Page 5 of 8
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 00:47
by Davey the Fat Boy
toomanyhatz wrote:Davey the Fat Boy wrote:Leave it to you to name three artists (out of the four- Kraftwerk's OK, but they don't float my boat, mainly because they do something that I don't have that much appreciation for or knowledge of) that I truly love when using an example of something "weaker." Couldn't you have said the Smiths or Joy Division?
In general we're on the same page here, as I hope/presume I've made clear, but before someone else says it, I will. The artists you name (well, less so the Pretty Things) are ones that are much easier to dismiss with a (for example, in Can's case) "they're prog, and I don't like prog." Even if it's not true- and some day I'll write a thread where I explain how Can has plenty to offer 70s funk fans- you're not treated like a pariah for saying it. Whereas Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder
are by-and-large treated as if they're beyond criticism.
I think you are ever so slightly missing my point. I didn't pick the examples
I did because I viewed them as weak...just weaker than Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder. I hope you agree with me on that point, if not - we have drifted my brother. And while you contend that my examples are easier to dismiss, I will counter that here at BCB the opposite is true. Here the greatness of Kraftwerk is a given, but Ray and Stevie are always on trial. I simply find this to be a bit through the looking glass.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 01:14
by toomanyhatz
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:I think you are ever so slightly missing my point. I didn't pick the examples
I did because I viewed them as weak...just weaker than Ray Charles and Stevie Wonder. I hope you agree with me on that point, if not - we have drifted my brother. And while you contend that my examples are easier to dismiss, I will counter that here at BCB the opposite is true. Here the greatness of Kraftwerk is a given, but Ray and Stevie are always on trial. I simply find this to be a bit through the looking glass.
Not sure how I'd be missing your point here- I quoted the word "weaker," not the word "weak." I'm just saying I'd be more apt to agree with you if you picked different examples- that's all. I'm one of the biggest Can fans here, and dislike seeing them dismissed as something the progsters like- but as I say that's a subject for another thread. I'm completely disinterested in comparing them to Ray Charles or Stevie Wonder other than to maybe point out they've done nothing in their entire career as bad as the worst of Stevie- though on the other hand they've never had a vocalist that can touch either. But- apples and oranges, basically.
My point was- other than by and large agreeing with you- that assigning a genre (or worse yet an ethnicity) to what we consider unassailable doesn't really bear up to scrutiny. It's kind of a universal rule that anyone who says anything bad about someone fairly universally loved around here is tiptoed around- doesn't matter who it is- could be Aretha, could be the Pretty Things. There are no standard rules about who qualifies, at least not ones that I can detect.
I do disagree with your final point, mind you- I don't see Kraftwerk's greatness as a given at all. In fact Kraftwerk threads (or Can ones or Pretty Things ones for that matter) tend to rather die on the vine compared to, say (dare I say it) anyone in the rock and roll canon.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 01:32
by Nolamike
Snarfyguy wrote:Why should we judge musical artists by statistics? They're not baseball players.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 01:33
by Phenomenal Cat
Anyone like The Bee Gees?
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 04:06
by Davey the Fat Boy
toomanyhatz wrote:I do disagree with your final point, mind you- I don't see Kraftwerk's greatness as a given at all. In fact Kraftwerk threads (or Can ones or Pretty Things ones for that matter) tend to rather die on the vine compared to, say (dare I say it) anyone in the rock and roll canon.
This is pretty obviously the center of our disagreement. I contend that there is a BCB counter-canon that has it's own sacred cows - some of which I mentioned. You may find it "apples and oranges" to compare Ray Charles to Can, but I don't think artists have to be in the same genre to acknowledge when one is greater than another.I doubt you would be as guarded if I stated that the Beatles were a greater band than Run DMC for instance.
The notion that R&B enjoys some kind of free pass here is absurd. Maybe if Ray Charles released Forever Changes it might be true.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 04:30
by toomanyhatz
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:toomanyhatz wrote:I do disagree with your final point, mind you- I don't see Kraftwerk's greatness as a given at all. In fact Kraftwerk threads (or Can ones or Pretty Things ones for that matter) tend to rather die on the vine compared to, say (dare I say it) anyone in the rock and roll canon.
This is pretty obviously the center of our disagreement. I contend that there is a BCB counter-canon that has it's own sacred cows - some of which I mentioned. You may find it "apples and oranges" to compare Ray Charles to Can, but I don't think artists have to be in the same genre to acknowledge when one is greater than another.I doubt you would be as guarded if I stated that the Beatles were a greater band than Run DMC for instance.
The notion that R&B enjoys some kind of free pass here is absurd. Maybe if Ray Charles released Forever Changes it might be true.
My point, though, is that
nobody gets a free pass- we're generally a group that thrives on negativity. It's often mistaken for cred. Quite a common phenomenon among the allegedly "critical," really. But I'm also saying, and I hope you agree, that there's no particular group or genre that's any more likely to get a free pass than any other.
As far as my "apples and oranges" statement, sure- part of it's based on taste. If you compare a minor artist to a major one, sure- I know who's who. I personally listen to the Oyster Band (to save you the trouble of bringing them up, as I'm sure you eventually would
) more than I do Ray Charles, but that doesn't make them "better." It always depends on the standards you're judging by. Same with the tiresome "new vs. old" argument. I love Gillian Welch. I think she's great. That's all I have to say on the matter. It doesn't take anything away from her that she's not a "giant" like Bob Dylan or Randy Newman. I'm happy to live in a world where I don't have to choose. And you've clearly made your choice. More power to us both. But don't mistake my sitting out the argument over it for a case of taking an opposing viewpoint.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 05:00
by Davey the Fat Boy
Hatz,
i agree that nobody gets and absolute free pass here. But I don't think things are all that democratic either. Some artists have one or two naysayers, others have dozens. Other than a fairly small slice of it, soul music is more ignored than criticized. The addition of a few new posters who know and love the stuff I'd beginning to turn that around finally, which is a welcome development. But certainly Ray Charles will never get the respect that King Crimson does here. Hell, he can't even get you to admit that he is better
than the fucking Oyster Band.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 17:37
by Hepcat
I've never been able to get into Sly & the Family Stone myself.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 21:34
by toomanyhatz
Davey the Fat Boy wrote:But certainly Ray Charles will never get the respect that King Crimson does here. Hell, he can't even get you to admit that he is better than the fucking Oyster Band.
Either you're poking at me because you love to do that, or you have a persecution complex. And considering I'm the guy who's been pretty much saying the same things as you all along, I'm not quite sure what you need to hear from people before you'll accept that most of them agree with us that it was a magic age. Or is it really so simple as the fact that praise for anything else is interpreted as denigration toward the stuff you love?
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 21:54
by Balboa
I don't really get this thread. Surely there are as many rock artists who we like who don't deserve our praise? I mean really - we support some really average things. Why is soul music any different? There is plenty of mediocre stuff, but the best stuff (you name it - Otis, Marvin, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Arteha Franklin, Sly Stone, Parliament/Funkadelic, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Norman Whitfield.......whoever) - that shit is good. Pretty much unbeatable.
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
It seems odd to say that it is tied to something bigger, or more apologetic. I don't see/hear that at all.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 21:57
by Nolamike
Balboa wrote:I don't really get this thread. Surely there are as many rock artists who we like who don't deserve our praise? I mean really - we support some really average things. Why is soul music any different? There is plenty of mediocre stuff, but the best stuff (you name it - Otis, Marvin, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Arteha Franklin, Sly Stone, Parliament/Funkadelic, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Norman Whitfield.......whoever) - that shit is good. Pretty much unbeatable.
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
It seems odd to say that it is tied to something bigger, or more apologetic. I don't see/hear that at all.
Yeah, I agree. I started the thread as a reaction to a mention in another thread that soul music "gets a free pass" around here, so I figured "hey, why not create a space to show that it doesn't." But yeah, there is a ton of great soul music out there, and (broadly speaking - to include funk and some of the African funk), it makes up a plurality (if not an outright majority) of what I play.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 22:05
by Thesiger
I never could see anything worth getting excited about in Geno Washington and his Ram Jam Band pace Kevin Rowland. Bland copyists is how they seem. And I saw Geno live a few weeks ago and he's convinced he was a major mover and shaker.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 22:07
by Piggly Wiggly
Thesiger wrote:I never could see anything worth getting excited about in Geno Washington and his Ram Jam Band pace Kevin Rowland. Bland copyists is how they seem. And I saw Geno live a few weeks ago and he's convinced he was a major mover and shaker.
A cruel joke, perhaps?
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 22:14
by Balboa
Nolamike wrote:Balboa wrote:I don't really get this thread. Surely there are as many rock artists who we like who don't deserve our praise? I mean really - we support some really average things. Why is soul music any different? There is plenty of mediocre stuff, but the best stuff (you name it - Otis, Marvin, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Arteha Franklin, Sly Stone, Parliament/Funkadelic, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Norman Whitfield.......whoever) - that shit is good. Pretty much unbeatable.
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
It seems odd to say that it is tied to something bigger, or more apologetic. I don't see/hear that at all.
Yeah, I agree. I started the thread as a reaction to a mention in another thread that soul music "gets a free pass" around here, so I figured "hey, why not create a space to show that it doesn't." But yeah, there is a ton of great soul music out there, and (broadly speaking - to include funk and some of the African funk), it makes up a plurality (if not an outright majority) of what I play.
Oh, for sure. It wasn't aimed at anyone, more just the direction this thread was headed in.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 22:31
by Bungo the Mungo
Balboa wrote:
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
Nobody ever - EVER - raves about the Mondays here.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 22:32
by Nolamike
Sir John Coan wrote:Balboa wrote:
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
Nobody ever - EVER - raves about the Mondays here.
They never get their own threads, but you seem 'em get praised once or twice a week. Granted, that ain't as much as everyone else on that list.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 23 Sep 2010, 22:35
by Balboa
Sir John Coan wrote:Balboa wrote:
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
Nobody ever - EVER - raves about the Mondays here.
Well maybe not, but no-one ever really criticises them either - their best stuff gets praised A LOT, and that is the point I am trying to make.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 24 Sep 2010, 00:20
by Geezee
Balboa wrote:I don't really get this thread. Surely there are as many rock artists who we like who don't deserve our praise? I mean really - we support some really average things. Why is soul music any different? There is plenty of mediocre stuff, but the best stuff (you name it - Otis, Marvin, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Arteha Franklin, Sly Stone, Parliament/Funkadelic, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Norman Whitfield.......whoever) - that shit is good. Pretty much unbeatable.
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
It seems odd to say that it is tied to something bigger, or more apologetic. I don't see/hear that at all.
But the point of music boards like this is to try to reach some bigger, more intelligent and rigorous truths about music. Self-evident truths. Like the very worst of the Beatles being better than the very best of Nick Cave.
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 24 Sep 2010, 00:29
by sloopjohnc
G-Z wrote:Balboa wrote:I don't really get this thread. Surely there are as many rock artists who we like who don't deserve our praise? I mean really - we support some really average things. Why is soul music any different? There is plenty of mediocre stuff, but the best stuff (you name it - Otis, Marvin, Sam Cooke, Ray Charles, James Brown, Arteha Franklin, Sly Stone, Parliament/Funkadelic, Stevie Wonder, The Temptations, Smokey Robinson, Norman Whitfield.......whoever) - that shit is good. Pretty much unbeatable.
Is every B-side/album track awesome? Well, no. But then we nor is every Beatles/Stones/Who/Small Faces/Television/Ramones/Echo and the Bunneymen/Happy Mondays/Can/Pink Floyd/Pretty Things/Kinks/Clash/Neil Young/Sabbath......(whoever it is) their shit still smells like shit.
It seems odd to say that it is tied to something bigger, or more apologetic. I don't see/hear that at all.
But the point of music boards like this is to try to reach some bigger, more intelligent and rigorous truths about music. Self-evident truths. Like the very worst of the Beatles being better than the very best of Nick Cave.
Amen!
Re: 60s/70s Soul Artists We Don't Like
Posted: 24 Sep 2010, 02:05
by Davey the Fat Boy
toomanyhatz wrote:Either you're poking at me because you love to do that, or you have a persecution complex.
How long have you known me? You don't have a suspicion which one it might be?