dbowker wrote:

When you say "history" you are talking about an incredibly narrow slice of time when recorded music was just starting really. Before that, if you listened to music at all it was live. And in that case it was either folk, or something popular at home, for most people religious on Sundays, or classical for the tiny elite minority. None of that actually depended on selling anything to the masses. Popular and folk "sold" itself, and classical was commisioned or produeced for and by the rich. It's almost not worth comparing any of it to the history of recorded music UNTIL you had LPs because that's when real music became truly available to the masses for the first time.

Certainly singles played a big part of radio play and culture throughout the 40's and beyond, but so many other things were different then too. Look at Ray Charles, who had numerous hits. Sure, but he also had years to build and devlop his work. He had a label that supported and belived in him. They were not looking to cash in and out in 1-5 years and then move on. That is what musicians face today. A short-term investment with quick earnings and blockbuster singles.

Many of the "greats" that people point to of the 60s-70's started out very slowly. Look at the first albums of the Rolling Stones or Beatles. Good stuff in there for sure, but not the huge acheivemnts of later years. They all had years to grow, learn and perfect their work. 

That is what is REALLY missing today, not raw talent. It's rare that greatness doesn't come with as much or more practice and growth as talent.

Yes you quite correct with everything you so clearly stated.

For a similar take on the subject of popular music throughout history check out Richard Thompson's take on the concept:

http://www.richardthompson-music.com/catch_of_the_day.asp?id=117

JIMV wrote:

I am having a problem posting on the site today...that said, Glotz your lack of an ability to discriminate between crap and music is not a reflection of my opinion. Now for real sacrelidge...Rap is to music what graffiti is to art.

Jim,

Why are you being so mean to graffiti? Come on you have to admit that is plenty of graffiti which shows that the "artist" has at least some degree of artistic talent. Unfortunately the same cannot be said for rap music, which for the most part is pretty much devoid of any musical merit and talent.

In the May 2011 "Spin" magazine, page 24, they have an interview with Tunde Adebimpe.  I don't really know the artist, and I'm not exactly a Spin fan, but the first question to the artist is:

"The first song on the album is actually 'Second Song'. What gives?"

The response he gave was:

"I think it is fitting.  It just works better that way.  Once it is on shuffle no one will care."

This is a little twist on what I was getting at.  Many artists want to make an album flow, but they have the impression that no one cares.  The "shuffle" mode of play is a different twist on the "buying a single song" that never really came to mind.  How long will it be before they don't care if it flows anymore?

Oh snap!

JIMV wrote:

I am having a problem posting on the site today...that said, Glotz your lack of an ability to discriminate between crap and music is not a reflection of my opinion. Now for real sacrelidge...Rap is to music what graffiti is to art.

Can I still have all of your 'crap' cds? ;)

(Listening to Green On Red and Dream Syndicate night on 'good'  radio tonight..!) And enoying the Sour Diesel, so I'm in a good mood...

JIMV, continue please...