Great musicians of the 20th century

Thanks Joshua for your suggestions. I feel variety is an important aspect. Pop-Rock is my favourite and still they are. I am trying to build more variety in my music palate and that's why looking for Jazz, obviously in LPs. I have two George Benson LPs ('In your eyes' & 'George Benson Collection') which I purchased used from Tek. To be frank, they are still not played by me. I could listen only 10 percent of my LP collection (total approx. 300) so far due to my son's exams etc.
Regards
 
Any suggestion for best 3-4 LPs pf Randy Crawford? Her voice is like free air with prowess. Another great singer is Jennifer Warnes. I am lucky to get her 'The Famous Blue Raincoat' LP from Ebay. I am yet to listen it.
 
Last edited:
Like every other genre of music Jazz has it's share of smooth, soporific and saccharine stuff catering to a broad audience of listeners who do not want complexity or intellectual content in the music they listen to.

Since I became interested in music, fiction and cinema as a teenager I have always rejected the notion that these arts are purely meant for 'entertainment'. Most "entertaining" and "bestselling" art is essentially dumbed down stuff addressing the lowest common denominator of the audience. Entertainment is an essential ingredient in the mix, but it should not be the only ingredient.

Apart from entertaining,

A book, cd or film should engage us emotionally and intellectually.

A book, cd or film should challenge and sometimes demolish our 'comforting notions'.

A book, cd or film should attempt to add fresh perspective and creativity to our lives.

Personally I feel an artist is a teacher and his role is to lead the audience.

'Art as Entertainment' will inevitably be mediocre art because in this case the audience is leading the artist.
 
Most "entertaining" and "bestselling" art is essentially dumbed down stuff addressing the lowest common denominator of the audience.

An artist need to put food on the table, too:)

Dumbing things down makes it accessible to a larger audience. Not always a good thing but sometimes essential to the survival of the artist.
 
An artist need to put food on the table, too:)

Dumbing things down makes it accessible to a larger audience. Not always a good thing but sometimes essential to the survival of the artist.

i have to respectfully disagree here. An artist being true to his art may cater to a small niche, but that may be enough to allow him to make a comfortable living.
Reaching out to larger audience on the other hand may cause the core of the artist's vision to get compromised by boardroom pressures.
 
'entertainment'. Most "entertaining" and "bestselling" art is essentially dumbed down stuff addressing the lowest common denominator of the audience.

Dumbed down stuff? i wonder why does something very entertaining or best selling has to be dumb.

I also don't understand why some people self judge them self as superior or more intelligent when everything in this world unless proven scientifically is relative.


Apart from entertaining,

A book, cd or film should engage us emotionally and intellectually.

A book, cd or film should challenge and sometimes demolish our 'comforting notions'.

A book, cd or film should attempt to add fresh perspective and creativity to our lives.

Personally I feel an artist is a teacher and his role is to lead the audience.

'Art as Entertainment' will inevitably be mediocre art because in this case the audience is leading the artist.

Who defines these rules?

I thought we were posting musicians from the 20th century in this thread, but rather it looks like we are defining what is mediocre and what is avant garde like we know everything.
 
Dumbed down stuff? i wonder why does something very entertaining or best selling has to be dumb.
What is best selling?
Who drives the sales to make it best selling?
What are the demands of those people who make stuff best selling?
Does this group of people follow a specific patter?
I also don't understand why some people self judge them self as superior or more intelligent when everything in this world unless proven scientifically is relative.

So he may have meant relative to his own standard - "most people are less intelligent, or less open to trying out new stuff, less open to enjoying" compared to what he expects out of a "superior" person.

Who defines these rules?

I thought we were posting musicians from the 20th century in this thread, but rather it looks like we are defining what is mediocre and what is avant garde like we know everything.

He has defined for himself. Everyone defines for himself - and thus everyone has a different take on this.

Many people like stuff where they have to utilize their intelligence.
Many people prefer stuff where they just have to switch off their minds.
 
when everything in this world unless proven scientifically is relative.

With no offence to anyone I was reminded of this quote from Bertrand Russell's ABC of Relativity.
"A certain type of a superior person is fond of asserting that 'everything is relative'. This is, of course, nonsense, because, if everything were relative, there would be nothing for it to be relative to."
Metaphysical absurdities apart, I agree that one shouldn't go to such extremes as to label all popular stuff as being either 'dumb' or 'low brow', after all there something as 'wisdom of the masses'.
My two pence is that if the popularity of a song or music lasts for a considerable length of time then it will score good in all the parameters listed by Ajay.
 
Last edited:
longshanks

Your criticism is entirely valid and I am pleased that you responded with a bit of aggression. A good debate needs to have a pro and contra in order to be 'entertaining' and informative. To get people involved in a debate you have to clearly enunciate one side of the story. It does not mean that one has to entirely believe this side of the story or entirely disbelieve the other side of the story.

I believe that until the late 70's there was a reasonable amount of social commentary and grown up ideas being put across in popular art. The spirit of the years from 1960-1980 seemed to be infused with a touch of defiance and intellectual rebellion. Since the early 80's conformity, greed and "insuring our future" seem to have become the defining forces of our lives . We are busy chasing a mythical future happiness. We simply do not have the time or the energy to engage with art which requires us to think. Most folks when they reach home after a hard day of 'insuring the future' crash out in front of a TV program, hit the bottle, leaf through a bestseller or a newspaper. They are seeking rest, respite and forgetfulness. Entertaining art provides this respite and forgetfulness. But it also locks us forever in a prison of mundane ideas and actions. The notion of art as something which should rejuvenate our imagination, creativity and knowledge has been abandoned.

I don't have the intention, or the inclination, for scoring brownie points or self judging myself as superior or more knowledgable. Sometimes if I believe something strongly I tend to put it across strongly. I am completely aware that my opinion is not very original or important. It is merely a drop in the sea of diverse opinions held by people around the world. I change my opinion quite frequently and often contradict myself! Therefore much of what I say should be taken with a generous pinch of salt :)
 
He has defined for himself. Everyone defines for himself - and thus everyone has a different take on this.

Fair enough.

With no offence to anyone I was reminded of this quote from Bertrand Russell's ABC of Relativity.
"A certain type of a superior person is fond of asserting that 'everything is relative'. This is, of course, nonsense, because, if everything were relative, there would be nothing for it to be relative to."

You are quoting the theory of relativity according to bertrand Russell ? nice.No offence but i find zero relevance in your "Bertrand Russell" quote to what i posted.

"if everything were relative, there would be nothing for it to be relative to"----OK, but i understood relativity as "relative to each other", i could be wrong.


My two pence is that if the popularity of a song or music lasts for a considerable length of time then it will score good in all the parameters listed by Ajay.

You mean like gospel music?



@ajay124

I think we all change our opinions & contradict ourselves,it could be because we evolve throughout our lifetime. :)

Sorry about the OT, now lets get back to "Great musicians of the 20th century".


Cheers.
 
Personally I feel an artist is a teacher and his role is to lead the audience.

'Art as Entertainment' will inevitably be mediocre art because in this case the audience is leading the artist.

I think, an artist's role is to serve, practice and develop the art they have chosen. Its up to people if they want to appreciate it or not and want to consider the artist as the teacher, just as you wrote you do.


If the least of an art's purpose is to exist, who can define, or judge, what is inferior, mediocre or superior? Who can, or should, decide which art should exist and be appreciated and which art should not.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

An Andy Worhol might be worth everything to someone and may just look liker a rag with random paint thrown on it to someone else.

Cheers,

Saurabh
 
[QUOTE



You mean like gospel music?



Cheers.[/QUOTE]



i don't know what you mean by 'gospel music' so i am not sure of this post's relevance.
anyway i was just talking about the longevity of certain types of popular music as being a reflection of their artistic merit.
after all what qualifies today as being high brow classical music or even some forms of early jazz, were very 'popular' music of their times.
there were other popular music too but those faded and no body listens to them any more.
(Nobody or not many today listen to Antonio Salieri even though his music was very popular and important during his own times. The music of his contemporaries like Shubert and Liszt on the other hand are still appreciated.)
as for gospel music, the genre has been around for more than 2000 years and inspired a host of 20th century greats such as Mahalia Jackson, Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley and Van Morrison to just name a few.
 
Last edited:
as for gospel music, the genre has been around for more than 2000 years and inspired a host of 20th century greats such as Mahalia Jackson, Ray Charles, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis Presley and Van Morrison to just name a few.

Plus a good chunk of western classical music can be termed gospel or gospel themed.
 
I think we all change our opinions & contradict ourselves,it could be because we evolve throughout our lifetime. :)

I think it is perfectly OK to change one's views and opinions, and even one's values. Especially with respect to music.

It just means that:

a) we have grown
b) our priorities have changed
c) we have found "truthier" truths
d) our horizons have expanded

And contradicting oneself is part and parcel of this process. We grow, we learn new ways and new things, we unlearn the old ones where called for, or continue to hold them in our warm embrace.

Let me try to explain from my rather shallow experience:

Grown up (a least a bit:)) - one could grow up listening predominantly to a certain type of music. Like me. I listened to hair metal (as in the heavy metal played by long haired musicians wearing tight spandex pants and tanktops, exposing as much of their tattoo-ed bodies as possible) and hard rock when I was a teenager to the exclusion of all other forms of music. At one point I woke up to realise that I have been missing so much good music in my life. I opened my ears to alternate forms of music and I am really glad for it. Now, I no longer think rock, hard rock and metal are the greatest musical gift to mankind:)

Changed priorities - I had always appreciated the subtleties in music but it wasn't my priority. But it is now. A well-placed grace note gives me the goose bumps. Which is why I have new-found respect for the subtle intricacies in western classical (Tchaikovsky's Concerto for Piano and Violin in D Major, anyone?). Hard driving and hard charging pace no longer drives me. I am content to listen to the swish of metal brush against the jazz cymbal. Or the tonality of standing bass in small ensemble jazz. Or compare how similar yet different are the tones of the Chinese erhu and western violin.
 
Joshua

It seems that Mozart is nudging out Metallica from your listening list :) Jolly good show!

As you have mentioned in your last post good music is relatively more subtle, intricate and complex than the head banging, hard driving variety. Heavy metal and rock seems like god's greatest gift to mankind for a few years, but once you have been seduced by the subtle intricacies of jazz then there is no going back.

After a couple of years of exposure to masters of jazz like Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington and John Coltrane I found that my affection and respect for rock music had been seriously downgraded. Personally after I caught a glimpse of what Coltrane, Miles and company were doing I gradually lost interest in Pink Floyd, Doors, Led Zep, Dire Straits and company.

The first jazz track which had me singing goodbye rock, hullo jazz in the late 80's:

Miles Davis "Summertime" (1958) - YouTube
 
When I was a small kid, one of my maternal uncles who was studying for his MA bought a bunch of carpentry tools. His reasoning was if he has the tools lying around, he will learn to use it. With the same credo, I have gathered a fairly big bunch of jazz CDs and records (predominantly CDs) as well as a fairly big pile of western classical CDs and records (predominantly vinyl records) and slowly testing the waters. it is so far an enriching experience. Metallica (and their ilk) has long been subsumed by less angrier and gentler forms of music, though I still retain the two Metallica records I have on LP for sentimental reasons. I am still in kindergarten.
 
Check out our special offers on Stereo Package & Bundles for all budget types.
Back
Top