drkodos wrote on 01/11/09 at 00:10:56:
mnb: What category do you put Orbison, Dylan, Birds?
Pop? Just wondering.
Pop, folk, popfolk, folkpop, whavever you like.
drkodos wrote on 01/11/09 at 00:10:56:
Also: Page & Plant stole too much music (so many other did too!) for my tastes. Plus, I actually like the minimalistic Willie Dixon and think he does it better! Their own revelations (The Zep boyz) that they knew the songs were written by others but they choose to not put the correct songwriter credits on the original album is still a bit irksome to some. Count me in on that camp.
Me too, but I still think Led Zep recorded some very well constructed arrangements. I am not a minimalist on principle. You see, besides the financial issue, on which the LZ-boys simply were wrong, the ethical side is controversial. The romantic idea that a piece of art should be entirely original stems from the 19th century, since when a composer (or painter or author) preferably should suffer from grave poverty plus tuberculosis, while living in a moist attic or cellar. Between the attacks of illness our composer writes down feverishly one brilliant piece of work after another. Of course he dies around 30. Only then his genius is discovered, so that all the admirers can mourn about the works our composer had not the time to record.
According to those admirers its only an unevenness that those geniuses rather had the bad taste to die from syphilis (Schubert) or heroin addiction (Hendrix, Morrison), but that does not prevent them from attributing their favourite genius a divine status.
Now the hard truth is that composing music is 99% sweat and 1% inspiration. Another hard truth is that before that romantic ideal of originality became in vogue composers stole unscrupulously. So if Led Zep stole too much to your taste, you condemn a great part of classical music as well.
drkodos wrote on 01/11/09 at 00:10:56:
Don't get me started on Lennon because the weepy eyed adoring fans of that "borrower" refuse to let the facts stand. No doubt he wrote some catchy tunes, but too many were "borrowed," for me to have him in my own HoF.
Lennon is vastly overrated as a composer. While I admit that McCartney has lost something essential after the Beatles fell apart, it is obvious Lennon has lost even more. His fans, like those of Dylan, confuse music with poetry.
drkodos wrote on 01/11/09 at 00:10:56:
As for sound, well, Led Zep absolutely blew people away!! Until! The Doors busted out a bit later, that is, and with music that was a bit more original too.
When was The Doors' debut released again? And when Led Zep's? I am afraid you have got your chronology wrong. You have got my thoughts on originality already; I don't give a s**t. Let me add that all instrumental sections of The Doors don't blow me away, but blow me into sleep. Boooring. The melodies of The Doors are certainly catchy, but development is always zero and the songs are usually structured predictably by ABABCAB (A = verse; B = chorus). Arrangements are poor; uninteresting bass lines and drum patterns. The famous exception is Show me the way to the next whisky bar (I never can remember the real title), which typically is composed by Kurt Weill (and the original is superior).
The Doors is the voice of Morrison and hardly more. That is - to my standards - not enough for good music.
Those who enjoy minimalism: try the Viola Sonata from Sjostakovitsj (1974, so contemporary music!). The first bars are played on open strings. Then you will learn that minimalism and standstill are not the same.
PS You have named some excellent female voices - but again, one voice does not make good music. I want all the instruments contribute to the composition; that's why I turn The Doors, AC/DC and U2 down. Concentrating on the bass will reveal my point.
Pages: 
favorite rock music (Read 26943 times)
