Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
What are you listening to? Part III
- Thread starter S.B.G
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Early morning listening to some M.S. Subbulakshmi, From the NCPA archives..going down a treat this.
Thanks for this, I'm listening to it now and it's great.
Audio with separated vocals as well as fan chatter have been floating around for a long time…but I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of the YouTube videos are audio grafted onto concert footage. I’m just glad Sir Paul didn’t make putting his wives and partners on stage a tradition, ha ha.
Yoko and Linda raise an interesting question: since Yoko had and has serious performance art cred and received formal musical training, does that make her work with John art or nepotism?
;-)
@Snow4maen: Wings were.....erratic, or uneven, (in my opinion), in terms of their musical output. As was almost everything that John Lennon wrote post Beatles. Neither John nor Paul was better as a solo artist than they were when they played, performed, composed, worked together as part of The Beatles.
However, Band on the Run was one of their better albums.
Re nepotism, I think (and no-one - but no-one - could replace The Beatles at their best), whatever nepotism may have existed re either Yoko (who was, as @KaliYoni points out, a classically trained artist) or Linda (who was more than comfortable in an artistic milieu, as she came from the affluent Kodak family, - they had made their fortunes with the manufacture of film for cameras), both women were on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of misogyny (with racism added in the case of Yoko) from Beatles fans outraged that the twin male leads (George had earlier remarked that he and Ringo were perceived as "economy class Beatles") no longer wished to perform, or work, together, and thus chose to blame their female partners for the split in the band, rather than correctly ascribing it to the fact that John and Paul no longer wished to work together.
However, Band on the Run was one of their better albums.
Re nepotism, I think (and no-one - but no-one - could replace The Beatles at their best), whatever nepotism may have existed re either Yoko (who was, as @KaliYoni points out, a classically trained artist) or Linda (who was more than comfortable in an artistic milieu, as she came from the affluent Kodak family, - they had made their fortunes with the manufacture of film for cameras), both women were on the receiving end of an extraordinary amount of misogyny (with racism added in the case of Yoko) from Beatles fans outraged that the twin male leads (George had earlier remarked that he and Ringo were perceived as "economy class Beatles") no longer wished to perform, or work, together, and thus chose to blame their female partners for the split in the band, rather than correctly ascribing it to the fact that John and Paul no longer wished to work together.
So, if you are screaming at someone in anger, it's not art. But, if you take classes...you can go on stage and call the same screaming, screeching, and chirping....wait for it....Art? Like I said to @rm5 earlier, just because you can throw splats of paint on a canvas, doesn't mean it's art. And, no amount of art appreciation classes or upper class cultural status is ever going to make it art. Otherwise, monkeys flinging their
Did you see the look on Chuck Berry's face when Yoko started making the noises? Her noise was not even art to another music professional. Tells me all I need to know. If it quacks like a duck....it's a duck. If it smells like a fart, it's a fart...and her noise definitely stinks.
I feel it is a question of intent. Consciously and deliberately subverting or ignoring artistic and musical conventions is different, in my view, to dilettantes or non-humans producing images or sounds.
This isn’t a new question, of course…atonal composers and Surrealist artists are just two examples of movements that drove “is it art?” controversies in the 20th Century. I bet even prehistoric cave painters faced similar views. And tastes change. Present-day blockbuster museum mainstays van Gogh and Monet were not considered “real” artists for decades. Stravinsky’s score for “The Rite of Spring” incited audience riots at its premiere.
—————
Marcel Duchamp, “Fountain”, 1917/1964
Last edited:
I feel it is a question of intent. Consciously and deliberately subverting or ignoring artistic and musical conventions is different, in my view, to dilettantes or non-humans producing images or sounds.
This isn’t a new question, of course…atonal composers and Surrealist artists are just two examples of movements that drove “is it art?” controversies in the 20th Century. I bet even prehistoric cave painters faced similar views. And tastes change. Present-day blockbuster museum mainstays van Gogh and Monet were not considered “real” artists for decades. Stravinsky’s score for “The Rite of Spring” incited audience riots at its premiere.
—————
Marcel Duchamp, “Fountain”, 1917/1964
Proof that higher education doesn't make a person enlightened, informed, intellectually superior, or the arbiter of what is and isn't art. Art, like anything else is individually subjective, and no education is needed to realize this fact. Labeling so called "art" with terms such as "experimental", "avantgard", or "abstract expressionism" no more makes the subject art than they would a pile of doggy doo doo on the sidewalk....which btw has passed for "art". I guess some people can be convinced of anything....even if they are "educated, privileged, and powerful".
I am guessing my measly MBA and 24 years of traveling the world as a Naval Photographer wouldn't really pass for much of an education in that elite academic, pretentious world.🫤🙄😏
Last edited:
Just to clarify, I didn't mean to say that "higher education" or elite social status is required to view and enjoy art and music. There are plenty of people with post-high school educations and plenty of aristocratic/rich/influential/connected people who are philistines. And jargon is just that: jargon. I don't believe labels should determine whether a work is pleasing for a viewer or listener. If they do for somebody, then, yes, I'd say that person is pretentious.
If you've been on the receiving end of snobbery, despite having earned a masters-level professional degree and working as a photographer, because somebody with an inflated ego thought they had better taste then you by virtue of their pedigree, I view the snob's actions as inexcusable. I strongly believe any interest in the humanities should be encouraged, not used as a way to put people down.
A friend who is a winemaker says it best. Whenever somebody asks him how to select the best wine—which for many people involves going over, in great detail, ratings, vintages, prices, weather, soil, tasting notes with lots of adjectives, etc.—he answers, "If you like it, drink it."
Last edited:
Did a recording session at a church today and found the score for this sitting on the piano. I remember singing this in high school! This recording is the best one I can find, although it's just the first movement.