BadassBaconBreath

Well, how many symphonies have there been when the composer has not been there to conduct his music? But we still identify the piece with the composer. I guess you do make in point in saying that the climate of the musical world has changed a great deal since then. So perhaps I am being idealist in thinking that more credit should go to composers than they currently receive. Despite that, it would be nice if it were so.
And about Sinatra, although I don't consider myself well-versed enough in his music to give an accurate opinion of his work, I would like to point out the validity in your argument that the songs on his records wouldn't sound the same if not coming from his distinctive voice regardless of whether or not he wrote the songs himself.

BadassBaconBreath

I would prefer if you would stay on topic instead of addressing the tangents of his argument.

Trollheart

So.... are you agreeing with me? I'm not being smart: it seems like you are but it's phrased somehow as if you're not...?

The point I was making about classical is that it was a whole different world back then. There was no such thing as playing others' music: any composer would have to write his own music and play it, so far as I know. As for symphonies now playing their music, well be fair: they're hundreds of years dead. It's not like there's a choice. And if Mozart had played a sonata composed by Haydn, or whomever, I think it would still have been associated with him, just as my other examples are. Not too many people these days remember or even know (or care about) the songwriter, just the song. Then of course you have the likes of Diane Warren, who has written chart-toppers for so many artistes, but achieved no success herself in the actual music world other than as a songwriter. Would you consider the songs she wrote for, say, Meat Loaf or Starship as hers or theirs?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

P A N

in a way i kind of agree with the OP. i often find myself comparing the artists of today with those of the days when timeless art was kind of par for course, and what i see lacking in a lot of artists today is the dedication and madness. that level of obsession with artistic production which - from what i can tell - comes not only from practicing the craft incessantly but also a great deal of thinking about life intensely. i kinda feel like artists today are distracted on a general level, and we'll never see the genius of another beethoven ever again.

i don't mean to sound like a snob or demean the validity of artists' work today, but to me it's really a matter of comparing masters to children. perhaps the dynamic of writer/performer exists so easily because most people are okay with being children and just indulging in the will to create. a lot of masters were also egoists (competitive) as well, which it seems the current paradigm of thinkers is trying to overcome... which may or may not be a good thing. that's a different discussion altogether, but perhaps worth considering.

BadassBaconBreath

Sorry Trollheart, I phrased that very poorly. I didn't realize it made no sense until just now. I was agreeing with you that he is no less of an artist because he doesn't write his own material. He's just an artist in how he sings, not in how he writes.

BadassBaconBreath

I guess when it comes down to it, if I like the music, I'm going to buy the records. I just prefer when artists write their own music.

P A N

haha... oh jeez. sometimes i need to include more info...

i didn't mean by any of that to say that the music coming out of people today is not enjoyable or not worth it's salt. in all likelihood, i probably like more music by people who i would not consider masters than ones that i would. i guess i was trying to highlight the amount of work and dedication it took to produce music that people would pay any attention to back then... music was so serious. it took what today would amount to a lifelong schooling in a single thing to get someone to fund the scoring of an orchestra's-worth of notation and then pay one to play it... unless of course a composer was so ambitious as to fund something like that themselves, probably doubling the already-intense fear of failure. i don't know... i just look at it as a breeding ground for genius.

obviously genius is not even close to the only good thing coming out of musicians though. but at one time, if you weren't something breathtakingly special, you were no one.

i feel like what i'm typing isn't quite translating into what i'm thinking about this... i guess i'm trying to pinpoint what it is and when it was that opened the gates to an openness about perceived limitations in one's abilities which allowed musicians, composers and writers to borrow each others' talents instead of taking on the task of making great art solo. i'm not knocking it, i'm just trying to figure it out.

ThePhanastasio

Okay, put it this way. Have you ever listened to a song that moved you? I'm almost certain that the answer to this is a resounding, "YES."

Did you write that song? No?

Okay. So, a song can move you without you having written it. Fantastic. Now we have people whose voices are well-honed instruments, but they're not especially talented at writing songs. But, there are people who can write songs to move them, to affect them. They become the mouthpiece to the song, but they are also more than likely moved by the song. Otherwise, there would have been a disconnect that negatively affected the song, without even knowing the performer didn't write it.

Did Whitney Houston write "I Will Always Love You?" does her rendition still move people to tears? Did Jeff Buckley write "Hallelujah?" Does his rendition still stand out as many peoples' favorite song, or near the top of their list?

Also, do fantastic actors...does Daniel Day-Lewis write his lines? Does Meryl Streep? Did Bette Davis? Katharine Hepburn?

There is no integrity lost if someone performs effectively their role in a piece of art.

__________________

• Phish: Studio Discography Reviewed
• 100 Albums I Heartily Recommend
• My last.fm

crazed

Completely agree with this.

Also, I appreciate it when an interpretive singer or cover song leads me to discover a songwriter or singer/songwriter whose works I can then follow and enjoy. I've "discovered" many a favorite artist this way.

Screen13

Not a problem with me, considering that there's something interesting or earthy going on in the sounds. Most modern day Pop that aims for the Midwestern Wal Mart customers is too slick, boring, and polished, though.

For today's Pop, I'm sure that if I look enough, there may be a few sounds from Japan and Europe (Maybe Russia?) I might like with more dynamics in their style.

When it comes to a topic like this, however, I think about the days of labels like Stax and Motown, filled with singers who can take a song by one of the great in-house songwriters and make it their own. Phillies (Phil Spector's label) and Red Dog had their own classics as well with the Girl Groups.

The Animals had some great hits written by others in their Mickey Most era ("Don't Bring Me Down"), let alone their career-spanning examples of great Blues covers.

The Rolling Stones started out as a Blues covers band. Thankfully, Andrew Oldham got Mick and Keith to write, but they were a good Blues band who only hinted at later glories.

The Standells had their hits written by their Producer, Ed "Tainted Love" Cobb (He also wrote that long-standing song covered by Gloria Jones and, in the 80's, Soft Cell). Thankfully, the energy in songs like "Dirty Water" made a lot of listeners overlook that fact.

The TV project turned into a band The Monkees had a long line of great songs written by others in both their first season Pop bonanza and the Post-Kirshner days ("Porpoise Song" was I think a Goffin/King composition). That's one of a long line of Pop groups of that era.

Three Dog Night did well with their self-chosen line of covers.

Disco may have turned into a crap assembly line near the end of it's heyday, but earlier on a few class acts stood out. Donna Summer's early records are examples.

The Early 80's attempts at a New Wave style had a number of guilty pleasures. Maybe it's my age, but that was the final fling of Pop that attracted my ears without caring about if it was original or not. The Mid 80's and beyond don't have that much of an attraction, the start of the too-slick approach.

Dusty Springfield, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, and many others were part of the early Pop years where there had to be a cool attached to attract the buyers and live longer than 15 Minutes. There was a serious difference between them and crap like Fabien. Sadly, from what I have noticed, the US Pop culture now is mainly filled with Fabiens with Auto-Tune, ready made beats, and studios that have so much multi-track abilities that any mess up can be covered. Plus, thanks to the Internet, the less choosy (especially in the Small Dots and Yellow Stains that together seriously out-weigh the hipper centers) have more of an easier way to pick and keep their fame alive.



It's not how it's created, but what goes into it.