Music Villains (1 Viewer)

My nominations :

Colonel Tom - for sucking Elvis dry in two years; Phil Spector - for the wall of noise; AB Klein - for locking up the music; Dick Clark - for sucking and lip-synching; Malcolm McLaren - for Sex Pistols

Little Richard, for having a love-child with Diana Ross, and calling it Prince

Tiny Tim - for leading to Kiss, Alice Cooper, New York Dolls, Marilyn Manson

Rolling Stones, for making it acceptable for geezers to rock on forever - "rockers with walkers"

Kenny G - for making sax unrespectable.

Remixers, who turn overblown 5 minute pieces into 7 minute pieces for further padding 79 minute albums

and RIIA for attempting to enforce a market of overpriced mediocrity

Anybody else got anything they want to post?

My nominations:

(I'll 2nd) Allen Klein for being a total dick in regards to reissuing the Cameo/Parkway label in general and Question Mark & the Mysterians in particular.

Terry Kath for screwing over Grand Funk Railroad.

John & Christine McVie for vetoing Bob Welch's inclusion to the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame when Fleetwood Mac was inducted.

Whomever in the Beatle's camp that is responsible for the back catalog coming out in a subpar trickle.

I wouldn't blame any artist for starting something, then having others pickup and continue that legacy in some way.

If people are willing to pay $150 a seat for a Rolling Stones concert and if they are still able to perform at a high level, then I say go for it.

I can't put Kenny G down in any way. I started listening to him about 14 years ago which then springboarded me into better Jazz. I don't listen to him anymore, but he was my stepping stone into the world of jazz.

Tiny Tim lead to Kiss? I've read a few books on Kiss and have never read that Tiny Tim was an influeance.

If you want to blame anybody for the acts you listed, then blame the record companies for signing them to contracts.

Paul

I nominate John Watson due to these nominations!

I don't see the beef with Prince. The man is a f*ckin' genius. He may have been laying low as of late, but his performance at the Grammy's showed the world that he still has it. I would donate a nut if he would do a balls out, guitar album.

And whats wrong with the Sex Pistols? I think music needed a good kick in arse back then, and they did a pretty good job of it.

But to each his own, I suppose.

BGL

Courtney Love for hoarding all the unreleased Nirvana material that Dave and Krist want released.

Clear Channel and MTV for only playing what the record companies want you to hear.

NSync, Britney Spears, and Backstreet Boys for pushing the boundaries of shitty pop music.

Good Charlotte for ushering in a whole bunch of bland pop-punk bands. Like new Goldfinger, Smile Empty Soul, Simple Plan, Story of the Year, and the entire Drive-Thru Records lineup.

I nominate MTV as the single largest peddler of no talent entertainers in the world.

All of those among the artists and the industry that put Commerce before Art.

I understand that commerce must play a role in popular culture, but when its placed BEFORE art, that's when I must cry, 'VILLIAN!' and quickly walk away.

"Commerce before Art"? That's not as clear-cut as it might seem. I can't think of any company as commercially ambitious as early Motown. They developed a commercial sound and paid their session musicians virtually peanuts. You could call the company cravenly commercially-obsessed. And yet, the genius of the label's output is undeniable.

How about the Beatles, U2, Rolling Stones -- all groups with the stated intention of being the biggest bands in the world. You may not like these three groups (though I do), but with them, the line demarcating Commerce and Art is blurred, at best.

Lots of artists want -- affirmatively seek -- a huge commercial audience. That's not a problem to me. I still either like or dislike their work product.

There are groups with "integrity" and precious litle talent. There are others who have both. Dividing the world into Commerce and Art is a futile exercise that creates as many worthy artists straddled on that fence than there are on either side.

another version of the MTV beef - VIDEO KILLED THE RADIO STAR

best lyrics in I WANT MY MTV : "money for nothing and the chicks are free" + "the little faggot is a millionaire"

Actually, I liked many Prince thangs, but Vanity 6, Sheila e, Morris and Time...

a few more nominations :

Simon and Garfunkel, for airy madrigals, leading to Air Supply, Mr Mr, Julee Cruise, Enya, etc

Barry Manilow, for writing that song.

American Graffiti - for turning movie music soundtracks into Jukeboxes

Garth Brooks, well, what the hell, he's so down and out now, that I feel sorry for him

Stu

I do not have a problem Motown, U2, The Beatles, etc. Why?

Because while they were no doubt ambitious, they still had an artistic vision they wished to share with the world. Commerce did not come before art in those instances. I have no problem with ambition and the riches that naturally arise from ambitions that meet with success.

But I'm thinking along the lines of someone like Ms. Spears, who clearly had no art to share with us at all, just product, to be marketed just like Pepsi. Hey wait a minute...

This to me is no blurring of the lines. Its a clear example of the tail wagging the dog. And I could, of course, cite many, many, MANY more examples.

You know, if someone like Ms. Spears just wants to pose naked in various publications, that's fine with me. But when she's marketed as music, I feel that's an intrusion into a sacred space of human expression that has a tradition as old as humanity itself. And she (and her corporate/managerial puppetmasters) have no business associating themselves with that tradition for their own profit.

Mike:

I understand your point, but ultimately, I don't think it's a matter of art vs. commerce. It seems to me that the reason you don't like some performers is that your feeling is that there's no art, just commerce.

That's entirely fair, and I don't really disagree with you. I just meant to say that any attempt to divide the world's artists into pure artists or crass profiteers is fraught with peril. The music world is full of artists who may have been driven wholly by the dollar but who nevertheless managed to produce something of great artistic worth. Similarly, the music world is full of earnest, anti-commercial artists whose motives are unimpeachable but whose music is unlistenable.

That's why I tend to focus on the work, not the artist. It's a lot easier that way.

Art is in the eye of the beholder, whether it is done for commercial reasons or not. Some people see Britney Spears as an artist, others do not. It is all opinion. People form different criteria for what art is and just because something doesn't conform to your idea of art, does not mean that it is not art. I can understand why people hate popular music but I think it's wrong to say it's not art. It's just not YOUR definition of art. I don't like popular music, especially most hip-hop, but I do not attempt to degrade it by saying it's not art. I listen to each work and judge it by my criterias.

To continue this fine thread, my nomination would be...

Phish and Dave Matthews- for waving in a new era of hippies.

The RIAA for pretending to give a shit about "artists' rights" while they play a big role in screwing them anyway then blaming the public.

Marvin Gaye's father

ClearChannel for destroying radio

Rock critics who take it upon themselves to try to shape the popular culture to fit their hateful, narrow tasteless world view of fake youth angst and limited artistry.

The American public for shitting on its greatest art form, jazz, forcing its musicians to make a living in Europe or be misrepresented by- ugh- "smooth jazz."

Neil M-You do have a point that one person’s art can be deemed useless fluff by another.

I have not listen to commercial radio (and for the most part TV), MTV, VH1 and such in years so I am not familiar with Mrs. Spears and Mr. Brooks and the like. But I did have had the unfortunate experience to be trapped in a room for about 20min while American Idol was on. And the host of the show, the one who makes all the smart remarks, to me is a clear sign of the decline of western civilization as we know it. But of course this is only my opinion. The other day I was listening to We are Only in it for The Money , and my wife ask me to please turn that garbage off and listen to some real music. And yes, of course she loves American Idol.

Neil

It is true that each individual must decide for themselves what is art and what is not, but for me, its quite simple: Does the artist have something they wish to communicate or share with us, or not?

Its usually not too hard for me to make those distinctions. And you know what else helps me make those distinctions? The test of time.

The Beatles have survived the test of time. They have remained relevant to new generations of people, and have attracted fans who were born after John Lennon was shot! But I'm willing to bet you a box of Krispy Kremes that Britney and her ilk will not survive the test of time. And that's how we can seperate the wheat from the chaff, the true art from the disposable revenue stream generators. Or, to use Kurt Cobain's term, "Radio-Friendly Unit Shifters".

Substitute "Madonna" for "Britney" and 20 years ago, I would have agreed with you. But you never do know. Hard to judge an artist's long term potential based on their initial output.

Then again, comparing Britney with, say, Christina Aguilera (who I think is an amazing talent), and I think you will in fact be enjoying you donuts.

BGL

Brian

Madonna is a real interesting case because she is a simply brilliant businesswoman, and that allowed her to avoid a slide into irrelevancy for a long, long time.

But I think her day is almost over, and she realizes that. Hence the kiss with Britney.

Stock, Aitken, Waterman for mindless pop trash of the 80s

whomever was responsible for Boney M

just my pet peeves.

Yngwie Malmsteen
Lars Ulrich
Nikki Sixx