Posted on 08/28/2006 10:40:29 AM PDT by qam1
I love Audioslave. Of course I was a huge Rage fan. And if not for Audioslave I probably would not have gotten into Soundgarden. I didn't care for the grunge movement when it actually hit. Maybe I just have more angst now. :)
The reason I'm drawn to somber music (and, I suspect, the same is true for a lot of folks) is not to achieve a certain emotion, but rather to be released of a certain emotion, I suppose. I've had "blue bouts" since I was in the single digits, depressive episodes which can not be linked to any specific event, just garden variety, non-life (or sanity) threatening depression. I can listen to certain music--whether it is Bach's violin concerto #1, Floyd's "Great Gig in the Sky," or any other work which could fall under the heading of "somber," and I find myself relieved of the depression. I can't explain why, it just happens. It seems like the reverse should be true, that if I'm feeling down, a little "Ode to Joy" should perk me up, but that's not the effect music has on me. I get much more out of "Ode to Joy" when I'm in a great mood. Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe it is odd. I never gave much thought to the effect that music has on other people, and maybe the reverse of the effect that music has on me is more common to others. I still don't believe that artists set out to make music in an effort to depress listeners. A lot of artists--not just musicians, but poets, painters, sculptors, etc--create their work in an effort to work through their own emotions, without regard to the effect that it has on others. I don't have a problem with that. Think of all the tremendous works of art we'd have missed out on if artists stopped creating works out of fear that it might have a negative effect on someone. There'd be no rap music, I grant you that, but we'd lose out on so much more.
I'll be keeping an ear out for Dawg music, it sounds like something I'd really enjoy. I'm not familiar with Grisman but I used to listen to the Flecktones quite a bit. I managed a Sam Goody for a few years (great job, LOUSY pay) and from 8am until around 11am I could listen to anything I wanted. That's when I first listened to Fleck. It's also when I became acquainted with klezmer music and when I first realized that not all country music is "booze-n-twang." A real ear-opener, that job was.
The 1st RATM album was good at it's time. I didn't really care for the messages in the lyrics but it was fresh and exciting. The subsequent albums were trash.
Audioslave is one of the most unimaginative and uncreative bands in mainstream music (and that's saying a lot). Glad you got into Soundgarden though!
Johnny Cash lived thirty more years than Elvis did. Not only that, most of Presley's compositions were hits. Whereas many of Johnny Cash's hits were written by others. Yes, Johnny may have written more songs, but it doesn't make him a better artist than Presley, IMO. As for Sinatra, he was a good singer, had great charisma, and was talented. All similar attributes to Johnny Cash, and thus, again IMO, nothing that makes Sinatra or Cash great artists. You could, using my logic, say the same of Elvis Presley and I wouldn't argue that point much. My opinion of popular music "artists" is that those terms are somewhat contradictory. Popular cultural entertainment, IMO, is not art. It uses aspects of art, such as music and acting, writing or graphic arts, but it does not strike me as art.
He certainly did. Go to www.allmusic.com and look at the songs he composed. Hits such as "All Shook Up", "Don't Be Cruel", "Heartbreak Hotel".
I will agree with you that many of his hits were written by others, but he did write several of his number one hits and many of his top tens. Whether he did it by himself or collaborated I guess you could argue that he didn't write it HIMSELF, but he does have composition credits on many of his songs.
"Heartbreak Hotel" was written by Hoyt Axton's mother, as I recall [At least that was what Axton said in an interview]. A lot of guys from producers to agents to rock stars got co-writing credits so writers could get their songs recorded and / or published. You'd be amazed at how many songs that showed up on Bandstand and the Dick Clark show got published by Clark's music publishing company.
As for Elvis, I would stand by my contention that despite the credits, he didn't write the songs.
That's fine. I understand, truly. I am not so concerned with the whole "who's the best popular artist" debate, because, as I have stated, there are no popular artists. There are loads of popular entertainers. Actually, I'll take that back. There is one or two popular artists, and the one that comes to mind immediately is Dave Brubeck, among the living, and Miles Davis, among those who have passed recently.
Still, the majority of people would tell they've heard those names I mentioned, but don't know what they do. Kind of sad really.
Guitarist Danny Whitten was fired from Crazy Horse when his drug addiction became unmanageable. Neil Young cut him a severance check to keep him on his feet. Whitten cashed the check and spent the money on what would be a fatal dose of heroin.
You think so? I think the musical output of Dave Grohl's Foo Fighters is far better. Grohl is hands down the best drummer in rock and roll --despite the fact that he plays guitar in his current band.
Don't believe me?
Listen to his Bonhamesque drumming for Queens of the Stone Age.
Cobain was the Jim Morrison of Gen-X. An overrated addict. Both dead at 27 and their mythology far outweighs their real talent.
Dave Grohl was the virtuoso behind Nirvana.
War On Drugs is a pretty good band. They create atmospheric music.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.