Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bad Dog Cafe' started by johnny k, Apr 13, 2019.
Same here. "This ain't rock and roll, this is GENOCIDE."
Perfect timing; my teen daughter just sent me this picture of Billie Eillish:
That's a little creepy but I do like her music
Here's another clue for you all . . . The Walrus was Paul . . .
No wait! It's John.
Well, he made no bones about it. He made that music for himself, and if people liked it, great. It helped pay the bills.
As I'm sure you know, he still did great orchestral music when he had the money and opportunity. I never thought of any of his music as a sell out. He never compromised himself, or did what he thought would sell. He did do what he could with the musicians he had at his disposal. Look what he did with a band, once he had one where everyone could read music, and handle complex arrangements and so on. Ruth Underwood, George Duke, Chester Thompson, Napoleon Murphy Brock and Tom Fowler. Sure he still wrote zany songs, but that band was hotter than hot. I for one, really like that he wrote about wacky things, and did it with an absurdly high level of musicianship.
There's a great deal of great compositions, or an orchestral type on Lather. He also did the LSO vol I and II. Then there was the Yellow Shark. I'm sure I'm missing some. Considering his experiences in the world of "serious" music, I can't blame him for not producing more of that music.
Where did he ever insinuate that he was too sophisticated for most people? I'm not saying he didn't, I've just never come across that to my knowledge.
Scorps for the win!
I thought The Monkees had four guys.
You can always count on Richie Kotzen for a creepy or weird looking pic.
BTW - I have to admit this is a hoax. Wish I could take credit for it...
He made reference many times to the record buying public as being unable to comprehend what he did or why he did it. In fact he thought his "humor" was over their heads as well.
I don't care about any of that really. But he talked them down quite often.
My point was, I feel that for the most part his talent was wasted. Sure he did a couple of things that were serious music. And demonstrated what he was capable of. What bothers me is, he did just like that album cover said, "We're only in it for the money".
In the 60s, when he released albums like Freak Out he knew it would appeal to the loaded Hippy crowd. His goal was to sell them records. And he made fun of them in most of his songs.
Think of what bands like Pink Floyd, Yes and other progressive music bands did. They made serious music that sold extremely well. He could have surpassed them easily.
But he chose the comedy route.
Can we get a full screen shot of that AVATAR of yours, please?
I've always been curious.
I think it's Cheech Marin from one of the Cheech & Chong movies...
AH. I understand. Thanks for the clarify.
I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree. It's like that question "does humor belong in music?" It's always seemed odd to me that if music has humor in it, it is considered "novelty" music. Why does music have to be 100% serious? I loved the combination of humor (although not all of his music is that way, without even considering the orchestral music) incredible complexity and sophistication.
Strangely, I never thought he was talking down to or putting down his audience. Many people can't get his music, that much has been shown to be true. Even if he was, I wouldn't allow it to interfere with the enjoyment of some of the most remarkable music I've ever heard.
Considered for years to be the worst album cover of all time. It was evidently hard to photograph Eddie without a creepy look in his eyes...
Even Eddie's publicity shots came out creepy...
This makes all the ladies happy...whenever Nickelback is nearby, that “not-so-fresh” feeling goes away.
Nah...one real musician & 3 chimps.
Who could forget "The Shaggs"?