The Mellotron Group

So who likes Peter Gabriel? Anyone want to comment? 
 
Frank
 
 
In a message dated 5/28/2012 9:52:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
bluesrock77@hotmail.com writes:

 
 
 
Hi y'all,  


I'm very happy to see that my posting sparked such a great  discussion!
SOme of what I said where in jest...like Ecstasy being a bad drug for  
music making...some where not...I still want to see a musical instrument being  
played, whatever it is, even a single tambourine,  rather than watch  
someone playing records with one note beat...it's not just the mechanical act  of 
it...it's the lack of harmony and the one note beat that bothers  
me...besides it doesn't move me a bit...I just can't relate to  DJ's...sorry...besides 
nothing to do with the Tron, which a a note  reproduction system in most 
cases, not full songs...
as for the downloading..well, anyone who's ever been to a music store  knew 
what a great experience it could be...browsing all the different  
rows...discovering new bands and maybe interacting with the buyers (I made  quite a 
few friend in record stores)  etc, when I lived in London I'd  listen to John 
Peel and other DJs (quite different eh?) and then on the next  day go to 
Virgin, HMV, Portobello Road etc in search of the records.....now  that they 
are gone...what do you do? Just download something for free (nothing  against 
it) and then delete? (Totally against it, if you know what I mean) In  that 
case music has no value, it's just a disposable thing... I still have  
hundreds of my vinyls because I had to work hard to get them...
I'll stop here...I have a PhD to finish...great to be part of this  group...


best,


Roberto



 
____________________________________
To: newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com
From: mike.dickson@gmail.com
Date:  Mon, 28 May 2012 13:37:49 +0100
Subject: Re: [newmellotrongroup] Re: Peter  Gabriel - So what?


 

Chris makes a few good points but a few downright weird ones too.


I would agree that a musician is someone who 'makes music'. I wouldn't  say 
that he necessarily 'crafts' it, though.  That's the  composer's job.  I 
think there are probably more musicians out there  who play what they are told 
(or what they expect, in the case of any number of  bar bands I've 
witnessed) than people who are actually engaged in  creating music from nothing 
other than ideas and influences. 


Perhaps a DJ can be a composer, but to say 'but often times they aren't'  
is a little like saying a good composer (say, Bruckner) was sometimes  great 
but often he wasn't.  (Anyone doubting this should read the story  about 
Anton and his 'zeroth' symphony) I wasn't trying to refer to the  sort of DJ 
who just plays records, but to the DJ who tries to do something  creative with 
the sound he is playing.  There probably ought to be a  term for this type 
of person, to differentiate. Maybe there is. I dunno.


However, the humdinger is that DJ music 'lacks credibility'.  Chris  - who 
hands out the Credibility Tokens in your neck of the woods?  The Credibility 
Cops?  When does music 'become credible'?  Do they have some sort of 
certificate to show this?  Maybe a party  of some kind.  What is it that makes 
music 'credible'?  



    *   Is it music?  Yes it is.    
    *   Do people like it (as if that even matters) Yes they do.



That's kind of the end of the argument, unless you want to argue 'what  is 
music?' and I am afraid I will have you completely cornered  on that one, 
and the answer is but one word long. Maybe you are  trying to say 'is it 
credible to me and people like me?', in which case  you are making an argument of 
taste, and that's no argument at  all. (If that is an argument then I am 
afraid that most of the  Sacred Bovines round here aren't credible either as I 
cannot stand  them)  


You say that credibility is associated with 'physical innovation'.  I'm not 
entirely sure what that entails, but innovation is  certainly a pretty 
shaky nail upon which to hang any musical argument.  Show me 'innovation' and 
I'll show you plagarism and what is charitably  called influence, and I don't 
mean in the last ten years.  If you  don't believe me then have a look at 
_this video_ (https://vimeo.com/14912890)  and tell me  what you make of it.  
(Good film series, incidentally)


Sampling without consent is unethical maybe.  And I mean maybe.  Brian 
Wilson was a bit bent out of shape when he found out that Air  had sampled the 
snare drum from 'Do It Again' on 'Remember', until it was  pointed out to him 
that (1) it's a pretty good tribute to him and anyway  (2) it might mean 
he's going to sell a few records when Air say where the drum  samples came 
from.  In that case, the sound was the innovation (and  a great one too) and 
Air made Fair Use of it.  If they tried what is  known as 'passing off' then 
it might be 'unethical', but fortunately they  didn't.  Hell, I released a 
tune which has CLEARLY got a huge sample of a  very famous tune indeed in it.  
It's so obvious that 'passing off'  isn't even an option. (Incidentally, I 
don't think the Mona Lisa is Leonardo's  greatest - he has done some far 
superior work, but that's another  argument)  Sampling is a broad argument.  
Try reading _Remix by Lawrence Lessig_ (http://remix.lessig.org/) .  It's a 
better explanation of  everything. (Tangentially, _this book_ 
(http://www.amazon.co.uk/All-Rave-Shawn-Fannings-Napster/dp/0609610937/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid
=1338208583&sr=8-1)  is also a great read and is close to unbelievable.  At 
what point did someone say 'hang on....')


You do go on to say that it isn't 'morally right'.  Oooh. That's a  
personal itch of mine.  Don't confuse ethics and morals.  The  two are not 
equivalent.


Marketing and selling has always been a science, Chris.  Don't kid  
yourself otherwise.  Stockholders existed in the 1970s, same as now, same  as 
always.  The music 'industry' (a term I hate) cannot sell anyone  anything they 
don't actually want.  They might however oversell it, but  that's their 
problem.  More worrying to me is the way everything ties  together commercially, 
where the song, the burger gift, the film, the tee  shirt and the computer 
game are all part of the same 'immersive  experience'.


I am dying to hear how 'dragons and fairies' take you out of the Matrix,  
though.  That angle has been sold to death since JRR put pen to paper and  
engendered an entire division of depressing guff about..well...dragons and  
fairies.  And Peter Jackson's film is about as 'corporate' a tie-in film  as 
you can hope to imagine.  Are you picking your bovines with enough  care? :-)


Mike

On 28 May 2012 12:11, Chris Dale <_unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) >  wrote:


 
 


I think a musician is someone who 'intends to make sound and craft'  music.
 
As far as the attention span goes - yes people seem to be getting  'dumber' 
these days and failing education systems where music and reading  have been 
cut back are partly to blame. There's no question about  that.
 
I agree that a DJ 'can' be a musician and composer, but often times  they 
aren't.  I don't think DJ music as a genre has been explored  fully and 
because of that it lacks credibility alongside historic  genres of music.
 
We all know of some great technical guitarists, but there are very few  
proficient or innovative DJ's.
Most are just playing back two records at a time, and re-mixing. That  is 
something that anyone can learn to do. 
The difference is there is a world of musical technique involved in  
physically playing an instrument, and so far there is a real lack of  manufactured 
dynamic turntables that respond the same way a guitar, piano,  etc. do .
 
So I personally don't attach the same amount of musical credibility to  
DJ's partly because we don't see too much physical innovation there. But I  do 
welcome it and can see it happening in the future. 
 
 
As far as sampling goes - the idea of sampling someone else's art  without 
their consent is unethical to me.
 
If I took a piece of the Mona Lisa and put it into my own painting, I  
wouldn't think I would be that great or inspiring. It would suggest I'm  at 
worst a thief, and at best, someone who needs to rely on the work of  others 
because I can't come up with something better or original. If I  painted 
Leonardo DaVinci painting the Mona Lisa - well that might be  interesting.
 
To me Mellotrons and their ilk are different from contemporary sample  use 
because the performers knew and intended the recordings they made  would be 
used in the creation of other music.  Sampling someone  else's work or even 
re-mastering it or altering it after they've  died is an artistic rape 
because it's not in keeping with what the  original artists intended.
 
For example, the Isley Brothers, Kraftwerk, etc.etc. didn't consent to  
having their music sampled and just because it's a common practice, that  
doesn't make it morally right. 
 
 
 
As far as album credits go, they go from both outright lies to  total truth.
You will never have me believe someone like Justin  Timberlake (who can't 
play an instrument) can compose and arrange a  movie soundtrack. I don't care 
what the movie credits say.  That's where politics and back scratching are 
an influence.
 
The music industry as a whole is completely different than what it was  in 
the 1970's. Marketing and selling is now a science.  
 
In the mid 70's smaller music labels were bought up and absorbed by  bigger 
music labels.
This happened again on a big scale in the 80's when Warner took over  Time 
/ Life and Seagrams Liquor bought up most of the major record labels.  And 
it happened again in the 90's and again in the  early 2000's.
 
Today music is completely corporate, and the  multinational companies that 
own the music industry are not interested  in selling music with ideas about 
dragons and fairies, or brewing  your own beer, saving your money, 
meditation, or anything that  takes you out of the 'Matrix" so to speak.
 
The simple reason why is that they can't make big money from it.
 
 
They are interested in selling ideologies related to consumerism  of 
products like tobacco, alcohol, and fashion, and also a group-think  homogenized 
mentality where everyone should largely react or think the same  way in the 
world.
Politically, you would do this by removing  or censoring  diversity of 
expression on multiple levels.
 
As record company owners or controllers - they don't want to foster  talent 
and individualism. They would rather have a universe of talentless  'idols' 
where there is a collective lemming mentality, easily  to manipulate 
contractually, and favouring style similarity over  diversity. Why?  Because once 
you create something unique or  diverse, you must be willing to defend it 
and promote it on your own -  requiring a much more costly noble and valiant 
quest.
 
Record labels don't want to have to fight with individualistic  creative 
artists. The idea of the tradional guitar hero or keyboard  hero is not really 
encouraged.
 
It's in their best interest to sell and promote a 'mass mentality'  where 
they can push products on to a receptive audience, and make money for  their 
businesses and stockholders. So we really can't compare the time of  the 
70's and back with now.
 
 
This is the reason for the all the observations here. 
 
 
If you want to control a country and it's people you must make them  
subservient to a belief system.
 
You homogenize values through TV, music and magazines so that  eventually 
they all think the same.
And then you've replaced the individualism of invention, innovation,  etc. 
with a dumbed down - go along to get along  - collectivism.
 
 
Plato said it himself - 
 
“Musical innovation is full of danger to the State, for when modes  of 
music change, the laws of the State always change with  them.”  

“Those who tell the stories rule society.”
    
 
 
 
 
 
   


 
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:55 PM, Mike Dickson <_mike.dickson@gmail.com_ 
(mailto:mike.dickson@gmail.com) >  wrote:




 
 


 
 


1. Digital life made musicians almost obsolete.




    *   What's a 'musician'?    
    *   Why is someone who puts together music digitally less of a musician 
 than anyone else?  
    *   If '[a]ny moron can "play, record and post it in the web"'  then 
doesn't that fly in the face of the point entirely?  Far from  '[making] 
musicians almost obsolete' doesn't that increase  the number of musicians there 
are out there?  
    *   Are you confusing 'musicianship' with 'personal  taste'?

 
2. Ecstasy is not a good drug for music. People get so stupid  that they 
see a DJ as musician!!!




    *   Why is it 'not a good drug for music'?  Says who?  What  about the 
myriad people who take it every weekend and get off on it and  the music?  
Are you perhaps (again) confusing what is 'good'  with 'what you personally 
like'?  
    *   Why can a DJ not be a musician?    
    *   In fact, given the definition of the word, why is a DJ not viewed 
as  a composer?

 


3. People are so anxious and neurotic that they can't  'listen'to anything 
without pressing the FWD key to the next  song.




    *   Maybe.  I suspect attention spans are getting shorter because  
music (among other things) is so easy to get your hands on now that it's  a 
disposable commodity.  But has it ever not been?  Who  says it has to be 
anything but?  
    *   Maybe the music lends itself to the whole ideal.  Do you have  to 
be 'anxious and neurotic' for that to be true?  Are you  seeing a stereotype 
where none exists?

 
4. "Total lack of identification with the band. Digital made  bands/record 
covers/credits useless...nobody knows who's playing and  nobody cares.."




    *   To come out with an absurdly sweeping statement like 'digital  made 
bands/record covers/credits useless' requires some form of  evidence.    
    *   To say 'nobody knows who's playing and nobody cares' is  plainly 
flat-out wrong.  If anything, the speed at which  music (digitally played and 
recorded or otherwise) can be put together  and uploaded to the web so a 
musician is in direct contact with his  or her audience is such that it cuts 
out the middle man entirely.  Who needs a publication deal when you can 
publish it yourself?  Why is it that a musician speaking directly to his audience 
(or  market) is a bad thing?  Do you think record labels and music  
publication deals are a necessary thing? 
You sign off with 'All in all...nobody cares for music at all I'd  say'.  
How do you know?



Mike


 
 
 
 


On 26 May 2012 15:06, Fritz Doddy <_fdoddy@aol.com_ (mailto:fdoddy@aol.com) 
> wrote:


 
 

I agree with point #3, but vehemently disagree with 1,2 and  4

Sorry for the brevity as I am replying from a remote region of  
iPhonekstan.  


fritzdoddy

 
 

On May 26, 2012, at 8:38 AM, R l <_bluesrock77@hotmail.com_ 
(mailto:bluesrock77@hotmail.com) >  wrote:






Hi Chris,  


I totally agree. So much so that I said I'd rather visit the  Pompeii arena 
empty and feel the vibes of a bygone concert by the  Floyd than see the 
band nowadays (last 30 years). 
As for why this is happening, there are many possibilities of  course, my 
theory.


1. Digital life made musicians almost obsolete. ANy moron can  "play, 
record and post it in the web". Just like picture taking.
2. Ecstasy is not a good drug for music. People get so stupid  that they 
see a DJ as musician!!! Bloody hell...
3. People are so anxious and neurotic that they can't  'listen'to anything 
without pressing the FWD key to the next  song...3000 songs in the Ipod and 
most never listen till the  end...
4. Total lack of identification with the band. Digital made  bands/record 
covers/credits useless...nobody knows who's playing and  nobody cares...


All in all...nobody cares for music at all I'd  
say...Saaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad: but true!


best,


Roberto



 
____________________________________
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) 
From:  _unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com_ (mailto:unobtainiumkeys@gmail.com) 
Date:  Sat, 26 May 2012 02:53:12 -0400
Subject: Re:  [newmellotrongroup]hris,


Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?


 

I almost never go see big name classic rock concerts  anymore.
 
 
Usually, some of the original band members are missing, (Moody  Blues, 
Beach Boys, The Who, Pink Floyd) or the performers  can't sing as well or play 
as well anymore (The Police, Led  Zeppelin).
 
Or - the band is naturally using some shitty vapid digital  equipment in 
place of the original instruments, and the sound is an  updated, sterilized, 
modern version that has all the life  sucked out of it.
 
I saw The Band once and Garth Hudson (and some other  unknown keyboardist 
alongside him) were using the shittiest, most  depressing 80's reverbed Korg 
and Roland organ sounds to do  Chest Fever. It was unbelievably bad.
It sounded like kids playing a casio keyboard in a Walmart toy  section 
aisle.
The same with Jerry Corbetta of Sugarloaf. Green Eyed Lady was  played with 
tinny hip-hop organ sounds - just sonic garbage.
 
Some of these bands also use augmenting hack musicians on stage  and girl 
dancers that have nothing to do with helping the  original band or music 
style. It's just insulting to the original  spirit or identity of the band. 
 
A different example a  few years ago was when I went to  see Paul McCartney 
in Toronto. It was enjoyable up to the point when  people started trying to 
sing along. It was sufferable for a  while.
But then came 'Hey Jude' which was the absolute worst.   The song was 
literally murdered by the sing-along of the  absolute worst choir of out of tune 
morons I've ever heard. And their  collective breath stank like a sewage 
pipe.
 
I remember seeing a Beach Boys concert clip where one of them  asked those 
who could sing to sing along, and those who couldn't to  'please keep quiet'.
I thought it was very rude for them to say that at the  time, but after 
that Hey Jude performance, I now understand why.
 
 
Overall, the expense, time and the trouble you go through to  see a concert 
just isn't worth it.
 
These bands today mostly exist as shadows of their former selves  - almost 
their own tribute bands.
 
I now prefer a good DVD of a classic quality performance from the  by-gone 
days to what's passing as a live show. 
 
Of course, if it's a band I respect and never got the chance to  see, (like 
Nektar) then I'll make an exception, but generally a  glorified tribute 
band version, with tinny keyboards, vocal  harmonizer effects, and anonymous 
helpers and dancers doesn't make  for a decent concert.
 
And the irony is with the technology today - we can have a great  sounding 
concert more times than not.
So why is this happening?
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 



On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Bruce Daily <_pocotron@yahoo.com_ 
(mailto:pocotron@yahoo.com) >  wrote:


 
 


(GROAN)
I'm sure he's READY for it.
 
I was surprised to hear one of his songs on a TV  commercial recently.  It 
was "Big Time", and I think it was on  one of those god-forsaken Swiffer 
ads.  Money trumps integrity  once in a while.
 
  -Bruce D.
 



 
 

From: trawnajim <_jimab@rogers.com_ (mailto:jimab@rogers.com) >
To: _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com)   
Sent: Friday, May  25, 2012 8:11 AM
Subject: [newmellotrongroup]  Re: Peter Gabriel - So what?



 
 


--- In _newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com_ 
(mailto:newmellotrongroup@yahoogroups.com) , Bruce Daily  <pocotron@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all-
>    It would be fun to see him at Red Rocks here in  Colorado, except for 
the unreasonable ticket prices and  the bullshit on-line ticket sale 
methods.  Those reasons  alone reduce the enjoyment of the event.  I haven't seen a 
 major concert in years.
>  
>   -Bruce  D. 
> (with a trace of sarcastic bitterness)

I  suppose it's likely that he will do Red Rain at Red Rocks. Perhaps  they 
can get Red Rider as openers.

Jim  Bailey



















































-- 
Mike Dickson,  Edinburgh























-- 
Mike Dickson, Edinburgh