My comment was merely a reaction to Mr Black's comments that people whom have out performed him are some how apprentices. That doesn't seem accurate.

That seems reasonable.


J

I must admit that I have never watched any of Mr. Cowell's productions. That probably makes me the only American over the age of 60 who has not. But I am familiar with his work through the yapping of the TV "news" media about who has won what, which is what passes for journalism when news is seen as entertainment. The quoted blog from Jet Black (is that a real name, and isn't he afraid that a negro porn star will rip it off?), sounds like the rumination of a slightly bitter old man (to which I can relate) who has labored his whole life to reach something like stardom (of which I have no experience whatsoever), and now is being largely ignored (at least he is not reduced to posting in a music software miscellaneous forum). 

The distinction between the "professional", or the "artist" and the wannabe, is one that aging rockers should approach with caution. There are many who would view a few decades of drugs and groupies interspersed with the occasional paid performance or recording, as something less than an admirable artistic career. And of course one can speculate that even the most successful popular musician was at some point a wannabe. 

But he clearly overstates the significance of the Cowell phenomenon in the history of music. Talent shows may be the launch pad, for a very few great new talents, but they are clearly not the future (or even the present) of popular music. They are a somewhat more artistic version of the football game, deriving more entertainment value from the competition than from the performance. If anyone watching these circuses was truly interested in hearing the best new music performances available, they would not be watching a game show on TV. They would certainly not be listening to the carefully selected losers, who are there to provide "drama" pathos or comic relief. People who want to hear the best new music are certainly not buying large numbers of CD's of the losers' performances.

And if his point is that media attention/merchandising/connections can elevate performers to a popularity they may not have otherwise achieved, well I give you the Monkees (circa 1966) or Miley Cyrus (circa 2009), who did not need to win anything except perhaps an audition. 

mike_mccue


A colleague was explaining to me that he thinks that live music and connecting with the audience is where it's at and that he doesn't see much value in recordings, records, or listening to records.



I asked him how a young person in China would be able to experience the Beatles under his preferred paradigm.


I asked him if he thought music, as documented on the Grateful Dead's American Beauty, should have just blown away in the wind for no one in the future to enjoy the moment when that performance came together with a synergy that may rarely be equaled.



I was gonna ask him if he appreciated the idea that John Coltrane, after he rehearsed it for 6 months, managed to get Giant Steps down on tape for anyone, anywhere, to enjoy listening to. I was gonna ask him, but then I realized that I don't think he knows who John Coltrane is.

The great recordings will always rise to the top and there will always be people inteersted in listening to great recordings.

That's why the internet is full of traffic with music flying back and forth to eager ears.

best regards,
mike

edit grammar

 
 
Did you also explain to your colleague how grateful he should have been that you were there?
 
Did you hear me say recording was invalid in anyway when you made that response?
 
McQ = "incapable of grasping what others are capable of grasping"

mike_mccue


"Google 'The Stranglers"

Yes, I happen to know of the Stranglers... they're the guys that made 17 studio albums and after lots of expensive 1980's MTV airplay they got one of those records to enter the U.S. charts and top out at 172.

The rest of the albums never even made it on to the RADAR over here... we had our own punk rock.

The singles weren't listened to much either... we have our own punk rock. :-)

Could you explain your point here Mike?

You seemed to be suggesting that the 74 year angry dude had some sort of pedigree.

Mr. Jet Black has a UK platinum album.

Taylor Hicks, an alumni of Mr. Cowell's artist promotion, has a USA platinum album.


In the U.S.A. a platinum album is 1,000,000 units.

In the U.K. a platinum album is 300,000 units.

My point is I don't think the 74 year old angry dude has any thing on the people who do well on Mr. Cowells TV shows... and I'd enjoy seeing him strut his stuff and see how an audience of 30,000,000 would vote after his best shot.

I'll quote myself:

"My comment was merely a reaction to Mr Black's comments that people whom have out performed him are some how apprentices. That doesn't seem accurate."


all the best,
mike

I don't see any correlation between US/UK album sales having a bearing on anyone's right to an opinion, or 5 decade career against a popular performance on a TV show. I also didn't get the impression that he was angry, rather he seemed quite avuncular.

I know who I'd enjoy having a pint with though.

He alluded to the fact that he was part of a once thriving music industry, which I question.

Then he described other musicians derisively as "apprentices" who's music has become popular because the audience that enjoys it has been "battered and brainwashed".

His essay is © Jet Black 2011 as part of his very own public relations blog... which I guess just sort of gently brainwashes people?




Enjoy your pint... tell him I say "Hi".  :-)


all the best,
mike

Then he described other musicians derisively as "apprentices"

No he didn't. He was talking about the endless succession of shows like 'The Apprentice' (where various wannabee businessmen and women vie for a chance to be Alan Sugar's new little darling) where we get to watch people who are not very good at cooking, dancing, skating or singing, becoming slightly better at it over 13 weeks in the run up to Christmas.

You can bring your own axe, but you can't always grind it.

Remember the boy band era and the girl band era. This is the same thing only for single talents; business manufacturing and creating music for a profit. It has little to do with what people want or need in terms of a musical experience.

I think it was Vince Gill who recently stated he could make more money from the ring tones of his songs than by selling albums these days. It's what the music buying public, or what is left of it, wants today.

We the people don't support live music or venues that provide live music. Plain and simple until that happens again, if ever, we must try to find paletable music on the menu screen of a digital device. We must also suffer the business view of what music is.. essentially one big competetive (we are a sports centric culture) talent show.

Then he described other musicians derisively as "apprentices" No he didn't. He was talking about the endless succession of shows like 'The Apprentice' (where various wannabee businessmen and women vie for a chance to be Alan Sugar's new little darling) where we get to watch people who are not very good at cooking, dancing, skating or singing, becoming slightly better at it over 13 weeks in the run up to Christmas.

You can bring your own axe, but you can't always grind it.

" it’s all about watching people learning how to do something. Become professional singers,.."

"What’s actually happened, is that we have gone from watching the craftsman, to watching the apprentice!"

"we are no longer watching great performers, we are reduced to watching learners."

best,
mike