Responses to this message:
There's only one thing worse than understanding what goes on behind the scenes of the Rock music business, and that's finding out stuff about rock critics. These are the people who consistently criticize personality-less music, such as mellow jazz etc., for being shallow. Consequently, the media in general regards the mellow music popular in the early 70s as worthless, devoid of emotional vigor and heart. The worst of this is that so many opinionless people believe these captious criticisms - apparently because they're so brilliant, but really because they hate the same things that they do - and then become vanguardists themselves, creating many sub-cultures of music critics and followers bent on demeaning one of the few kinds of music that demands little emotional or political response from its audiences. Of course, that's why they hate it, like a hyper-active New Yorker who can't stand to live in a beautifully quiet rural area, so he criticizes such places (as if a place deserves such criticism - just go somewhere else, for christ's sake).
I am a musician who was employed as a back-up keyboardist in the 70s for such "corporate rock" bands as Foreigner, Boz Scaggs, Gary Wright, Seals & Crofts, John Waite (from the Babys), Randy Meisner (from the Eagles) etc. etc. If there's one thing I can tell you, it's that few people truly understand this music, and certainly no rock critics do. Rock critics are wannabes. They are writers who, deep down, wish they are musicians but haven't the talent, or something (?), to become rock musicians. The most amazing thing about this is that it takes little real music talent to become a rock star, and far more personality. But rock critics have what it takes to write meaningless words, often criticizing things that they don't understand, such as real music (which only musicians understand), all within a background of a distressed society - i.e. they take our ills and apply them, as a form of twisted, pretentious envy, to what some may hate about this or that music act. The reason they get away with it is because everyone is an overworked slave in a fucked up capitalistic system, therefore, what better culprit than muses who sit around composing and playing non-political, mellow music? How can such musicians defend themselves? The fact is, they can't. They are not in a position to be actively critical. What easy prey they are. Criticizing the meek is a cheap and easy way to make a living as long as there are angry, frustrated people to buy into your lot.
Such is the life of the rock critic and his followers. Now a famous rock critic can become a famous film director, and then make films that simply carry on the torch of envy and criticsm. The envy of successful personality-less musicians, that is. This is what "Almost Famous" means. It's like the director, who was famous from a young age, is saying: "Hey! This is what it was like when I wasn't yet famous. You like me now, don't you?" He must do this because he knows that if he gave a biography of his fast lane to fame, nobody would care. Indeed, he might be hated by his own followers.
Of course, such messages must be portrayed in a subtle way, so as not to reveal the negative intentions of the perpetrators. This is important, because nothing is as politically incorrect today as a negative person. Therefore the rock critic/film director & company come up with a subtle theme: better to be a friend than famous. Granted, but behind this moral is a society of people who hate the success of musicians that are too musical to have good Rock culture personalities. That is its true purpose and meaning. It uses high morals to further an old Americanism, which also happens to currently be politically correct: the layman's moral based hatred of artists and artistic ideals. For, as we all know, such artists can be narcicisstic assholes, and that's a no-no - i.e. it doesn't qualify for "friendly American person." Never mind that some of the best artistic music has been created by such assholes. We have Rock music now, and a Rock culture. Which means we have music that isn't really music, but is instead cheap tunes with socially important lyrics, where the entertainers' personalities are more important than the music (except for mellow music, where this doesn't apply, such as New Age, where you will find the finest musicians, the worst personalities and the least social statements and/or vanguardism).
In case you never knew this - real music is melodies, harmony and rhythm. Period. The cheaper the tune, the more important the rhythm. The cheaper the rhythm, the more important the lyrics, if any. Any songwriter knows this. Hence, the birth of Rock & Roll, otherwise known as the garage band, where the social statement supersedes the music. Today, the fashionable social statement is "friendly American person." Any film producer knows this. Hence, hugely popular TV shows called "Friends" and the slews of films with this morale.
The bottom line here is that the audience and their critics should go screw themselves, if only musicians could survive without them. It's a screwy relationship. Sure, plenty of musicians have been brainwashed to believe that entertaining is good, and the audience is always right. They are kiss-ass fools. Anyway, make them do one-nighters until they can't see straight and they'll eventually see the light of truth: the audience is nothing but a behemoth, ungrateful spoiled brat. As I always said: The worst thing about an entertainer is being one. But for that message you'll need to see the movie "The Fabulous Baker Boys," an honest film about a musician and the inevitable people who attempt to keep him from being one.
Responses to this message:
Post a response to this discussion thread