Guilty Pleasures
Posted by: Todd A on 19 October 2000
While I don’t expect anyone to actually enjoy those two artists, I am confident that every single one of you out there has at least a couple of pieces of music that you enjoy that you don’t generally talk or write about. I write this because I get the distinct impression from the musical threads and other threads that forum members generally place a premium on originality and quality. That, by default, eliminates most of the over-hyped pop / rock and “smooth” jazz garbage out there, and results in a higher-than-mass-market rate of classical, jazz, and underground music consumption.
My guilty pleasures include a little Enja, Boney James, Madonna (Ray of Light – an enjoyable piece of pop blah), and, Oh Lord have mercy, Bon Jovi (a little of the crap from the ‘80s no less!). There are a few others, but my shame is great enough as is.
(PS – I don’t know if one of these threads existed on the old forum.)
How about :
Genesis
Pink Floyd
Alanis Morissette
Barenaked Ladies
Kate Bush
Madonna
I could go on. I think I've picked the least cool of my likes.
Hate/Loath whatever. I have also found a great deal of cool new stuff through this forum, but don't mind admitting I really enjoy the best output from the above.
Come on - out of the closet the rest of you !!
Ian
>>threads that forum members generally place a premium on originality
>>and quality. That, by default, eliminates most of the over-hyped pop
>>/ rock and "smooth" jazz garbage out there, and results in a
>>higher-than-mass-market rate of classical, jazz, and underground
>>music consumption.
I'm all for originality and quality, but why does that preclude pop and rock music? Besides, isn't there plenty of dreck in classical and jazz music? You know the old saying: there's two kinds of music -- good and bad. That's my credo.
For instance, someone mentions Genesis and Kate Bush as "guilty pleasures" ... why on earth must one feel guilty about digging the likes of those artists? May I suggest a bit more discernment so that we don't willy nilly lump the likes of Kate Bush in with Kenny G.
Ironically, I honestly have no guilty pleasures in that I can defend the artistic integrity of all music I enjoy, albeit some of which, no doubt, others here would designate as guilty, pleasurable or otherwise.
OK, Boney James I can see feeling guilty about digging (and he's not my cup of tea, so no guilt here!)
Perhaps we should aspire to : NullPointerException.
But, really, are these composers truly the classical music equivalent of Kenny G? If so, then there's no room at the low end of the scale for Android Leper!
quote:
I don't know if I approve of the word "wankers." How about doofuses?
Sorry, these words are not interchangeable.
Rico - musichead
But I've got a lot more tolerant over the more recent past, listen to a wider range of music and am happy to appreciate a lot of stuff I'd have sneered at in the past (various stuff in others' lists falls into this category here, plus lots of 80s pop). Aside from overcooked wannabe soul from, well, you know who, there's very little I'll really turn my nose completely up to now, and in the case of The B man and The C woman, I actually find it physically distressing, literally so, rather than simply beneath my supposed dignity.
Pete.
I happen to love Ennio Morricone's film music, especially Once Upon A Time In America, and I'm not embarrassed to say so. And while some may consider Arvo Pårt a second rate composer, I do not.
Besides, the descriptive "second rate" is too pejorative. There has to be some middle ground ... not every composer can be among the giants (even if we could all agree on who they are, which we can't), and of those who aren't, not all can be aptly described as "second rate." How about "very good but not necessarily great"?
There is not, and cannot be a comprehensive definition of "guilty pleasure" or "second-rate" composer since these are indeed purely subjective concepts. I do firmly believe that not all music is created equal - Beethoven is better than the Monkees, period - but beyond such silly comparisons, everything's a matter of taste.
For instance, someone mentioned Pink Floyd as a guilty pleasure when clearly they were a great rock band. Perhaps the author associates them with guilty feelings because of the extra-musical activities often associated with the band.
And I have a great description for second-rate (or second-tier) composers: Excellent. For instance, Kodaly is an excellent composer while Bartok is a great composer.
But seriously, serious issues are raised here in the midst of the humor, and I feel like addressing them ... no big whoop. Hey everybody, I'm down ... dig what you like and like what you dig, feel guilty or pleasure or both, whatever, rock on. It's a given that it's all subjective, even whether Beethoven is better than The Monkees (probably, but is he better than The Beatles? Which brings to mind Glenn Gould's essay purporting that Petula Clark singing Tony Hatch was better than The Beatles, as well as his essay claiming that only a relatively small portion of Beethoven's oeuvre, very early and very late, was of value, the rest being vastly over rated).
However, I feel moved to speak up when I see an "excellent" composer (sure, Todd, that's a fine adjective, I'll take it) like Arvo Pårt lumped in with Snoop Doggy Dog or Kenny G ... much too indiscriminate. Even poor John Williams doesn't deserve that fate (although Android Leper decidedly does).
And I don't feel comfortable when someone implies that worthy music is to be found mostly in genres A and B but not in genres B and C. Smash genrism, I say.
As for Britney Spears - she had a single out about a year ago. I can't remember the title but the opening words were: "Sometimes I run, Sometimes I hide...". It was actually a top bit of songwriting, honest.
I spend too much time in the car listening to the radio.
Allan
quote:
P.S. Did you happen to notice how you contradict yourself in the message you posted?
Which message? How so?
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself (I am large, I contain multitudes.)" -Walt Whitman
Don't see the Spice Girls as any different in this regard. Certainly the Girl Power stuff is nonsense, but it was just marketing and not exactly disguised, and they've released some great pop singles that are fine for a yomp. Of course if you really like good pop you could listen to someone like XTC or REM, but that doesn't invalidate what the Spices et al are up to. Without external musical support they'd look a bit deflated, yes, but they have extra musical support, and asuch are a good outlet for some good light pop.
Pete.
p.s., Vuk, Kenny G was mentioned in the opening paragraph of the thread's first post, subsequently by Fred twice and again by Todd... double check before pulling posts apart!
I definitely dig the "Barnaked Ladies" and bought Gordon in 1995 before they became big. They still produce great music that makes me laugh, and that's what counts.
I nearly bought the "Mark Owen" album as I was amazed at how different he sounded from Take That (or the lead singer who's name I forget). I wonder if anyone bought any Robbie Williams.
A friend of mine actually likes "Kenny G"....
uh-oh. Anyone remember the Waynes World 2 sketch?
Other corporate stuff I own = Madonna, Fatboy Slim and maybe a couple of others.
I DO NOT own any Oasis (Corporate Wanker Gucci Pussies).
Andrew
Andrew Randle
2B || !2B;
4 ^ = ?;
Frank Zappa
Miles Davis
Captain Beefheart
Vivaldi
Bruce Springsteen
Now Vivaldi . . . as big a classical fan as I am, I'm not too fond of Vivaldi. I agree with Stravinsky's sentiments . . .
While I can appreciate stuff like Wake of Poseidon (the remake of "Mars", deary deary me!) or Islands being in a guilt list, Discipline onwards is fine stuff which hasn't really dated. And if you meant ca. 1970, you should say so rather than sweep all things Crim into a single pile: try the more recent ProjeKct releases, for example.
Miles Davis a guilty pleasure? What? Puh-leeeeeze!
Zappa similarly: he's written and performed a great deal of highly respected music across a variety of genres.
Vivaldi? Again, what's the problem here? Hardly his fault that everyone and his dog has the opening of "Spring" to hand. But check out, say, Palladian Ensemble's "Les Saisons Amusantes" for a fresh take revealing the music under the cliche.
And the Boss has made very few duff records. Anyone not liking Wild, The Innocent and the E Street Shuffle basically has hearing problems AFAICT.
In fact, only thing to be embarassed about here is that you're embarassed by these people in the first place...
Pete.
p.s., the Gallaghers may be a pair of plonkers, but the songwriting on What's the Story is, for the most part, good stuff. Shame about the recording and production rendering it almost unlistenable, mind...
Just think its interesting how all the 'serious' music fans got so vocally upset.
Personally don't own any Zappa (virtuoso wank) - and would feel far more embarrassed to admit liking that to say liking someone like Kate Bush.
Yes, its all very clever ... in a pretentious, self-congratulatory way. But I can't say I found it remotely funny - all a bit too obvious and (again) self-congratulatory. Very American I would say (although all the people I know who like him are English)
Sorry - but everything I've heard by him (including Shut Up 'N Play Yer Guitar) is just wank IMHO.
But then, what do I know ... I rate Kate Bush