry in all musical forms. I really love some classical music, but dislike the orchestral timbres. Give me electricity and amplification. It just fit the intensity and vibrancy our modern world better. There's a whole lot of bad classical too, especially 20th century classical. But that makes sense because the world has moved on. You don't see a lot of silent films being made either. The artform is dead.

I grant you, there is a LOT of horrible junk rock/pop music out there. Just trash with no redeeming value. But that doesn't make all rock/pop bad. And that doesn't make all fans of rock music illiterate morons that say fock every other word. Sometimes a little curse in pop culture is ok. Get over it.

Skeptic, play nice, the people that populate this board are (virtually) all amiable, smart people and we all learn from each other. Most of us understand that no one has all the answers.

[skeptic]

"That Skeptic guy sure pissed a lot of smart people off."

What gave you the idea that they are smart?

"Not a 'Trane fan either. I always thought you had to be a junkie to enjoy his music. That may be a bit strong, but I just can't process his music. That part of my brain doesn't work. I just like harmony, traditional harmony too much."

I like lots of music that has dissonance. I like the Rite of Spring. Ever hear it? Ever hear of it? I do not like "A Love Surpeme" because it is boring music. I went into tremendous detail picking it apart to understand WHY I found it boring. I gave it more than just a few hearings trying to keep an open mind as long as I could. I even went back to it many month later to see if I might have made a premature judgement. As of now, my original assessment of it is the same. Despite the fact that it doesn't agree with other people's including among those people who see themselves or are even acknowledged as "jazz experts" I stick with it. At least I know why I don't like it.

"I grant you, there is a LOT of horrible junk rock/pop music out there. Just trash with no redeeming value. But that doesn't make all rock/pop bad."

I never said it was ALL bad. I even said some of it was pleasant. But what more can you expect from a teenage kid whose voice is changing singing simple ditties written to a formula?

"And that doesn't make all fans of rock music illiterate morons that say fock every other word."

I've yet to meet one that was a brain surgeon or a rocket scientist. In fact I don't know if I ever met one that ever read a book....or could read or write for that matter. If every other word is "fock" it means that they have nothing to say which is hardly surprising because their heads are empty. If you have nothing to say, I think the least you can do as a courtesy to other people is to keep your mouth shut. Those that can read may just want to.

"the people that populate this board are (virtually) all amiable, smart people and we all learn from each other."

A rash and largely unsupported assumption on your part. They span the gammut from highly intelligent to the village idiots. Just like the rest of the population. Besides, what would lead you to belive that a man who calls himself MindGoneHaywire and signs all of his postings "I don't like others" is either intelligent or amiable? Nobody knows him better than he knows himself and I've already given him credit for being perfectly honest about it.

[skeptic]

"Part of yr problem is ...."

I don't have a problem.

"In the 1930s and 1940s it was this attitude that led my father to realize that his music instructors were intolerant zealots." "It's largely as a result of this attitude that he spent the past 60+ years playing jazz and Fake Book standards instead of yr beloved classical music. "

Had he stuck with his instructors, he wouldn't have had to fake it, he could have developed the technique to play the real thing. Or maybe he just didn't have the discipline to stick it out and used this as an excuse to quit. Learning to play classical music takes real mental discipline. Many people who want to play music just can't cut it. If you learn to perform classical music well and love jazz, you can play that too. You can play anything. OTOH, if you quit, you can learn to play by ear and improvise. In other words, fake it. Or maybe just play the simplified versions and write your own arrangements.

"Musicians are just as affected by a reason not to perform a particular style or piece as they are by a reason to perform a particular style or piece."

Often they don't perform certain music because they simply can't. Good instructors choose a particular selection of music and etudes for students to play because each piece builds new skills which rely on the previously acquired ones. Even Shakespeare had to learn to read and write before he could compose sonnets and plays himself. If you want to master a musical instrument, you must first master the techniques it demands. And you can't just skip around all over the place learning whatever you want and rejecting the rest. When you give up, do you just give up on that instructior or on the instrument as a whole? Yes faking it is much easier and some audiences can never tell the difference if you're good at it.

"I see. And what about the young adults who had plenty of exposure to classical music, and chose to instead prefer Louis Armstrong, Cole Porter, and Bing Crosby? "

I listen to ALL of that too and much more that isn't classical music.

"No, that's not true. You said: "History or no history, I think Coltrane sucks." Those were yr exact words."

That's what I said about him the the first time I posted on the thread about what disc you would own if you were on a deserted island and could only have one. Later, with my extensive review, I admitted that this was a glib statement, that I didn't know anything about him or his music, and that's why I agreed to DMK's request that I buy and review the disc. I changed my opinion and it still stands. He's good but hardly remarkable IMO. BTW, I haven't heard any of his other music. "A Love Supreme" was too disappointing.

OK, you know something about music? Right now I'm digesting Chick Corea's album "Chick Corea & Origin Change" I'm still trying to figure it out. What would you call this kind of jazz, fusion? BTW, in addition to my own collection I happen to have complete access to a vast library of several thousand discs and vinyls, many of which are pop and jazz and which I will inherit in a few years. It's not that I don't ever listen to this kind of music or don't own it. Quite the opposite, my opinion is based on a lifetime of considerable experience with it. Maybe that will make you even madder.

[skeptic]

"That being said, I'll admit that I do have somewhat of a closed mind when it comes to classical. I have little or no use for classical music. It's a baroque, dated, stagnant, pompous art form, surrounded by a cadre of killjoy, snobbish listeners who spit on anything associated with the culture of the "hoi polloi" (this is also true of jazz these days, in that there is a growing elitist crowd there too)."

You have the same bias you accuse me of having. Then where is your complaint?

"Also throw in the fact that a sax player is often expected to play without a music sheet--they compose a good deal of it as they go."

I guess you have never seen a concert violinist give a performance or you wouldn't embarrass yourself with such a silly posting. The NEVER have sheet music. And they don't make it up as they go along, they have to REMEMBER every note. And if they don't and they screw up, the sophisticated audiences know it instantly. Not only that, they pick apart every nuance, every phrase. The demands on a concert violinist compared to a saxophonist are mind boggling. If Coltrane had the same pressure and criticism as a concert violinist, he would have returned to heroine.

"After all, sometimes the use of profanity is completely warranted. Yes, it can be gratuitous and stupid, and if it offends me I can choose not to listen to it. "

It doesn't offend me, it bores me. And often so does the person who says it because he usually has nothing else interesting or effective to say in its place. In other words, an illiterate.