[dumbcluck]

I believe that in years past the general populations of the world were more musically and artistically literate and thus more discerning.It was perhaps more of a social phenomenon rather that of psychological. In my time...that is the 50's and 60's, and I can only speak of those times I personally experienced everything musically and artistically was in it's place. Musical artists were bundled into two groups....they were either "band singers"...or "soloists". One did not encroach on the other...indeed they could not as many "band singers" could not have had any chance of competing with soloists with the latter having much more command of the stage (e.g. stage presence) and of course the soloist's musical voice which many of the "band singers" had not. And this is why "band singers" got away with it...by (instead) of having one person (soloist) on stage....you would have several (the band) on which the audience can focus and not realize the absence of "stage presence" and vocal ability . However there was another aspect. That of song material. A good song..can and does cover up that absence. During those years either the song or the band had to have some redeeming feature.If both were bad that 50's and 60's audience would have immediately recognised this. Today this is no longer the case.Audiences accept anything and everything
During the years "band singers" like Ronan Keating and Rod Stewart recognised this and started a solo career. Had they done this in the 50's and 60's....they would have flopped.
Another example is the Beatles. Their vocal abilities was not one of their redeeming qualities. However their ability to harmonise and the use of excellent song material is legendary. The latter permitted John Lennon....George Harrison...and Ring Starr (in that order) to branch out into solo careers in which they were successful. However there was that odd man out....Paul McCartney who, as I said before was up there with Mozart (due to his composing abilities) but could not make it as a soloist (there is always a limit to talented people). He realized this and he was quite successful with the band Wings for many years. I believe that presently he released a CD of his solo performances.Another famous singer in this regard is Mick Jagger.. With the Rolling Stones....he was great. As a soloist????
When one looks back to the 50's and 60's and the bands from the UK and the USA who were around then one realizes that many of their singers (on point) were in the majority not that good vocally...but boy their song material was excellent and we did not care. We loved them!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

This is also complete and utter twaddle.

Its just rose tinted glasses that make you think music was better back then.

I will give you that most of the shit played on commercial radio these days doesnt exactly have much musical depth to it, so dont listen to the radio. There is plenty of new music being released that will astound you with lyrical content, amazing music and brilliant singing. You just gotta look harder for it.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

Before I comment further Frogman I would like to know what is your definition of "lyrical content"..."amazing music" and "brilliant singing". I mean It could mean anything. I like you to explain as best you can
About lyrical content I was shopping in one of the clothing department stores here in Sydney metro a few years ago and I heard a song sung by a woman being played over the store system...no melody to speak of....and the lyric went something like" You wanna get into my pants" end quote. Surely this is not what you are alluding to when you say "lyrical content"?

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Thankfully I had a decent musical education and consequently sailed through the 50s 60s and after completely un-distracted by the off key wailings that passed for singing by many of the so-called 'pop stars'; to me the Beetles, Mick Jagger, and two note Sinatra were but background distractions heard when not wearing hearing protection.

Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood were better singers.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

Roderick, on 07 July 2012 - 05:23 PM, said:

Thankfully I had a decent musical education and consequently sailed through the 50s 60s and after completely un-distracted by the off key wailings that passed for singing by many of the so-called 'pop stars'; to me the Beetles, Mick Jagger, and two note Sinatra were but background distractions heard when not wearing hearing protection.

Lee Marvin and Clint Eastwood were better singers.

'Bout time we found a point of difference you, you, you bloodthirsty shooting person though I doubt you'd be wearing same tinted glasses as the frog.

Wandering star Marvin might cut it for one song and Eastwood with some Rawhide stuff, or for my liking, the bit more recent "Gorillaz", but don't knock the Beatles. By all means ignore the worst of their LSD influenced numbers, but background distraction?

I think not!

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

Talking about "off-key" singing are you aware (and I was only told this recently) that
1) Many of today's young pop stars can only perform their songs in the studio with assistance from "pitch and/or other technology"(to prevent them from singing off key). Consequently when they perform on stage they "mime" their songs.I was told that only Lady Gaga can perform live on stage
And you are talking about 50's and 60's singers.....they had to be good as there was no technology to assist them then.However as I said in my post....many (especially "band singers") had no vocal ability (by this I meant that they had not a "singing voice" (where they were able to use their voice like a musical instrument as similar to soloists), but they were able to sing in time and on key. The redeeming features were however their song material....it was always melodious (pleasant to the ear) and/or catchy.This greatly assisted (and in fact I think that this is what "saved the day") them.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

dumbcluck, on 08 July 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

Talking about "off-key" singing are you aware (and I was only told this recently) that
1) Many of today's young pop stars can only perform their songs in the studio with assistance from "pitch and/or other technology"(to prevent them from singing off key). Consequently when they perform on stage they "mime" their songs.I was told that only Lady Gaga can perform live on stage

Scarcely aware. My youngest daughter has mentioned it and I've been meaning to read up on it (with as view to becoming a late to market crooner perhaps).

dumbcluck, on 08 July 2012 - 10:39 AM, said:

And you are talking about 50's and 60's singers.....

.......but they were able to sing in time and on key. The redeeming features were however their song material....it was always melodious (pleasant to the ear) and/or catchy.

The melodious Robert Zimmerman springs immediately to mind.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

Yes Bob Dylan (Robert Zimmerman) was the exception.....he was not really a singer but a protest song writer.This is why I like his "Just Like A Woman"....not by him....but by Manfred Mann...another UK 60's band.It's never heard being played here in Sydney and I actually have not heard it for years. I wonder whether it's on the internet...I think that I'll Google it and find out.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

dumbcluck, on 08 July 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Yes Bob Dylan (Robert Zimmerman) was the exception.....he was not really a singer but a protest song writer.This is why I like his "Just Like A Woman"....not by him....but by Manfred Mann...another UK 60's band.It's never heard being played here in Sydney and I actually have not heard it for years. I wonder whether it's on the internet...I think that I'll Google it and find out.

Here you go DC, don't say I don't look after you. Manfred Mann – Just Like A Woman - Stereo Version. I listened and it sounded OK to me, but on that particular song, Dylan's drawling voice works for me (probably aclimatised by repetition).

You'll need Spotify which could be problematic if you remain on dialup, but the NBN is coming to a place near you real soon.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

Gee thanks Icey I tried to find it on the internet but could not.I do not like Bob Dylan as a singer....let us face it..he does not cut it (as a singer). However as a composer well that is a different matter. Many bands of the 60's did cover versions of his songs...and all those covers sound much better than his originals.It's not surprising though as I think that the Beatles cover of "Rock 'n'Roll Music" is much better than that of Chuck Berry;s (the original). Those composers (Bob Dylan and Chuck Berry) however do not care as they get the royalties anyway

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Roderick]

Here's some pics of my favorite instrument, the Uillean Pipes:



Nestled in the carrying case but not surrounded by the protective bubble wrap (great stuff).

and more or less ready for action.



and lesser but none the less loved:



Top is a British military fife, next a 'One keyed flute' that came down from my dad's father ( the small holes are where I glued red glass beads, for decoration, when I was about eight ).
Then a wooden recorder and my much battered 'D' whistle.

Last but not least a small harp, with the flute for size comparison.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[Frogman]

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[icey]

A nicely illustrated point and so absolutely true. I don't think you could even argue a trend towards better or worse music over the years.

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[dumbcluck]

I have not heard of these songs or of the singers (except Led Zeppelin) which Frogman illustrated here. I am strictly a 50's and 60's man with some 70's and some 40's as well...but mainly those two decades(50&60). Some of those lyrics however resemble the one I said..."you wanna get into my pants".....Now I am reliably informed that this song is actually named that "You Wanna Get Into My Pants"...and the band is Rogue Traders. Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
About songs....there are various aspects to a song....first it's the lyrics.Then there is the all important melody....it has to be melodious (pleasant to the ear)...and catchy. A song like this...and the majority in the 50's and 60's were like this....covers a lot of musical "sins"! A good song covers up a bad singer.....or even a bad band.I mean you can have a singer or a band who is not that "hot"....and they finish up looking "hot" by their song repertoire. However today this is not the case....you have many bad singers and bands and...guess what....their song repertoire is as bad as them.They are fortunate that today's audiences ain't as tough as way back in the 50's and 60's

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.

[HDMC]

icey, on 07 July 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

'Bout time we found a point of difference you, you, you bloodthirsty shooting person though I doubt you'd be wearing same tinted glasses as the frog.

Wandering star Marvin might cut it for one song and Eastwood with some Rawhide stuff, or for my liking, the bit more recent "Gorillaz", but don't knock the Beatles. By all means ignore the worst of their LSD influenced numbers, but background distraction?

I think not!

Absolutely agree re The Beatles. You can still walk into any music outlet and buy their stuff. I doubt that any of the current crop will have such longevity.



And here's an alternative to Clint's Rawhide which might satisfy Roderick's Caledonian bent

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.