Neat post.
Two brief observations:
1. the defined popular culture and press diktat also has the opposite effect -by driving some to the outer reaches in search of something better, and also generating new 'underground' styles as a reaction to the status quo.
Agreed. Although the search for something better needs to be mindful that not everything chart or mainstream is mediocre. My own experience of paying attention to the top forty when I was younger, concluded for me that most records in it weren't great but some gems would come through too.
2. those who create music lists usually don't really fit into 'history is made by the winner'. I'd suggest more lists and discussions are generated by niches than mainstream music, whatever the genre. You don't often get mainstream geeks (and that is not a criticism or flip statement). Other than 'fans' of course.
Quite possibly you are right on both counts regarding your second sentence of point #2. I'm not against lists; I feel they are useful when they are recommendations from a writer who's opinion you trust or who's taste you have an affinity for but I feel all those 'best' lists that pop up instantly after a web search tend to be derivative, composite lists, assembled from the suggestions of a group or unnamed contributors and often very similar to previous lists and musically blinkered.
Many genres make a rich tapestry but genres are not all as big or as important as each other and they come and go anyway. I don't just look at the charts to assess quality.
No I wasn't suggesting you would only consider the charts (I just felt that your post contained a good selection of points I wanted to respond to) but attempting to assess 'pop's greatest year' generally has people going on chart singles to illustrate their point.
A history of Northern Soul will have its development timeline and its list of best and worst works just like any other genre. But a history of one genre would not be a history of popular music.
I was saying that a Northern Soul fan would definitely rate 1966 as a great year for music but it wouldn't be because of the recordings cited by most people who would champion that particular year (Beatles/Stones etc.). What I'm getting at is this: who's to say that a few Beatles singles (or whatever) are better than a handful of little known soul obscurities from the same year? These matters are always subjective. A record such as "Tainted Love" by Gloria Jones (1964) which is now regarded as a classic wouldn't have been highly thought of before c. 1973 (when Richard Searling started playing it) because most people in the UK had probably never heard it. And without him bringing it back from a buying trip to the states Marc Almond wouldn't have heard it, Gloria Jones wouldn't have re-recorded it and Marilyn Manson wouldn't have got to hear the Soft Cell version.
I like the way things can be awkward to categorise or defy categorisation because much of this critical assessment is used for dubious purposes such as declaring things 'the best of all time'. All these tracks are recorded to make the labels and artists and producers money and to entertain their audience, not to be ranked and (no pun intended) played off against each other.
Aesthetic judgement isn't as certain as much scientific measurement but because there is a subjective element but that doesn't mean it is impossible to identify quality in pop music. You just need to get some collective agreement.
Practically any music scene has some collective agreement but the loudest, most sponsored (Rolling Stone magazine etc.) or most promoted collective agreement tends to win - win when there wasn't actually a competition to win. No one can prove that the music they love is superior to the music someone else connects with. Critics will pass their judgement on music they are required to assess by their employers, or sometimes that which they discover by themselves but if they want to deal in absolutes ('best' lists rather than more realistic 'recommended listening') then they need to hear practically everything and also have very broad taste.
Part of the magic of pop music is the rediscovery and reassessment of music from the past (like Slint, or Big Star or the Velvettes) which maybe didn't sell as much as other music but turns out to endure and/or to influence later artists. There's a whole thread on the 60s here which attempts to do that.
Well you start with a theoretical idea and then you need to evidence it. The best evidence being the musical works themselves. There's lots of serious critical work on pop music which attempts to do this and it is not limited to the popular media (see the 33 and a third series on individual albums, for example).
I was totally unaware of that series you mention so I decided to have a look to find out more as I feel that's only fair. Now, I will confess that I have done this with a cynical mindset and I'll explain why - these are books about specific albums. What is the chance of a publisher issuing an entire volume devoted to an obscure album? Very slim I'd have thought. Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33%E2%85%93
These are books about really well known, critically acclaimed albums and of course, they would be! Each book deals with a single album and the objective is to sell copies, probably to people buying into the old 'these are albums people should own' scenario. Many of the sales will be to people who already own the albums in question and want to read their story behind them. I won't hold my breath for volumes on albums by Bob Andy or Cleveland Watkiss or Doris Duke or Baby Huey or Lee Moses or Barry Brown or Betty Roché or MC Solaar or Lorez Alexandria or Celia Cruz or Thomas Mapfumo or Franco or the Heptones or Gal Costa or Jan Garbarek or Mal Waldron or Abbey Lincoln or Julius Hemphill or Defunkt or Matthew Shipp or Fontella Bass or Sam Mangwana or all the musicians who make music I'm not familar with and whose names don't ring a bell. The publishers describe this as "remarkable" and "rock journalism". Yes, I'd agree it's very typical of rock journalism i.e. the problem with its dominance over any other music journalism but it sounds far from remarkable to me and the selection is mostly safe as houses.
It's also not true to say that music has not always been seen as an art form (i.e. we don't have to go back to the earliest times). Art and music were mainly seen as crafts before they were seen as art. The idea of personal expression in music and art is a relatively recent idea. Also pop music was not taking seriously as an art form until some of those Rolling Stone music critics etc. that you don't love suggested that it might be.
I don't really mind whether people want to call it art or craft. Those that appreciate it will go on appreciating regardless. Certainly, popular music was taken very seriously by many people before the 1960's and before Rolling Stone magazine existed.
I was saying that a Northern Soul fan would definitely rate 1966 as a great year for music but it wouldn't be because of the recordings cited by most people who would champion that particular year (Beatles/Stones etc.). What I'm getting at is this: who's to say that a few Beatles singles (or whatever) are better than a handful of little known soul obscurities from the same year? These matters are always subjective. A record such as "Tainted Love" by Gloria Jones (1964) which is now regarded as a classic wouldn't have been highly thought of before c. 1973 (when Richard Searling started playing it) because most people in the UK had probably never heard it. And without him bringing it back from a buying trip to the states Marc Almond wouldn't have heard it, Gloria Jones wouldn't have re-recorded it and Marilyn Manson wouldn't have got to hear the Soft Cell version.
This is the thing, you can't say assessing quality is entirely subjective and then say something is critically acclaimed. Critical acclaim means some form of collective, agreed judgement by at least a few people and assessing that some music is good is therefore not entirely subjective.
I like the way things can be awkward to categorise or defy categorisation because much of this critical assessment is used for dubious purposes such as declaring things 'the best of all time'. All these tracks are recorded to make the labels and artists and producers money and to entertain their audience, not to be ranked and (no pun intended) played off against each other.
In one sense what you are describing is one model of how the music biz works but it doesn't fully describe why and how people make music. Declaring certain works the best of all time applies in other art forms like literature, film and visual arts, it might better described as establishing the canon of important works rather than the ten best of all time but that is a style thing.
Practically any music scene has some collective agreement but the loudest, most sponsored (Rolling Stone magazine etc.) or most promoted collective agreement tends to win - win when there wasn't actually a competition to win. No one can prove that the music they love is superior to the music someone else connects with. Critics will pass their judgement on music they are required to assess by their employers, or sometimes that which they discover by themselves but if they want to deal in absolutes ('best' lists rather than more realistic 'recommended listening') then they need to hear practically everything and also have very broad taste.
I accept the crudeness of best of lists but the recommended listings are part of that process which means an album or artist eventually gains critical acclaim. I don't fully understand why those who listen to pop music feel that quality is such a subjective idea, substitute essential listening list for best of the 60s and does it work for you?
I was totally unaware of that series you mention so I decided to have a look to find out more as I feel that's only fair. Now, I will confess that I have done this with a cynical mindset and I'll explain why - these are books about specific albums. What is the chance of a publisher issuing an entire volume devoted to an obscure album? Very slim I'd have thought. Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33%E2%85%93
The chances are dependent on the ability of the author to make the right pitch.
Yes, there are expected returns but there is no fixed style to these books apart from making a case of why the album is important. In some cases the music is the starting point for the author's own artistic experience.
These are books about really well known, critically acclaimed albums and of course, they would be! Each book deals with a single album and the objective is to sell copies, probably to people buying into the old 'these are albums people should own' scenario. Many of the sales will be to people who already own the albums in question and want to read their story behind them. I won't hold my breath for volumes on albums by Bob Andy or Cleveland Watkiss or Doris Duke or Baby Huey or Lee Moses or Barry Brown or Betty Roché or MC Solaar or Lorez Alexandria or Celia Cruz or Thomas Mapfumo or Franco or the Heptones or Gal Costa or Jan Garbarek or Mal Waldron or Abbey Lincoln or Julius Hemphill or Defunkt or Matthew Shipp or Fontella Bass or Sam Mangwana or all the musicians who make music I'm not familar with and whose names don't ring a bell. The publishers describe this as "remarkable" and "rock journalism". Yes, I'd agree it's very typical of rock journalism i.e. the problem with its dominance over any other music journalism but it sounds far from remarkable to me and the selection is mostly safe as houses.
If you believe in the value of these artists or any of their music, then make the case for them.
I don't really mind whether people want to call it art or craft. Those that appreciate it will go on appreciating regardless. Certainly, popular music was taken very seriously by many people before the 1960's and before Rolling Stone magazine existed.
Modern music journalism didn't really start until about 1964, partly for the reasons that you suggest that 'critics' were too much in the hands of music companies. The quality papers did not take pop music seriously until the late 60s, until they realised the quality of music of The Beatles, Dylan and the like.
Music writing in the right hands can be an art form in itself.
This is the thing, you can't say assessing quality is entirely subjective and then say something is critically acclaimed. Critical acclaim means some form of collective, agreed judgement by at least a few people and assessing that some music is good is therefore not entirely subjective.
Yes, that does seem to be a massive discrepancy. What I'd say in response is that because taste is subjective, different people or groups of people will have different music which they will acclaim and the larger groups tend to win. If the record I mentioned from 1964 (Tainted Love) is regarded by some as a classic (and this is the case), then it presents a problem for those who attempt to declare what is best in a given year because most who hold it in high regard (and indeed those who don't) probably didn't hear it until long after the fact. It's just a solitary example to illustrate what I believe is the pointlessness in creating musical hierarchies - regardless of what your particular 'thing' is there will always be records that you'd probably rate highly which you've never even got to hear.
In one sense what you are describing is one model of how the music biz works but it doesn't fully describe why and how people make music. Declaring certain works the best of all time applies in other art forms like literature, film and visual arts, it might better described as establishing the canon of important works rather than the ten best of all time but that is a style thing.
Even "establishing the canon of important works" could potentially be seen as quite presumptuous or arrogant or biased if only one person contributes to the selection. A record could be prized among those who follow that genre but largely unknown to wider audiences and therefore may not have been especially influential on other recording artists but if or when the critics may get to hear it they could all be raving about it.
I accept the crudeness of best of lists but the recommended listings are part of that process which means an album or artist eventually gains critical acclaim. I don't fully understand why those who listen to pop music feel that quality is such a subjective idea, substitute essential listening list for best of the 60s and does it work for you?
I didn't quite get your last point - maybe there is a word missing such as 'films'? I suppose pop music fans like to consider music appreciation as subjective because their own tastes are often being knocked by those they would see a music snobs. I tend to use 'popular music' (meaning pretty much all except classical) rather than 'pop' because of the negative connotations other associated with modern pop.
With popular music, generally what I like falls into a genre rather than being just 'pop'. Genre tends to add gravitas in music whereas in literature I think the opposite can be true.
The chances are dependent on the ability of the author to make the right pitch.
Yes, there are expected returns but there is no fixed style to these books apart from making a case of why the album is important. In some cases the music is the starting point for the author's own artistic experience.
I suppose I'd rather disingenuously say that mostly they were considered important before the authors made a case for their importance. I'd find it more refreshing to see a case being made for a much less predictable selection. I'd feel quite confident in drawing up a list of albums they might add to the series and albums that they almost certainly wouldn't - and in the latter case, not because of any lack of merit. (In my rather subjective opinion of course ;-) )
If you believe in the value of these artists or any of their music, then make the case for them.
I'm no writer. I would honestly say that the artists make the better statement themselves through their music. (Not meaning to cop out there by the way - I can and do recommend music to people but i'd usually base it upon what I know they already appreciate).
Modern music journalism didn't really start until about 1964, partly for the reasons that you suggest that 'critics' were too much in the hands of music companies. The quality papers did not take pop music seriously until the late 60s, until they realised the quality of music of The Beatles, Dylan and the like.
Music writing in the right hands can be an art form in itself.
I don't read old music press from before my time but when you wrote 1964 I immediately thought of Downbeat the jazz and blues magazine which (as I've just checked) started in 1934. Downbeat ratings and quotations from reviews were often added to album sleeves.
I guess it may depend on whether one considers The Beatles, Bob Dylan et al as the beginning of pop music or not. I wouldn't say that I BELIEVE what happened in the 60's was not the origin of pop - I would happily state that I KNOW it wasn't.
I guess it may depend on whether one considers The Beatles, Bob Dylan et al as the beginning of pop music or not. I wouldn't say that I BELIEVE what happened in the 60's was not the origin of pop - I would happily state that I KNOW it wasn't.
id suggest it was the start of modern pop music as we know it, id also suggest the beatles were largely responsible for that.
id suggest it was the start of modern pop music as we know it, id also suggest the beatles were largely responsible for that.
Popular music as opposed to art/classical music goes back to the late 19th century and is associated with Tin Pan Alley in the US and Victorian Music hall in the UK Popular Music papers didn't start until the 1920s (Melody Maker) . NME was early 50s. Melody maker was mainly about jazz until the 60s. These mags introduced charts to the scene and they were mainly concerned like many here with the workings of the business.
It is only with The Beatles/Stones/Dylan in the 60s that you get the idea that popular music is an art form not only worth writing about as music and words but also within it's social and cultural context. It's only later in the 70s/80s you start getting pop music courses at universities. Pop music wasn't taking seriously until then. The Beatles and Dylan were the catalysts for all this.
Modern music journalism didn't really start until about 1964, partly for the reasons that you suggest that 'critics' were too much in the hands of music companies. The quality papers did not take pop music seriously until the late 60s,
I'd just point out that we're talking popular music journalism here. Classical music journalism has been of an academic bent since year dot, and jazz of a more professional style for much of it's history too.
Music writing in the right hands can be an art form in itself.
Of course - I'm sure it's hardly needed to point out Lester Bangs, Peter Guralnick, Chris Welch, Ray Coleman, Charles Shaar Murray, Mick Farren, Nick Kent ... the list is endless.
Oh, and the fiercest critic and least in the pocket of any of the industry of all in his day - J. Edward Oliver ;-)
Germany's Beat Club was released by Radio Bremen (ARD Video) onto DVD, every episode apart from 13 which was thought lost but discovered a few years back.
That 1966 Walker Brothers TOTP clip shown by the BBC in 2012 on TOTP2 was from that 2" Ampex reel.
Needless to say the BBC didn't have the intelligence or the foresight to archive TOTP episodes.
Comments
I remember Johnnie Walker saying 1966 was his favourite year for music, some years ago, interested to know if he still feels the same.
Quite possibly you are right on both counts regarding your second sentence of point #2. I'm not against lists; I feel they are useful when they are recommendations from a writer who's opinion you trust or who's taste you have an affinity for but I feel all those 'best' lists that pop up instantly after a web search tend to be derivative, composite lists, assembled from the suggestions of a group or unnamed contributors and often very similar to previous lists and musically blinkered.
I was saying that a Northern Soul fan would definitely rate 1966 as a great year for music but it wouldn't be because of the recordings cited by most people who would champion that particular year (Beatles/Stones etc.). What I'm getting at is this: who's to say that a few Beatles singles (or whatever) are better than a handful of little known soul obscurities from the same year? These matters are always subjective. A record such as "Tainted Love" by Gloria Jones (1964) which is now regarded as a classic wouldn't have been highly thought of before c. 1973 (when Richard Searling started playing it) because most people in the UK had probably never heard it. And without him bringing it back from a buying trip to the states Marc Almond wouldn't have heard it, Gloria Jones wouldn't have re-recorded it and Marilyn Manson wouldn't have got to hear the Soft Cell version.
I like the way things can be awkward to categorise or defy categorisation because much of this critical assessment is used for dubious purposes such as declaring things 'the best of all time'. All these tracks are recorded to make the labels and artists and producers money and to entertain their audience, not to be ranked and (no pun intended) played off against each other.
Practically any music scene has some collective agreement but the loudest, most sponsored (Rolling Stone magazine etc.) or most promoted collective agreement tends to win - win when there wasn't actually a competition to win. No one can prove that the music they love is superior to the music someone else connects with. Critics will pass their judgement on music they are required to assess by their employers, or sometimes that which they discover by themselves but if they want to deal in absolutes ('best' lists rather than more realistic 'recommended listening') then they need to hear practically everything and also have very broad taste.
I was totally unaware of that series you mention so I decided to have a look to find out more as I feel that's only fair. Now, I will confess that I have done this with a cynical mindset and I'll explain why - these are books about specific albums. What is the chance of a publisher issuing an entire volume devoted to an obscure album? Very slim I'd have thought. Here's the list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/33%E2%85%93
These are books about really well known, critically acclaimed albums and of course, they would be! Each book deals with a single album and the objective is to sell copies, probably to people buying into the old 'these are albums people should own' scenario. Many of the sales will be to people who already own the albums in question and want to read their story behind them. I won't hold my breath for volumes on albums by Bob Andy or Cleveland Watkiss or Doris Duke or Baby Huey or Lee Moses or Barry Brown or Betty Roché or MC Solaar or Lorez Alexandria or Celia Cruz or Thomas Mapfumo or Franco or the Heptones or Gal Costa or Jan Garbarek or Mal Waldron or Abbey Lincoln or Julius Hemphill or Defunkt or Matthew Shipp or Fontella Bass or Sam Mangwana or all the musicians who make music I'm not familar with and whose names don't ring a bell. The publishers describe this as "remarkable" and "rock journalism". Yes, I'd agree it's very typical of rock journalism i.e. the problem with its dominance over any other music journalism but it sounds far from remarkable to me and the selection is mostly safe as houses.
I don't really mind whether people want to call it art or craft. Those that appreciate it will go on appreciating regardless. Certainly, popular music was taken very seriously by many people before the 1960's and before Rolling Stone magazine existed.
This is the thing, you can't say assessing quality is entirely subjective and then say something is critically acclaimed. Critical acclaim means some form of collective, agreed judgement by at least a few people and assessing that some music is good is therefore not entirely subjective.
In one sense what you are describing is one model of how the music biz works but it doesn't fully describe why and how people make music. Declaring certain works the best of all time applies in other art forms like literature, film and visual arts, it might better described as establishing the canon of important works rather than the ten best of all time but that is a style thing.
I accept the crudeness of best of lists but the recommended listings are part of that process which means an album or artist eventually gains critical acclaim. I don't fully understand why those who listen to pop music feel that quality is such a subjective idea, substitute essential listening list for best of the 60s and does it work for you?
The chances are dependent on the ability of the author to make the right pitch.
Yes, there are expected returns but there is no fixed style to these books apart from making a case of why the album is important. In some cases the music is the starting point for the author's own artistic experience.
If you believe in the value of these artists or any of their music, then make the case for them.
Modern music journalism didn't really start until about 1964, partly for the reasons that you suggest that 'critics' were too much in the hands of music companies. The quality papers did not take pop music seriously until the late 60s, until they realised the quality of music of The Beatles, Dylan and the like.
Music writing in the right hands can be an art form in itself.
Even "establishing the canon of important works" could potentially be seen as quite presumptuous or arrogant or biased if only one person contributes to the selection. A record could be prized among those who follow that genre but largely unknown to wider audiences and therefore may not have been especially influential on other recording artists but if or when the critics may get to hear it they could all be raving about it.
I didn't quite get your last point - maybe there is a word missing such as 'films'? I suppose pop music fans like to consider music appreciation as subjective because their own tastes are often being knocked by those they would see a music snobs. I tend to use 'popular music' (meaning pretty much all except classical) rather than 'pop' because of the negative connotations other associated with modern pop.
With popular music, generally what I like falls into a genre rather than being just 'pop'. Genre tends to add gravitas in music whereas in literature I think the opposite can be true.
I suppose I'd rather disingenuously say that mostly they were considered important before the authors made a case for their importance. I'd find it more refreshing to see a case being made for a much less predictable selection. I'd feel quite confident in drawing up a list of albums they might add to the series and albums that they almost certainly wouldn't - and in the latter case, not because of any lack of merit. (In my rather subjective opinion of course ;-) )
I'm no writer. I would honestly say that the artists make the better statement themselves through their music. (Not meaning to cop out there by the way - I can and do recommend music to people but i'd usually base it upon what I know they already appreciate).
I don't read old music press from before my time but when you wrote 1964 I immediately thought of Downbeat the jazz and blues magazine which (as I've just checked) started in 1934. Downbeat ratings and quotations from reviews were often added to album sleeves.
I guess it may depend on whether one considers The Beatles, Bob Dylan et al as the beginning of pop music or not. I wouldn't say that I BELIEVE what happened in the 60's was not the origin of pop - I would happily state that I KNOW it wasn't.
id suggest it was the start of modern pop music as we know it, id also suggest the beatles were largely responsible for that.
Popular music as opposed to art/classical music goes back to the late 19th century and is associated with Tin Pan Alley in the US and Victorian Music hall in the UK Popular Music papers didn't start until the 1920s (Melody Maker) . NME was early 50s. Melody maker was mainly about jazz until the 60s. These mags introduced charts to the scene and they were mainly concerned like many here with the workings of the business.
It is only with The Beatles/Stones/Dylan in the 60s that you get the idea that popular music is an art form not only worth writing about as music and words but also within it's social and cultural context. It's only later in the 70s/80s you start getting pop music courses at universities. Pop music wasn't taking seriously until then. The Beatles and Dylan were the catalysts for all this.
Of course - I'm sure it's hardly needed to point out Lester Bangs, Peter Guralnick, Chris Welch, Ray Coleman, Charles Shaar Murray, Mick Farren, Nick Kent ... the list is endless.
Oh, and the fiercest critic and least in the pocket of any of the industry of all in his day - J. Edward Oliver ;-)
Germany's Beat Club was released by Radio Bremen (ARD Video) onto DVD, every episode apart from 13 which was thought lost but discovered a few years back.
That 1966 Walker Brothers TOTP clip shown by the BBC in 2012 on TOTP2 was from that 2" Ampex reel.
Needless to say the BBC didn't have the intelligence or the foresight to archive TOTP episodes.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTUhGlH8OS4