Vocalist.org archive


From:  "Lloyd W. Hanson" <lloyd.hanson@n...>
Date:  Mon Feb 24, 2003  9:00 pm
Subject:  Re: [vocalist] Re: Digest Number 1456

Dear Randy and Bocalisters:

Your comments brought forward many thoughts for me.

You wrote;
>Yes, corporations are dictating taste to a certain degree and that's what
>happened right before rock and roll hit. Pop was pretty lame at that point,
>something new comes along and then unfortunately because of momentum the
>record complanies seize it and commercialize it. Something new will come
>along but I have no idea what it is.

COMMENT: When I graduated from High School in 1952 the pop music
field was a strange mixture of the former (I choose to not call it
"old") big bands and swing, Nat King Cole, etc. and the new which
included Johnny Ray ("Cry"), Rosemary Clooney ("Come on'a My House"),
the ever present Sing Along with Mitch Miller (A professional
Oboist, yet) and such nonsense as "Chabba, Chabba", "Marzy Dotes,
Dozy Dotes", etc. Of course Franky, and Perry, et al were still big
and, after being with Frankie's Rat Pack for awhile even Sammy Davis
became a great singer.

Lets see, in about 1956, we attended Elvis Presley's first movie and
we never hear a note he sang because of all the screaming in the
theatre in Appleton, Wisconsin. (Shades of Frank Sinatra in an
earlier time). I am sure there were Rock beginnings prior to all this
time but it was not in my consciousness. Not until the big business
of music promoted it in some way or other. And, oh yes, there was
this rather new recording medium, the 33 1/3rd and 45 rpm recordings
that could be pressed by very small pressing machines which gave the
performers the opportunity to build or buy their own record
companies. (I suppose that is not possible anymore with CD's?)

Now, I am embarrassed to admit, it appears that I will likely live
through another revolution, post rock (in all its many and various
forms). I knew rock was dead when it began to be studied in
Universities as part of the curriculum. It pretty nearly killed Jazz
so now it was rock's turn. And that all began about 20 years ago.
Universities have a way of detecting a popular movement rather late
but they can make up for it by including it in their courses of study
immediately upon becoming aware of its "importance" and, in that
way, are able to help remove it from its former position of being
popular.

You also rote
>Pop music now sounds so cliched. All the territory that can be mined from
>its influences has been mined. It reminds me of the musicals written in the
>50s and 60s that still had an old school influence (hello dolly, music man,
>etc) they sound incredibly cliched. It took the introduction of rock (JC
>superstar, etc) to bring a freshness to it.
>
>Whenever something seems as stale as rock, pop, r&b seem now it's a sign that
>something new is around the corner. Let's just hope it's interesting.


COMMENT: I would agree. However there is one person that, in my
opinion, has done more than anyone else to revive the Broadway
musical genre, and that is Stephen Sondheim. Rock musicals have
never really become the take-over model they were first touted to be.
At their best they barely get into the area of quality musicals
regardless of the genre of music one applies. "Rent" seems to be as
good as they get and, good as that is, it is not good enough in my
opinion. I have often thought about the comparison of Andrew Lloyd
Weber and Stephen Sondheim to that between Antonio Salieri
and W. A. Mozart.


--
Lloyd W. Hanson







  Replies Name/Email Yahoo! ID Date  
22867 Re: Digest Number 1456Cindi Watersmusicteachky Wed  2/26/2003  
emusic.com