"Blister in the Sun" inquiry

[Vito Corleone]

I would guess we were kinda special because we were just getting musically aware when the beatles hit the us shores.

 

 

Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't think your generation was nearly as special as you want to think it is. Seriously, has there ever been a more self-congratulatory yet ultimately dissappointing generation than the Baby Boomers? OK, yeah there was some good music from that generation, but EVERY generation has had their big artistic talents. And what did the Boomers contribute otherwise to society? Bill Clinton? George W Bush? The sexual revolution? Drug culture? Massive government debt? Wow. Thanks a lot for most of that.

 

Would it have been cool to have The Beatles be on the scene when I was in junior high? I suppose. Then again, I discovered them around the time I was in junior high as well (in addition to a lot of great 70s acts that were around when I was in junior high) so I'm not sure what all I missed out on. Were the Beatles songs better 10 years earlier? No, I'm pretty sure they were the same.

 

And, as we've noted here, you certainly had your share of lame, unmusical, "punk" type acts and songs as well. I mean, if you REALLY think "Louie Louie" is a better song than "Blister", I just really don't know what to tell you. If all you got going for it is that it's better because it came out in 1963 instead of 1983, I just don't see how that means anything.

[TIMKEYS]

Sorry to burst your bubble but I don't think your generation was nearly as special as you want to think it is. Seriously, has there ever been a more self-congratulatory yet ultimately dissappointing generation than the Baby Boomers? OK, yeah there was some good music from that generation, but EVERY generation has had their big artistic talents. And what did the Boomers contribute otherwise to society? Bill Clinton? George W Bush? The sexual revolution? Drug culture? Massive government debt? Wow. Thanks a lot for most of that. Would it have been cool to have The Beatles be on the scene when I was in junior high? I suppose. Then again, I discovered them around the time I was in junior high as well (in addition to a lot of great 70s acts that were around when I was in junior high) so I'm not sure what all I missed out on. Were the Beatles songs better 10 years earlier? No, I'm pretty sure they were the same. And, as we've noted here, you certainly had your share of lame, unmusical, "punk" type acts and songs as well. I mean, if you REALLY think "Louie Louie" is a better song than "Blister", I just really don't know what to tell you. If all you got going for it is that it's better because it came out in 1963 instead of 1983, I just don't see how that means anything.

 

 

Guido ,,, you got the beatles off the second hand shelf. Nothing can compare to turning on the tube and seeing them perform for the first time in the US. dude that is rock and roll history being made. Spin it like you want guy ,,, 64 through 70 was a special time in rock. It was really cool to be as old as i was during those times. There were alot of things then that were not so cool too.

[Hegmatronicon]

 

Guido ,,, you got the beatles off the second hand shelf. Nothing can compare to turning on the tube and seeing them perform for the first time in the US. dude that is rock and roll history being made. Spin it like you want guy ,,, 64 through 70 was a special time in rock. It was really cool to be as old as i was during those times. There were alot of things then that were not so cool too.

 

 

1: I never liked the Beatles. I don't really think their vocal ability is anything to write home about, nor their musicianship for that matter.

2: You see those times as "cool" and "special" because you were young and just discovering all of the music that you are talking about at that time. Think the same thing of a guy that was young and just discovering Metallica and Co at the same age in the 80's. Or Van Halen or..or...or..or....the list goes on. Even as far as being a young hispanic male when Rage Against the Machine first hit the scene. THAT must have been epic.

3: Mick Jagger cant carry a tune to save his life - and yet look how reveered(sp?) that band is.

 

In short - yes - the guy from the V.F isn't a fantastic singer.......i agree.....and it means.................................................absolutely zero. The song is a HUGE hit and has been for a long time.

[samson3382]

 

Music is not as quantifiable as you'd like it to be, and emotional connection trumps technical perfection in most cases. If you don't believe that to be true, you've missed the point of playing music. Brian V.

 

 

Well put. I'm writin that one down.

[tlbonehead]

Would you hire that singer if he showed up at an audition? Sorry I am pretty old school, I think you need to be able to sing on key to be a professional lead singer. The bands songs are amateur and the vocals are worse than amateur. I view that kind of music worse than bottom of the barrel. differnt strokes I guess. The bright side is that most cover bands can peform their stuff better than the original artists. l:facepalm:

you make no sense.

[SeniorBlues]

I think it's the nature of the message. These sorts of songs are all about energy & attitude and are almost always preferred by people who first heard them when they were of a certain (young) age. It really has very little to do with musicality. So if a musician wants to say he won't play a particular song because the vocals aren't up to a certain technical level---I can certainly understand that. But then that also means he'd have to hold ALL songs up to the same standard---INCLUDING the ones that were released when HE was of that certain age, wouldn't you say?

For the most part, yes. BUT . . . . The songs of your youth reflect the culture that spawned them. Like I said, Dylan was not about singing; his message spoke to me so strongly that I was willing to overlook his vocals. As I got older, the changing attitudes of each generation were less and less compelling.

That's not to say that every young musician or listener will accept every emotional outpouring of his/her era. I never did like Louie Louie, although I played it as part of the required repertoire of the day.

Hopefully there is something in a song that makes its shortcomings irrelevant, but don't you think we can (should?) outgrow some of this stuff as we mature? As you grow as a musician, isn't it natural that you would refine your tastes to the point where the emotional content has to be supported by a minimum standard of musicianship to hold your interest?

A lot of this stuff isn't rational.. You grow or not; you can't help it. I cringe when I listen so some piano recordings because they're out of tune.

[Vito Corleone]

Hopefully there is something in a song that makes its shortcomings irrelevant, but don't you think we can (should?) outgrow some of this stuff as we mature?

 

 

Oh absolutely. Do I still listen to the rebelious songs of my youth? No. I've outgrown them. But I still harbor a soft spot for them and break a little smile when one comes on the radio. I think we probably all do that.

 

Which is my only point here. We've ALL got these songs from our youth whether it's Louie Louie or Dylan or the Ramones or the Violent Femmes or whoever. I think we all can understand the appeal of these songs to different people because we've all got our own 'guilty pleasures' from our youth. If we can understand the reasons why we dismissed sub-standard musicianship in the songs of OUR youth, I don't see why it's so hard to understand the appeal of similar songs from other eras.

[SeniorBlues]

Oh absolutely. Do I still listen to the rebelious songs of my youth? No. I've outgrown them. But I still harbor a soft spot for them and break a little smile when one comes on the radio. I think we probably all do that. Which is my only point here. We've ALL got these songs from our youth whether it's Louie Louie or Dylan or the Ramones or the Violent Femmes or whoever. I think we all can understand the appeal of these songs to different people because we've all got our own 'guilty pleasures' from our youth. If we can understand the reasons why we dismissed sub-standard musicianship in the songs of OUR youth, I don't see why it's so hard to understand the appeal of similar songs from other eras.

 

 

As you get older, hopefully you see ALL those songs - any era - for what they are/were. . . . LCD cultural emotional garbage. There's a world of difference between the lyrics in Louie Louie and Dylan, so I don't see how you could include him in your list.

 

I don't smile when I hear Louie Louie. Never did.

 

Keep in mind that a lot of people grow up with an appreciation for music that doesn't include top forty 13-year-old girl hits. They're probably a minority, and it isn't a black and white accept or reject R&R kind of thing, but it is possible to be somewhat discriminating at any age, especially if you've been lucky enough to have been exposed to other kinds of music, both as a listener and as a music student.

[Vito Corleone]

As you get older, hopefully you see ALL those songs - any era - for what they are/were. . . . LCD cultural emotional garbage.

 

 

Agreed. My only disagreement in this thread is with those who see those songs from THEIR youth as somehow different and special.

 

That's what the NON-musicians do. (And which is why we all still play so many of those songs for different audiences.) But that's fine, because I expect that from non-musicians. What baffles me here are the MUSICIANS who don't seem to understand that, at their core, these sorts of songs are really all the same.

 

 

There's a world of difference between the lyrics in Louie Louie and Dylan, so I don't see how you could include him in your list.

 

 

Well, Dylan got included in the list when the topic was about dismissing a song/band because the singer wasn't technically any good. But none of these "lists" are concrete. Every artist is different. I included The Clash as well, but many would argue that their lyrical content brought them a step above many other "raw" acts as well. It's really all just an individual thing of what resonates with a person.

 

Some would argue Dylan is such a poor player and singer that he should have simply been a songwriter for others. Others would argue that his lack of performance skills helped sell his lyrics better than a more polished performer would have been able to do. If one believes the latter, then he's probably on the list for a good reason.

 

 

Keep in mind that a lot of people grow up with an appreciation for music that doesn't include top forty 13-year-old girl hits.

True. But once you start adding in the people whose appreciation include rebelious punk or street hip/hop or country-western or every other form of simple "LCD" music, that minority becomes quite small indeed.

[Vito Corleone]

I don't smile when I hear Louie Louie. Never did.

 

And that's cool. But the only reason I even dragged "Louie Louie" into the thread was as an attempt to get Tim to understand the appeal of "Blister" and the good reason many bands play it. That if he could relate to a simple, poorly performed hit from HIS youth, then he'd be able to understand the appeal of "Blister" to others and why refusing to perform it simply because of the quality of the original vocal perfomance might be hypocritical.

 

Instead, all I got was arguments for either why "Louie" WASN'T an equally poorly-performed song, or excuses for why it was acceptible for "Louie" to be poorly performed while songs from later eras shouldn't get that same pass.

 

Nonsense from anyone who actually understands music, IMO.

[kmart]

The biggest thing I think that fueled punk was guys quit getting involved in school music programs. Thats not my theory , but the one of our old drummer from back in the day who spent a whole career as a high school band director.

Wow, birds of a feather, I guess: your old drummer missed the mark about this general concept as much as you do, as amazing as that is.

I seriously am challenged by the concept of ANY human being being so categorically incapable of 'getting' something.

Comprehension fail of epic proportions.




Well, at least I get it 100% now:
You.
Don't.
Want.
To.
Understand.
And.
Never.
Will.

[Lee Knight]

TIMKEYS and Seniorblues,

It doesn't surprise me you guys are both keyboardists. No notes in them cracks, huh? Do you like Monk? How about Prepared Piano? How about the Wurly solos by the NRBQ guy where he only uses his fist? Jerry Lee? Richard Penniman? How about transistor organs that sound like bee attacks?

Ugly can be beautiful. There are so many types of music I rejected on "traditional" standards as a preteen, only to later embrace them. Then in my 20's rejecting something only to hear it differently at a later decade. The music was the same and somehow I heard it differently 10 years later. I'm 51 now by the way. What changed?

Me.

I had a hard time hearing a flatted 3rd early rock solo against a major chord when I was young. I preferred Peter Paul and Mary to Dylan. I wished Jimi didn't make all that racket when I was a kid. Coltrane?!?!? Please! But not for long...

Until we can see the beauty in edgy, outside, even questionable art. Art that challenges our rigid sensibilities about what constitutes "good music", we'll remain fairly milquetoast in our own output.

Damn it! Why can't those old blues guys play in tune and sing without all that stupid shouting!? Pat Boone or Little Richard?

You don't have to like it, but to stick by your guns that something that other musicians are seeing something in, is crap... that's pretty self centric. Just maybe? Just maybe... people that like what you don't actually do know what they're talking about and do hear something you don't.

Just maybe...

[kmart]

Unpossible.

[TrickyBoy]

TIMKEYS and Seniorblues, It doesn't surprise me you guys are both keyboardists. No notes in them cracks, huh? Do you like Monk? How about Prepared Piano? How about the Wurly solos by the NRBQ guy where he only uses his fist? Jerry Lee? Richard Penniman? How about transistor organs that sound like bee attacks? Ugly can be beautiful. There are so many types of music I rejected on "traditional" standards as a preteen, only to later embrace them. Then in my 20's rejecting something only to hear it differently at a later decade. The music was the same and somehow I heard it differently 10 years later. I'm 51 now by the way. What changed? Me. I had a hard time hearing a flatted 3rd early rock solo against a major chord when I was young. I preferred Peter Paul and Mary to Dylan. I wished Jimi didn't make all that racket when I was a kid. Coltrane?!?!? Please! But not for long... Until we can see the beauty in edgy, outside, even questionable art. Art that challenges our rigid sensibilities about what constitutes "good music", we'll remain fairly milquetoast in our own output. Damn it! Why can't those old blues guys play in tune and sing without all that stupid shouting!? Pat Boone or Little Richard? You don't have to like it, but to stick by your guns that something that other musicians are seeing something in, is crap... that's pretty self centric. Just maybe? Just maybe... people that like what you don't actually do know what they're talking about and do hear something you don't. Just maybe...

Excellent post :thu:

I look at some of my favorite singers - David Lee Roth, Bon Scott, Brian Johnson - none of them can sing for a lick. Interestingly, I've come to the conclusion that good singing alone does very little for me. I struggle listening to Queen because I can't stand Freddie Mercury's voice. I can't stomach the singers on "Glee". American Idol tends to be really good singers that do nothing for me. I've never understood the allure of the Beatles. What can I say, I'd rather listen to Mick Jagger

As I said earlier, I love that first Violent Femmes album. "Good Feelings" is a song that I've always found beautiful - yeah I know, dude can't sing a lick, but somehow it works.

[BATCAT]

As you grow as a musician, isn't it natural that you would refine your tastes to the point where the emotional content has to be supported by a minimum standard of musicianship to hold your interest?

I'm going on 20 years making music and I'm less interested in holding anything to a "minimum standard of musicianship" than I ever have been.

[Vito Corleone]

I'm going on 20 years making music and I'm less interested in holding anything to a "minimum standard of musicianship" than I ever have been.

If anything, I've learned that "less is more" as I've gotten older. When I was younger I thought it was important to show off my chops, play music that was complicated, and be a snob about music I thought was "beneath me". As I've matured I've learned that many times it's more about what you can do with the simple stuff that separates the men from the boys in the field of live performance.

[BATCAT]

If anything, I've learned that "less is more" as I've gotten older. When I was younger I thought it was important to show off my chops, play music that was complicated, and be a snob about music I thought was "beneath me". As I've matured I've learned that many times it's more about what you can do with the simple stuff that separates the men from the boys in the field of live performance.

Either something works, or it doesn't.

Rush could write a good song- so could the Ramones. It makes me laugh how that seems to make some people come unglued. But the truth is there's nothing more boring or masturbatory than musicians talking about how they can't appreciate a good song because the performance isn't up to some standard in their head. It's rock music, for God's sake. Who cares what musicians think? When musicians make music to impress other musicians it sucks.

[TIMKEYS]

Excellent post :thu: I look at some of my favorite singers - David Lee Roth, Bon Scott, Brian Johnson - none of them can sing for a lick. Interestingly, I've come to the conclusion that good singing alone does very little for me. I struggle listening to Queen because I can't stand Freddie Mercury's voice. I can't stomach the singers on "Glee". American Idol tends to be really good singers that do nothing for me. I've never understood the allure of the Beatles. What can I say, I'd rather listen to Mick Jagger As I said earlier, I love that first Violent Femmes album. "Good Feelings" is a song that I've always found beautiful - yeah I know, dude can't sing a lick, but somehow it works.

You are missing the point ,,, off pitch is off pitch. Trust me , if your lead singer sang flat and was off pitch , you would pack her ass down the road. dont get style and totally off pitch confused.

[Vito Corleone]

When musicians make music to impress other musicians it sucks.

Not only that but the crowds are usually very small.

[SeniorBlues]

I'm going on 20 years making music and I'm less interested in holding anything to a "minimum standard of musicianship" than I ever have been.

 

"Minimum standards" is admittedly a vague term, but to my ear, there is clearly a lot of pop music written to appeal to the LCD crowd. Some I hear as competent but boring. Other stuff is just noise played by characters who have a certain charisma but obviously no musical training. Their "art", from a technical standpoint, is nothing more than an expression of their extremely limited musical palette. Does my rejection of much of pop culture make me a snob?

 

Maybe. Years ago, I liked Paisano red wine. Then a friend served me some much better stuff, and now Paisano tastes awful.

 

You can't go back.

[Vito Corleone]

You are missing the point ,,, off pitch is off pitch. Trust me , if your lead singer sang flat and was off pitch , you would pack her ass down the road. dont get style and totally off pitch confused.

 

 

No, I think you're missing the point. In a cover band where you need a singer that can handle a variety of styles and material? Yes, of course you hire the best singer possible. No such cover band would hire Gordon Gano or Bob Dylan or Jack Ely. But those guys didn't make their mark as being great singers or being in cover bands. They made their mark using unique vocal stylings that ended up (either by luck or by plan) to be perfect for the songs THEY were singing.

 

There are no doubt all sorts of very good and valid reasons why any particular cover band would choose--or not choose--to play "Blister" or "Louie" or "Rainy Day Women 12 & 35". But to not do so because the original singers on those songs weren't technically good singers would be just plain stupid.

[Vito Corleone]

Years ago, I liked Paisano red wine. Then a friend served me some much better stuff, and now Paisano tastes awful. You can't go back.

 

 

So if you own a wine shop, do you take Paisano off the shelf?

[BATCAT]

Maybe. Years ago, I liked Paisano red wine. Then a friend served me some much better stuff, and now Paisano tastes awful. You can't go back.

 

 

I dunno, I think you can. For a similar boozy analogy: I will drop 20 bucks on a sixer of Stone Ruination and love it, but last night while grilling I was drinking {censored}ty lager from the can and it just seemed right.

 

I feel pretty strongly that if rock music was made chiefly for the purpose of musical excellence, we'd all be much worse off for it.

[pickinatit]

The group you posted didnt put louie louie on the map. It was recorded by lots of bands. these were the guys that had the hit with it,, that caused all the stir. http://www.bing.com/videos/watch/video/louie-louie-the-kingsmen/5d919f4fc48cc4b1de9d5d919f4fc48cc4b1de9d-995183232316?q=youtube+louie+louie&FORM=VIRE1

 

 

...and were the inspiration/instigation for :love:The Sunn Musical Equipment Company:love:. God bless them!!!

[SeniorBlues]

TIMKEYS and Seniorblues, It doesn't surprise me you guys are both keyboardists. No notes in them cracks, huh? Do you like Monk? How about Prepared Piano? How about the Wurly solos by the NRBQ guy where he only uses his fist? Jerry Lee? Richard Penniman? How about transistor organs that sound like bee attacks? Ugly can be beautiful. There are so many types of music I rejected on "traditional" standards as a preteen, only to later embrace them. Then in my 20's rejecting something only to hear it differently at a later decade. The music was the same and somehow I heard it differently 10 years later. I'm 51 now by the way. What changed? Me. I had a hard time hearing a flatted 3rd early rock solo against a major chord when I was young. I preferred Peter Paul and Mary to Dylan. I wished Jimi didn't make all that racket when I was a kid. Coltrane?!?!? Please! But not for long... Until we can see the beauty in edgy, outside, even questionable art. Art that challenges our rigid sensibilities about what constitutes "good music", we'll remain fairly milquetoast in our own output. Damn it! Why can't those old blues guys play in tune and sing without all that stupid shouting!? Pat Boone or Little Richard? You don't have to like it, but to stick by your guns that something that other musicians are seeing something in, is crap... that's pretty self centric. Just maybe? Just maybe... people that like what you don't actually do know what they're talking about and do hear something you don't. Just maybe...

 

I'm not sure I understand your post . . . or that you understand what turns me on musically. I'm pretty sure I'm more open minded about music than most - musicians or lay people. Are you imaging that I don't like Monk? Does he have relatively less training than Bill Evans? Yes. Does he know what he's doing? Yes. Has he written some wonderful songs that are now considered standards? Absolutely.

 

That's not a bad benchmark. If you can write songs that other musicians in other genres want to cover, you're legit.

 

Please don't romanticize the Farfisa. It's all that was available for a while. I know from experience - you really don't want to play a four hour gig on one if you have other options.

 

Back to Monk . . . and jazz in general. Are we encouraging dissonance and the unfamiliar in this discussion. . . . or the more easily accessible pop gimmicks.