|
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I don't think MJ brought anything genuinely new to any of the areas he worked in. To say MJ transformed pop music is, for me, just a gross exaggeration. |
Well, the same could be told about The Beatles, which you hold so high in regard. I didn't (and still don't) want to get into any kind of discussion, but your exaggerations about how innovative and original The Beatles were (and MJ weren't) made me look up for an old discussion where one highly respected (at least by me) rock enthusiast explained why The Beatles are worshipped more than they deserve to be (and I definitely agree with him):
Discussion is about crtic's Pierro Scaruffi dislike towards The Beatles:
The Beatles were my #1 favorite band a little over a year ago.
I think much of your aversion to Scaruffi's opinions has to do with the fact that you approach music from a very different angle than he does. Scaruffi's childhood musical heroes are classical composers, and classical music has generally been driven by what is new and surprising. Like myself and most music fans, I imagine your music heroes are pop musicians, and pop music has always been driven by what's fun and familiar.
Thus, Scaruffi sees an album like Revolver and sees violins and a sitar used to play common song structures and stolen melodies. "Classical" instruments had been used to back pop musicians for more than a decade already, and The Beatles didn't use a sitar to do anything different than they did with a guitar (simple pop harmonies). The Beatles' way of using violins and a sitar have more in common with "The String Quartet Tribute to U2" than with truly original music. Whatever instrument they're using, The Beatles generally still sang derivative pop songs and doo-wop chorus lines ripped from the 1950s.
The same goes for The Beatles' sparing use of avantgarde techniques, tape loops, etc. They use it as colorful dressing for standard (derivative) pop songs. Meanwhile, The Fugs, Red Crayola, and others were writing long suites of totally unprecedented musical structures, fusions, and techniques. And years earlier, Davy Graham and Sandy Bull had done something truly innovative with the Eastern/Western fusion by stylistically blending folk, blues, jazz and Indian raga. The same year, 1963, Pierre Henry wrote an electronic avantgarde piece that incorporated rock riffs and rhythm. In 1965, Robbie Basho fused raga, jazz, and blues in another way. These are the types of innovations that interest Scaruffi.
And I won't even mention what jazz and classical composers were doing. The aleatoric noise section in "A Day in the Life" is genius? Please. Play some pre-Beatles Ives, Antheil, Cowell, Schoenberg, Webern, Berg, Babbitt, Cage, Varese, Ruggles, Weill, Boulez, Stockhausen, Messiaen, Tristano, Coleman, Coltrane, Mingus, Ayler, and Mitchell and then try to tell me The Beatles were innovative.
There's no doubt that the Beatles are among the most-copied rock artists, but I think Scaruffi measures influence another way. Scaruffi attributes influence to the actual inventors of new structures, fusions, techniques, etc. and not to those who borrowed those ideas and got popular through massive marketing campaigns and catchy tunes.
Are The Tokens geniuses because their 1961 hit "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" was the first pop/rock song to use operatic singing, Neapolitan choir, yodeling, and an electronic instrument? That seems more impressive to me than anything The Beatles ever did, and still not as impressive as the inventions of Davy Graham, Sandy Bull, Pierre Henry, Robbie Basho, all those other artists I mentioned, and a hundred more.
|
