Scratch47 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Here in the Tejas Hills between Austin and San Antonio, there's a li'l bar, honkey-tonk, or restaurant within shouting distance of anywhere. I'd just as soon spend my time taking in a local Americana picker sitting in the corner with a tip jar as to spend scarce bucks to see a glittery sound-augmented laser light performance in a dome. Dang... I'm gettin' old... BTW, some of these cats are quite good as they work their way up the Austin scene ladder... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j45nick Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 I'd just as soon spend my time taking in a local Americana picker sitting in the corner with a tip jar as to spend scarce bucks to see a glittery sound-augmented laser light performance in a dome. Dang... I'm gettin' old... BTW, some of these cats are quite good as they work their way up the Austin scene ladder... Amen, brother. As someone who spent a short but intense time in the music industry machine in the early 70's, I can vouch for the fact that it's a cutthroat business in which the cream doesn't always rise to the top. Producers and marketers are always looking for someone who fits well into the current music scene, whatever it might be. Talented but "different" from the mainstream--think Dylan vs. Peter, Paul, and Mary--doesn't always sell in this business, and real talent can be lost without the right people behind you. Then, of course, you can always package someone that fits the current scene even if he/she has only modest talent, and have some success. Think the Monkees. I worked with some very talented people who never made it big, and watched people with no more talent go on to become very successful. Several of the people I worked with were conservatory trained and very good singers and musicians (although you might wonder why someone trained in opera, and another in French horn, would end up trying to make it in the folk-rock world). Two of their class mates from Eastman--Louis Soloff and Richard Halligan--were also trying to break into the rock business, and did so as part of a little group called Blood, Sweat and Tears. I can remember the envy in my bandmates' eyes when the limo pulled up outside our modest apartment to drop these "stars"--who were old friends of theirs from school--off for a dinner party. It's a funny old business. Just because someone isn't a household name doesn't mean they don't have a whole hatful of talent. The opposite is true as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewilyfool Posted November 15, 2011 Author Share Posted November 15, 2011 Just so that this thread doesn't become totally negative......let's say that Taylor Swift is WAY better than "Milli Vanilli"....always good to end with something positive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fretplay Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Taylor Swift hasn't hit big here in UK but I think she did a tour this year, not sure. Her nipples on the internet may have helped though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissouriPicker Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Taylor Swift used to sing worse than she does now. Kinds of scary, but she has sounded worse.....Music changes, but the music we play is what we've likely played for years, and we are who we are. My music centers-around the Cash-Nelson-Jones era. Not a great deal I focus on beyond the early 80's, unless it's by the classic stars......On Swift again---I do think she has a good image. She doesn't promote a drug-laced lifestyle. Don't know lots about her music aside from it being "bubblegum music," but at least I don't think she pushes poor values, etc. Her songs are almost on the silly side, but seem to be harmless. She's vastly different from Miley Cyrus and her image. Don't know how much real talent she has, but she is inspiring some young folks to play the guitar. In many ways the music of today is like our society: superficial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhanners623 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 Taylor Swift used to sing worse than she does now. Kinds of scary, but she has sounded worse.....On Swift again---I do think she has a good image. She doesn't promote a drug-laced lifestyle. Don't know lots about her music aside from it being "bubblegum music," but at least I don't think she pushes poor values, etc.... In many ways the music of today is like our society: superficial. I'd agree with this, up to a point. I do wonder about her values, though, because it would seem that at least according to us (and we're a pretty average gauge, I would hope) the main value she's displaying is that you don't really have to be talented to make it big. You just have to have drive and be good at PR and marketing -- and have a look that society finds attractive. That said, I think we all know talented musicians who, for whatever reason, have never made it big and never will, or they lack the will to make it big. And the comment about society being "superficial" is squarely on the mark. I wonder what would happen if guys like Woody Guthrie or Jimmie Rodgers came along today. That said, here is a Nashville contrarian posing some questions on the issue and wondering if we're all just being too picky: http://www.nashvillescene.com/nashvillecream/archives/2010/02/11/are-taylor-swift-and-carrie-underwood-crappy-singers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larryp58 Posted November 15, 2011 Share Posted November 15, 2011 This is the result of recording labels just making money. A few good talented singer/songwriters out there. What you see on CMA Award shows and others like it is all about the money. If it sells, we'll call it country. If you're a sexy little thang and it sells, we'll call it country. If you CAIN'T sing, we'll fix it and call it country. What do I listen to? My CD player in my truck. Hardly turn on the radio anymore. Just give me my '60's and '70's music and I'm content. (that's back when recording artists were real musicians) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 And the comment about society being "superficial" is squarely on the mark. I wonder what would happen if guys like Woody Guthrie or Jimmie Rodgers came along today. Right you are. When radio was king, stars were made on the basis of how pleasant or distinctive their voice, playing, or songs were. Once TV became the dominant cultural delivery system, image became a much bigger determinant of a musical star's success. Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 It works both ways. Playing guitar makes up for a lot of ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red 333 Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 It works both ways. Playing guitar makes up for a lot of ugly. You trumped me! The Rolling Stones thread is evidence of that! Red 333 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stein Posted November 16, 2011 Share Posted November 16, 2011 You trumped me! The Rolling Stones thread is evidence of that! Red 333 I doubt I could have "trumped" you. We have never heard each other play, and we have no idea what each other looks like. But, you would have to be a really bad guitar player and butt-ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.