Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 ....and this guy thinks we should retire the song along with these four others. http://scoop.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/08/8682446-stairway-to-heaven-turns-40-lets-retire-it-with-these-other-classics My only question is---why stop at only 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members modulusman Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 I actually played "Stairway to Heaven" for the first time in about 30 years last Saturday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 IDK, it's kind of a weird article. "Scenes From An Italian Restaurant"??? Maybe the writer lives in NYC or something, but everywhere else, I'm pretty sure that song is already long-retired. As far as the other songs, I'm fine with hearing them every now and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 IDK, it's kind of a weird article. "Scenes From An Italian Restaurant"??? Maybe the writer lives in NYC or something, but everywhere else, I'm pretty sure that song is already long-retired.As far as the other songs, I'm fine with hearing them every now and again. I agree about "Italian Restaurant". Maybe it's on the radio everyday back east, but it isn't out here. But I agree with the author that the other 4 should have been retired long ago. Those songs have all been so embedded in my memory for so many decades now that if I don't need to ever actually hear them again to hear them again....if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Those songs have all been so embedded in my memory for so many decades now that if I don't need to ever actually hear them again to hear them again....if you know what I mean. Yeah... of course, I wasn't around when they actually came out. I think that's why they still get played -- the newer generations aren't quite sick of them yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 It's an article written by a writer who got a gig as a music journalist that has nothing to say about the music. No mention of MUSICALLY why it should be put to rest, justa buncha hoo haa about lyrics and cultural stuff....this type of crap exists to give the author a chance to be clever and smug: Iconic vocalist/self-styled shaman Jim Morrison's provocative use of the adjective "higher" might have given the staff of the The Ed Sullivan Show cause of alarm when Morrison brazenly sang it on the air that same year, but 44 years later, the Lizard King's somewhat remedial rhyme scheme -- paired with robustly-sideburned keyboardist Ray Manzarek's organ-noodling -- now feels more like being trapped in an indulgent poetry slam at an ice hockey rink. This type of stuff is kind of a pet peeve of mine....I'm more irritated by this kind of Spin/Rolling Stone type of "music" journalism than I should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 It's an article written by a writer who got a gig as a music journalist that has nothing to say about the music. No mention of MUSICALLY why it should be put to rest, justa buncha hoo haa about lyrics and cultural stuff....this type of crap exists to give the author a chance to be clever and smug:Iconic vocalist/self-styled shaman Jim Morrison's provocative use of the adjective "higher" might have given the staff of the The Ed Sullivan Show cause of alarm when Morrison brazenly sang it on the air that same year, but 44 years later, the Lizard King's somewhat remedial rhyme scheme -- paired with robustly-sideburned keyboardist Ray Manzarek's organ-noodling -- now feels more like being trapped in an indulgent poetry slam at an ice hockey rink.This type of stuff is kind of a pet peeve of mine....I'm more irritated by this kind of Spin/Rolling Stone type of "music" journalism than I should be. Actually, I thought he hit most of that stuff pretty spot-on. I don't think any of it needs to be put to rest for MUSICAL reasons, necessarily (although there might be those reasons as well, but the article wasn't written for an audience of musicians). There are more than enough cultural reasons to do so. Especially since it is probably from the POV of someone much younger. I wonder if in, say...1976, you would have found a similarly snarky critique written in Rolling Stone about 40's era music to be equally annoying? While I know these older "classic" artists and songs still appeal to a lot of younger folks, I gotta imagine there are many many others who find it all to be very silly, dated and pretentious. Culturally speaking, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 No mention of MUSICALLY why it should be put to rest, Actually, that's not true either. Aren't ALL of these comments references as to why these songs should MUSICALLY be put to rest? paired with robustly-sideburned keyboardist Ray Manzarek's organ-noodling -- now feels more like being trapped in an indulgent poetry slam at an ice hockey rink.... bookended by melancholy washes of sentimental strings and soppy saxophones, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Seems to me the author is at LEAST as tired of these songs for musical reasons as he is cultural ones. Actually, I think the author is just being snarky and snobbish for the sake of a seemingly-clever article idea. Because it seems to me that the musical techniques he harshes on are the main reasons the songs were popular to start with, and have stayed around for so long. If he doesn't like the songs, that's fine. Go ahead and say that. But to me, it's pretty annoying and ass-backwards for him to highlight the unique, ambitious, and hugely successful elements of the songs as the reasons to retire them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 it seems to me that the musical techniques he harshes on are the main reasons the songs were popular to start with, and have stayed around for so long. But isn't that what pretty much makes ANYTHING eventually "corny" or "dated"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kanetoads Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 To get get rid of great old music, you make great new music. All the whiners are welcome to step up and give us something better to listen to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members modulusman Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 To get get rid of great old music, you make great new music. All the whiners are welcome to step up and give us something better to listen to. Holy {censored} I actually agree with kanetoads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 To get get rid of great old music, you make great new music. All the whiners are welcome to step up and give us something better to listen to. Bull{censored}. There's great new music all the time and it has no effect whatsoever on old music. There was plenty of great music prior to the 1970s and the advent of Led Zeppelin and Eagles did nothing to get rid of whatever was "great old music" at the time. It was still around then and it is still around today. But sorry. I just thought it was a funny and relevant article. I didn't realize I was going to piss so many old guys off by having them read somebody harshing on their favorite tunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TrickyBoy Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 I feel young. Stairway is 2 months and 2 days older than me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Actually, I thought he hit most of that stuff pretty spot-on. I don't think any of it needs to be put to rest for MUSICAL reasons, necessarily (although there might be those reasons as well, but the article wasn't written for an audience of musicians). There are more than enough cultural reasons to do so. Especially since it is probably from the POV of someone much younger. I wonder if in, say...1976, you would have found a similarly snarky critique written in Rolling Stone about 40's era music to be equally annoying? While I know these older "classic" artists and songs still appeal to a lot of younger folks, I gotta imagine there are many many others who find it all to be very silly, dated and pretentious. Culturally speaking, of course. I'm overly sensitive to it since I have made a fair amount of $$$ in music journalism. It's my problem really. It's a fun piece. I certainly understand the point of view...the locus if you will...of the author. It is not that of a musician. But...my problem comes from people writing criticism with no justification. There are {censored}loads of people coming from places of authority in music journalism that wouldn't know a major scale from a minor scale if it bit them in the ass. So all they can do is bloviate about cultural stuff and general-isms. For example: just exactly how is "organ noodling" and "melancholy washes of soppy strings and sentimental saxaphones" really saying anything relevant about the music? Just exactly how is it "organ noodling" to him, and not the "exquisite erudite euphoniums of erotica" it might be to another? Cuz like you know, people liked it and stuff....so why for 40 years is it no longer contributing to a classic, and merely "organ noodling"? "...treacle and frenetic guitar soloing" ? Really? C'mon...just one...ONE...reason why it is "treacle" would make it criticism....cuz it's 40 years old and over played? Not criticism..... All forms of artistic criticism, in order to be defined as such, has a hand on the cannons of rhetoric. Rock music journalism for some reason, is completely devoid of ANY thought past the cultural. I know, I know, that's not the point of the piece....it just {censored}ing bugs me. It's my cross to bear.... EDIT: Also, I have no opinion on older tunes that have been "overplayed." This isn't about the music mentioned. I'm not even sure how one "retires" a song! Is there an old folks home for songs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kmart Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 If it means never having to hear the other 4 songs EVER again, I'll gladly sacrifice Stairway, damn skippy.There's only about 50 better Zep songs to choose from. Hell, I'll throw in much of sides 3 & 4 of Physical Graffiti to sweeten the deal if I really never have to hear Free Bird or that Joel dreck again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Rock music journalism for some reason, is completely devoid of ANY thought past the cultural. Maybe because without the cultural relevance rock music ain't 'all that' to being with? Classical music and, to a certain degree, jazz music don't need cultural contexts to be considered great or even good. Rock, country, rap and other pop music forms--pretty much by definition-- exist and become popular because of the cultural contexts that surround them. It's pretty hard to separate "Stairway to Heaven" from the image of Led Zeppelin, from the 1970's, and even from that particular recorded version. I'm not sure there really IS all that much to that song beyond the cultural, is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Nijyo Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 No one needs to "retire" a song proactively. Songs that are no longer relevant retire themselves more or less naturally. There's all sorts of great songs on the Sirius/XM "40's on 4" station that are for all intents and purposes, "retired" and exist only in libraries, personal collections and that one channel. The fact that any song still is around and gets played to the delight of many people says that it still speaks to an audience happy to listen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 But sorry. I just thought it was a funny and relevant article. I didn't realize I was going to piss so many old guys off by having them read somebody harshing on their favorite tunes. Who's pissed off? And who said anything about "favorite tunes"? And, for that matter, who's "old"? Personally, I just don't think the article is very well-written. Tunes can get dated for all sorts of reasons. But for "Light My Fire", for example, Morrison's lyrics and Manzarek's organ playing are why the song ISN'T dated, and why (for example) a 14-year-old hearing the song on the local classic rock station can say "Holy crap, this is actually pretty damn good." So I really have no idea why the author is harshing on those things. Anyone can get sick of anything... but that doesn't make it bad somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 But for "Light My Fire", for example, Morrison's lyrics and Manzarek's organ playing are why the song ISN'T dated, Actually, I thought that song already sounded like old, dated hippie music when I probably first heard it in the mid-70s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Actually, I thought that song already sounded like old, dated hippie music when I probably first heard it in the mid-70s. Apparently there are plenty of people who don't agree, or if they DO agree, they like the song anyway. Which, in a way, would make it even more impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members 3shiftgtr Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Maybe because without the cultural relevance rock music ain't 'all that' to being with? Comparatively, I'd certainly agree. Rock, country, rap and other pop music forms--pretty much by definition-- exist and become popular because of the cultural contexts that surround them. It's pretty hard to separate "Stairway to Heaven" from the image of Led Zeppelin, from the 1970's, and even from that particular recorded version. No reason to argue what constitutes the concept of 'cultural' in historical pop/rock musicology. "Culturality" is the context of any piece of music. Of course you can't separate the two. But people do. I'm not sure there really IS all that much to that song beyond the cultural, is there? No. Of course there isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Apparently there are plenty of people who don't agree, or if they DO agree, they like the song anyway. Obviously. They either LIKE old hippie music or they disagree with me that the song sounds as such. Nothing wrong with either viewpoint, of course. Although I think I'm on pretty solid ground saying that both the style of which the song is played and sung, and ESPECIALLY because of the sound of the organ part, that song SOUNDS like 1967. Probably BECAUSE of The Doors but pretty much anytime I hear a carnival-sounding organ part in the middle of a rock song, I'm taken either right back to 1967 or I think I got caught in the "acid sequence" in the middle of some 1960s/70s counter-culture movie. Just like "Hound Dog" SOUNDS like 1956 and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" SOUNDS like 1991. All great songs (or not, depending on your taste) but certainly all songs that are relics of the time period in which they were recorded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted November 8, 2011 Author Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 No reason to argue what constitutes the concept of 'cultural' in historical pop/rock musicology. "Culturality" is the context of any piece of music. Of course you can't separate the two. And neither did this author that I can read. In fact, I thought it was the fact that he DIDN'T separate the two, and did speak specifically of whatever wonderful musical moments may exist in any of these songs as if they should be cherished separate from whatever it was he found annoying about the songs culturally that got you perturbed in the first place? No. Of course there isn't. Glad we agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rangefinder Posted November 8, 2011 Members Share Posted November 8, 2011 Obviously. They either LIKE old hippie music or they disagree with me that the song sounds as such. Nothing wrong with either viewpoint, of course. Actually, my point was that they can dislike (in general) old hippie music, but like this particular song, because it transcends that genre, which (if anything) makes it worth keeping around, not sending it into retirement. But whatever. I'll stop there in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.