Something that's bothered me for so time now is that I have less and less idea about what kinds of music I actually like. What I mean to say is that even though I go through the motions of talking about what I like and what I don't like in music, what I end up listening to, and ultimately enjoy, is something totally different.
The best example of this is The Grays Ro Sham Bo. With only one album, this group fronted by Jason Faulkner and Jon Brion came to my attention (as they did for most people) with "The Very Best Years," a crazy awesome single from 1994. After getting a tape copy and later a burned CD of this album, I find that despite my claim of loving stuff like Born to Run and Blood and Chocolate, I listen to Ro Sham Bo without hesitation or guilt.
I suppose that this probably happens to everybody, but coming from me, a guy that is so open about his taste, I'm just a little bothered...
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
So, I've been presented with the unique opportunity to cover a topic brought up by somebody else. I suppose this would ultimatly happen, I just hoped I could finish the top ten artists entries.
Anyways, this coworker of mine was speculating with me on the reasons that pop music seems to be stalled out at best, and dangerous and trite at worst. I my explanation of recessive patterns in the music industry, I pointed out the late eighties as a low point, and the transparent consumerism that accompanied the rise of a group like New Kids on the Block. The numbers don't lie: after about 1988 til 1991's Nevermind (actually Nevermind ousting Michael Jackson's Dangerous) the record industry was trapped in a self created slump that nearly mimicked the late 70's. Anyways, what ended up happening was that my coworker made the huge mistake of comparing the New Kids to the Temptations in a way that reduces the Temptations to nothing more than a product of somebody else's imagination. Yes, she was playing devil's advocate, but she left it to me to get us out of the horrible position of the New Kids on the Block and the Temptations living on the same artistic plain.
So that's the back story, here's the prompt: Are the Temptations all that different from a group like the New Kids on the Block, and consequently if they are somehow better, why?
The first thing I have to say is "are you fucking kidding?"
The second thing I have to say is "No."
To answer the question(s) briefly, I would say that yes, not only are the Temptations different than the New Kids, but they are infinitely better. Now on to the reasoning...
It's unfair for me to actually answer this question without assuming that you understand the major difference between how these groups were formed. The Temptations were a self-taught, self-formed singing group that auditioned for Motown sometime in 1963, scoring their first hit with Smokey Robinson's "The Way You Do The Things You Do." Members were picked based on decisions by the group, not by the label. New Kids on the Block was created by Maurice Starr as a white alternative/replacement/supplement to New Edition, his first creation. I almost hate myself for knowing it, but this idea of management produced groups was not new in 1984, but the idea that these groups could rise up as multi-million dollar franchisees was.
It would take too big a tangent to explain the dynamics Motown, a label I not only did not have any part of, but was not even alive during it's hey-day, so let's assume that ultimately that it was as ruthless as any record company or management could be. That said, it's hard to look at the body of work of a group like the Temptations and not say that part of the equation was to further the musical depth of pop culture. Motown wasn't just about profiting from the rabid sales of 45's. Without question, the impact of even just a fraction of the Tempts output betrays Berry Gordy's intent to put black artists and art in the center of the musical map of the day. I'm not going to even begin listing songs from NKOTB, as not to scar you.
Speaking of those whiteys from Bhawstawn, what actually makes them less than the Temptations (or the Four Tops, the Miracles, Supremes, the Vandellas, or the pips) is that they weren't built to last. They were, and are, everything that sucks the life out of a business that always strikes a balance between beautiful art and ruthless, backstabbing, money making bullshit.
Just so you're not left with a bad taste in your ears, think about this:
"I got sunshine, on a cloudy day..."
Anyways, this coworker of mine was speculating with me on the reasons that pop music seems to be stalled out at best, and dangerous and trite at worst. I my explanation of recessive patterns in the music industry, I pointed out the late eighties as a low point, and the transparent consumerism that accompanied the rise of a group like New Kids on the Block. The numbers don't lie: after about 1988 til 1991's Nevermind (actually Nevermind ousting Michael Jackson's Dangerous) the record industry was trapped in a self created slump that nearly mimicked the late 70's. Anyways, what ended up happening was that my coworker made the huge mistake of comparing the New Kids to the Temptations in a way that reduces the Temptations to nothing more than a product of somebody else's imagination. Yes, she was playing devil's advocate, but she left it to me to get us out of the horrible position of the New Kids on the Block and the Temptations living on the same artistic plain.
So that's the back story, here's the prompt: Are the Temptations all that different from a group like the New Kids on the Block, and consequently if they are somehow better, why?
The first thing I have to say is "are you fucking kidding?"
The second thing I have to say is "No."
To answer the question(s) briefly, I would say that yes, not only are the Temptations different than the New Kids, but they are infinitely better. Now on to the reasoning...
It's unfair for me to actually answer this question without assuming that you understand the major difference between how these groups were formed. The Temptations were a self-taught, self-formed singing group that auditioned for Motown sometime in 1963, scoring their first hit with Smokey Robinson's "The Way You Do The Things You Do." Members were picked based on decisions by the group, not by the label. New Kids on the Block was created by Maurice Starr as a white alternative/replacement/supplement to New Edition, his first creation. I almost hate myself for knowing it, but this idea of management produced groups was not new in 1984, but the idea that these groups could rise up as multi-million dollar franchisees was.
It would take too big a tangent to explain the dynamics Motown, a label I not only did not have any part of, but was not even alive during it's hey-day, so let's assume that ultimately that it was as ruthless as any record company or management could be. That said, it's hard to look at the body of work of a group like the Temptations and not say that part of the equation was to further the musical depth of pop culture. Motown wasn't just about profiting from the rabid sales of 45's. Without question, the impact of even just a fraction of the Tempts output betrays Berry Gordy's intent to put black artists and art in the center of the musical map of the day. I'm not going to even begin listing songs from NKOTB, as not to scar you.
Speaking of those whiteys from Bhawstawn, what actually makes them less than the Temptations (or the Four Tops, the Miracles, Supremes, the Vandellas, or the pips) is that they weren't built to last. They were, and are, everything that sucks the life out of a business that always strikes a balance between beautiful art and ruthless, backstabbing, money making bullshit.
Just so you're not left with a bad taste in your ears, think about this:
"I got sunshine, on a cloudy day..."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)