30th Anniversary of John Lennon's Death

Remove all ads!

Music and those who create real music are artists. Music is one of the fine arts, just as literature and painting. John Lennon was more than a "rock star," but a musical artist. You may not agree with that, but that is the view of many of those who understand music as art.

Can explain that so that it makes sense?

How is it inspiring, when for many it is a fairly useless endeavor? I understand that sports has its fans, but that's far from everyone who considers it even remotely "inspiring."

That can be said of anything from business to making furniture, from writing books, to making music.

That fact that that has no test in reality helps to prove that sports is nothing special except in the imaginations of those who find it entertaining. I have no problem with those who find it entertaining, but no one can explain why it has much value beyond that.

That makes about as much sense as saying that's what "musicianship" is all about.

Let me know when I can stop laughing.

 

I can remember driving from Orlando to Jacksonville -- just about at the exit for Daytona Beach -- when the DJ broke into the broadcast and through his tears announced John was dead. He then proceeded to dedicate a song to John with the phrase, "John, may your strawberry fields be forever."

I'm sure you can guess what song he then played.

I wasn't a huge fan of the Beatles at the time, but the memory of John's death always stayed with me because of how pathetic and unintentionally funny the DJ was.

 

You're naughty Chandros.

I think you do understand the subtle difference between saying rock star and 'rock star'. I am in no way confining that post to Lennon alone. Whether he is only an artist or more, it was of no importance with what I thought of what Aldeth had pointed out.

I don't know about you but I've seen enough kids and some people who have performed better in their chosen fields (not necessarily sports) with the inspirations they got from watching athletes perform or the discipline these athletes subjected themselves on. Perhaps you and many others would think it is a useless endeavor but it seems like dreaming of excelling in useless endeavors can change peoples lives. So I don't see how that can easily be equated as useless endeavor anymore.

Musicianship and sportsmanship taken in the same sense... hmmm. Musicians makes their music according to what they feel is good. And in some cases, they had to break the rules in order to show they're right. Like The Beatles, they went against the accepted norm of their time and was branded as 'demonic' but eventually prevailed as people did loved them (and their music). But they were once 'demonic' and are now 'wholesome'. Because along the way, other musicians have went against the norm. Musician can break rules to make headlines, and I don't mean rules like illegally singing or playing someone's song or such. I mean, you can be a classical musician or a pop star or a rock star but you can break the rule and play a song that have elements of these genres or simply go against what the public is accustomed to. Whatever you think can please the public will eventually become acceptable. You can flow with the mainstream or be radical.

I don't see sportsmanship works in the same way. It's simply you elevate your performance level within the accepted rule and conduct of the given sport. If two musicians had a fist fight in front of an audience, they can be jailed because lawfully, that is a disturbance to peace. And likewise, athletes are subjected to that law also. BUT musicians don't get banned from playing their music professionally, athletes can be banned from playing professionally. Does a musician gets banned when they lypsynch? Or when they use voice enhancing devices? Or if they do drugs or are alcoholic? No. People can still love their music. An athletes can loose his career to alcohol, illegal drugs and some performance enhancing devices because they have rules to abide in. So does saying "musicianship" really have as much sense as saying "sportsmanship"?

Ah well, if you find that "but we certainly can't enjoy athletes with such qualities." funny, go ahead and laugh. I mean, now that you mentioned it, I do see the funny side of it now. But I'm sure you are intelligent enough to see what I meant it to be.

 

That's true of a lot of things. There are many outlets and examples of inspiration. Sports is nothing special in that regard. For many, music is far more inspiring, hence the reason it is used so heavily in everything from sports to movies, to video games, to even church services. Sports is really rather ordinary in that regard. Yes athletes have good discipline, I agree, Nior, but so do many other professionals and artists who are well-focused. We have all heard stories of Beethoven composing masterpieces of music while deaf, and Tolkien sitting in his drafty attic year after year hammering out the LotR. So in this regard sports is really nothing special.

Oh, that's just my own personal opinion, which means that you can certainly disagree. To me, it's nothing more than a kid's game. Really, in ancient Greece when they had the Olympics, it had profound meaning on many levels of society. Now it is an excuse to sell cars and beer, like many other things. It is just entertainment, and rather pointless entertainment, IMO.

That's rather vague. Many musicians work within an artistic tradition, much like the other arts. For instance, I work in the blues tradition, and much of what I play and listen to is informed and influenced by the blues. It is an expression of freedom. That the origins of the blues were some of the most poverty stricken and oppressed areas of the US is as much a part of the music as the way in which it is specifcially structured. But I'm still a "rocker" at heart and play in the rock genre. But I have studied classical music in a formal setting also (HS and college).

The Beatles were working solidly within the music traditions of the time, which is why much of their early stuff is really rather ordinary on a creative level. In fact, much of their early stuff consisted of mostly covers. The Mersey Beat was very popular in places like Liverpool, and because of its broad Rock and Roll influences, it took hold rather easliy in the US. It all started with a letter to a radio station by a teenage girl, who liked the Mersey Beat and wanted an unkown band from England (unkown in the US but poplular in England), to be played on the radio. This type of music had its influences in "skiffle," a blending of American folk genres (Jazz, blues, country). But the Beatle's music is informed far less by the blues than say, The Rolling Stones, who came to the US to record at Chess Records, and named themselves after a Muddy Waters tune. As a rocker I feel much closer to the Stones than the Beatles because of the blues.

Musicians can be "banned" but because it is art, that would be censorship and that has happened for particular songs.

Well yes, and people still love sports figures even though many of them use drugs and alcohol. No one cares about that.

I remember reading once that there was rape in some college town and rather than a lineup, the police brought the victim the local college football team yearbook to look though to find her rapist.

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/03/10/they-re-not-role-models.html

 

That's agreeable. Not that I am undermining their achievements, in fact I love LotR, Beethoven's music and what these people stood for. But I've yet to hear a kid getting inspired because he heard how long it took Tolkien to write LotR or that Beethoven was deaf while he wrote some of his masterpieces. But I do see a lot of kids and even disabled people who are at their lowest starts playing their hearts out because of the inspiration they got from their favorite athletes.

That is still 'what they feel is good'.

But that is partly my point in saying musicians can break the rules. One minute you are in the Blues tradition the next minute you are a rocker. And perhaps later you'd say that you love Jazz but you're not into another form of Jazz or Blues. It's like Sting, he's a Jazz artist by heart but change some things on his music and he's crossing over to pop or mainstream.

Well, that is a good point you showed there. It's an art, and art is not easily bounded by rules and regulations. Instead of the person being banned, you have to ban the product. In that light, that offending musician can still go on singing a modified version of the banned material. The same message but different wordings but it's not as offensive as the original. Just like a model poses nude for Playboy magazine, it's porn. But if the same model poses nude for a painter, it's art. Just a little nudge of the rules, and it takes on a new meaning. You'd probably say again that it's expression of freedom when clearly it is still just 'what they feel is good'. Often times in sports, it's simply black or white. You break the rules, it's your mistake, you get punished.

But people might learn to hate sports figures if those stuff they take starts to make them fumble around in the playing arena. While the musicians, they can be long dead or forgotten but people can still love their music.

I don't know about that but for now, I'd rather have my kids be inspired by some athlete (of course I want to be their hero too) and then choose whomever hero/heroine they want to look up to when they're grownups. In a way of speaking, the author just don't see how important it is for the kids right now to have their inspiration.

Encourage the fans to grow some scruples? Why don't she just write something to inspire the kids instead of nagging about how bad athletes and sportswriters are nowadays.

 

The Lord of the RIngs "inspired" an entire genre, not only of literature, but of culture. Without fantasy adventure most of us would not even be on this site. For many, Tolkien's work is inspiring. Many writers of modern fantasy adventure claim Tolkien as a major influence.

That's only useful in if it helps them overcome the limits of whatever disability they suffer from. Playing a kid's game with a ball is still not much of an accomplishment, IMO. Of course for someone who is disabled overcoming the limitations can help them go on to accomplish something more important, and that certainly is useful.

Art would be static and not change much if the "rules" weren't bent or broken. One doesn't have to play just the blues, or just "rock," one can play blues rock, which is a subgenre onto itself. The Yarbirds, which eventually became Led Zeppelin, is a good example of this. But it's not about breaking the rules, but reforming them to suit what you want to do with the music. Context is a large part of art. Sting uses elements of jazz in his music, as well as reggae and English folk music. He also was an English teacher and he used his knowledge of literature to large extent in his song writing. There is a close link between literature and rock music, and not only because of the lyrical and poetic sturcture of some music, but it is also a source for much of the thematic material used in rock music as well.

It is about freedom and not just in the political sense, but in a much broader, individual, sense of the concept. If sports is about conformity, and the "team" (as some have pointed out) then art is about the opposite: nonconformity and the individual. No offense intended, but to say that "what they feel is good," is not very meaningful. If you mean to say that all musicians write music "that they feel is good," that's nice and all but that's not really saying much. Again I'm not trying to put that down, but it's really like saying "all sports players try to play well." There's really not a lot of information in saying that.

Please don't take any of this wrong because I am enjoying this debate with you, Nior. It is an interesting debate.

Nonsense. Some people hate rock music because of all the supposed "vice," which is really not much worse than anything else, especially sports. Some players have admitted to being "high" while on the field, and even in championship games like the Super Bowl. They claim they played "better" because of the drugs, which is not unlike artists who claim they play "better" because of drug use.

Still, that's part of what you get. Rock music is in large part about individual freedom; sports is about "looking the other way" while it goes on. Much of the resentment that some have towards John Lennon is built on just that, his nonconformity. He was even investigated by the US government, and in a wierd instance, Elvis Presley tried to narc on him in a strange visit with Richard Nixon at the White House. Which is ironic considering his own history. But really, take the case of Mickey Mantle: He is long dead, but hardly "forgotten," and fans still adore him, despite his short-comings in exatcly the things you are complaining about. There is even a story about how Mantle supposedly signed a baseball for a young boy telling him that he was only sigining it because he liked looking at his "mom's nice breats." The guy was pretty much a dick, but he could play baseball so fans loved him. All this phony stuff about "role models" in sports is just a lot of bull.

Well, yes, lets all just "look the other way." Thank you for making my point so clearly.

 

Sorry to go back a few posts, but these were the main points I wanted to address.

I used to think that way, but not anymore. I've come ro realize that if I enjoy watching sports, I'm going to keep watching no matter what. I enjoyed watching the Steelers just as much this year as in years past, and that's after their star QB engaged in some not so savory behavior in the off-season. (Not enough evidence to charge him, so not criminal per se, but certainly inappropriate.) Similarly, I still watched Tiger Woods at the Masters, despite his personal fobiles.

You can say that about anything - even music. I cannot think of anything that everyone would agree is inspiring. (On a personal note, I find neither sports nor music inspiring.) However, just because you lack interest in sports, doesn't mean the country at large does. I would hazard to guess that while there is no univerally popular sport or team, the majority of Americans have at least one sport or team that they follow. (Heck the popularity of football and NASCAR alone would seem to indicate this was so.)

Anything that is done for entertainment has very little intrinsic value beyond that. If you're not into music, or just a particular of genre of music that you don't like, that type of music has no value except in the imaginations of those who find it entertaining either. I think my point is that entertainment IS the value we attach to a lot of those things. Can you explain this point in a little more deatil, as I'm clearly missing something?

For example, I use a car as my primary means of transportation. Your comment would be like saying to me, "Cars are nothing special except for use in transportation. I cannot see why it has much value beyond that." While that's true, the reason I own a car is FOR transportation. It doesn't need to have another purpose as it is fulfilling the primary purpose. The primary purpose of sports is enetertainment - that's why they put it in TV.

 

Well, that's certainly true and I was only countering Nior's points. I have nothing against sports or its fans. I haven't done any research, but I would guess the country is probably equally divided between those who don't care about sports and those who follow it. That I beleive it is fairly useless, except in the imaginations of those who follow it, is only a matter of personal expresssion and choice. There is nothing wrong with having a fantasy, nothing at all. But saying that it is built on reality, especially the one that the "sports culture" attempts to fashion, is much like a Tolkien fan trying to convince you that there really are elves living in the forests.

PS - I'm surprised that no one mentioned that sports was an important bridge in race relations and civil rights, much like literature and music. The history of civil rights in sports is much like the history of civil rights for the nation in the more general sense.

 

Maybe, because this is an american only thing, that doesn't apply to other nations . In other nations sports operate (or rather used to operate) more like barriers than bridges. The majority of the european football clubs were founded in order to represent conflicting political, religious or social fractions inside a nation. Barcelona (communists) vs Real Madrid (nationalists), Glasgow Rangers (protestants) vs Celtic F.C. (catholics), Panathinaikos (upper class) vs Olympiakos (harbor workers) and so on. Don't forget that the spark which ignited the yugoslavian war in early 90s was a footbal game between Belgrade Red Star and Dynamo Zagreb.


You have mentioned earlier that sports are about conformity and art about nonconformity. I totally agree with this. It's not only that teams operate like a military organization (of course someone could say that some bands operate like that ), but if you see the history of sports from ancient times, they have always been used to keep the crowd happy and quiet (bread and spectacles as Romans used to say). On the contrary, art has always been a force of progress and led to scientific and social breakthroughs.

 

I think that's where we disagree a bit more. To me, something like Tolkein's books are entirely imaginary, whereas sports are not. I think you only get into the imaginary in sports when you start using words like "we" when talking about your favorite team. I know many people who do this, and unless you work for the said team, using "we" when describing them is certainly delving into the world of the imaginary.

To me, watching a sporting event on television is what can accurately be called "Reality TV". (I find it humorous that most of the genre of "Reality TV" has no basis in reality - but I will concede the TV part.) Whether as a spectator or a competitor, I find something compelling about an event (or sequence of events) when the outcome is not predetermined. And I think that's true even when we play games. The reason why you may like to play a game of chess or Scrabble or Monopoly or whatever, is exactly because you don't know who is going to win. There is something intrinsicaly compelling about that, and I think it's human nature to have some level of interest in such things.

I would take it a step further and say that sports was ahead of the general public. Integration in the major sports came before (in many cases) integration of the country as a whole. Jackie Robinson started playing baseball in 1947, but Brown v. Board of Education didn't happen until 1954.

 

Sounds like Lincoln, NE....

 

Er, rest in peace, John Lennon. Imagine that you're in this thread somewhere........

 

BOC - I agree with your post. I do want to point out that sports fans, at least in the US, should be more demanding. It sounds as if there is a disconnect between what fans would like to see from the organization and from the players and what they actually get. This was crucial in rock music, because fans quit being demanding and ended up with a lot of crap, which is what happens when people will settle for anything that is put in front of them, if it is presented in the right way (marketed).

Maybe rock music just reached a point of exhaustion, and it died a slow death under its own power (or lack of it). The only place I can see any creative energy is in metal, which seems to be the last refuge. I'm not a metal fan but I can appreciate what metal guys are trying to do and that that is where the creative energy is left. Nevertheless, there are a few stirring of the embers in blues music, and it is worthwhile, but kind of retro and not really foward looking, nevertheless still great, powerful music. Just my

Aldeth - By "fantasy" I mean to say the hero worship part of it. I was not surprised by what Tiger was doing in the least. What surprised me is that so many people were "shocked" when he turned out to be a bit like most everyone else.

 

There's tons of activity in electronic music, much of it underground and powered by word of mouth and insider culture, so to speak, as opposed to marketing and radio play. It's often quite unconventional - 'daring' and experimental. Self-publishing is becoming a viable option too as the forms of music dissemination change. You may not get rich forming your own label and selling your music on iTunes or what have you, but it's apparently worthwhile for some, since so many do it. And you could argue that these artists remain unfettered by the influences of commericial labels and their marketing demands - 'sound more like this, sound more like that, or we'll drop you,' etc.

Electronic music may not be everyone's cup of tea of course, but IMO the music scene is not quite so hopeless in general.

It's probably just a given that it's going to evolve. If it didn't, we'd all still be listening to Buddy Holly (or whicever genre/era you choose to point to).

 

Don't worry about that, we've been in this forum long enough to know that we're not trying to offend each other... just expressing our opinions.

Huh?!? Hehehe.

Remember when the Beatles were gaining popularity and some groups of people branded them as 'demonic' and such? You and I love Lennon's music (I presume) but certainly the religious and the communist don't appreciate it. It's like I loved the music of the 80's but my parents think they were crap. Perhaps we are them of this generation. We hate Lady Gaga and her bunch but heck we are clearly outnumbered by those who loved them. And all these crappy music, this is what I meant when I say musician make music the way they feel is good. Whether we like what's playing on the radios now or not, it definitely is what the artists feel is right for the era. Perhaps in a couple of decades or so, things would change. Todays crap will be the oldies but goodies and what we loved are simply unheard of. Maybe, it's not the fans being disconnected but rather we, a fraction of the audience, just refuse to move with the times. As you said it yourself that art is about non conformity. Yet we refuse to change our taste in music but those musicians have to change as they needed not to conform.

 

Oh, yes. Good point, Gaear. And I really like that stuff, especially a lot of it from Europe. But it ain't "Rock n' Roll."

Well, I've thought of that. But It's just as bad to see a bunch of old farts still playing reunion shows. I'm not one of those middle-aged Boomers who get all exicited over REO still playing "Take it On The Run." [shudder]

I just personally feel that as far as real rock music is concerned, there's not much there any longer. BTW, I actually like Lady Gaga for what she does. But it still ain't "Rock n' Roll."

 

That it isn't, and I'm quite sure nothing will ever replace Rock. When you stop and think about it, Rock n' Roll has really been a stunningly innovative genre - nothing like what it eventually came to be in its heyday (I'm thinking of the seventies and maybe early eighties) had ever really been seen in music before, unless you consider the use of guitars in general as making a genre similar. I just hope its golden age lives on indefinitely.

 

Gaear - I completely agree with your post.

I did want to mention that I used to room with a Jazz horn player from Boston, who had his degree from Berkeley, and he used talk about how he and other jazzz musicians there would complain about "the death of Jazz." And how the new stuff, like Kenny G. and those guys were all imposters. For him Jazz warriors like Miles Davis and John Coltrane were the end of the golden age, and Jazz was never the same after them. I used to point out that there were sill plenty of good jazz musicians still playing like Pat Metheny and John Scofield [And I think, but not really sure that some of those guys sometimes teach there]. But he would just shake his head. At the time, I believed that he just being stubborn....

 

In the local scene, we actually had a sudden surge of great local rock bands with great rock music in the late 80's to mid 90's. Unfortunately, it was eventually subdued by catchy novelty songs being belted out by several groups of girls who can't sing but can drop your jaw with their heavenly bodies and skimpy clothings. You won't even mind if their dance steps are downright simple. Incidentally, they are also soft-porno stars. And then we hailed back the American Pop with some C-Pop, J-Pop and K-Pop darting around.

To be honest, I had to visit YouTube to know that song. Didn't have to finish it to say... face palm moment.

 

Nior - There are a few guys left "keeping the flame" and who still know how to ROCK.