Dirk sez:
> Question: Is a band/artist that makes kick ass, innovative music AND can
> write catchy lyrics AND can perform live and rock the joint
> "BETTER" than a
> band/artists that make kick ass, innovative music (but doesn't
> write actual
> "songs" and doesn't/can't perform live)?
>
> My answer would be hell yes.
I don't buy into your second criteria: catchy lyrics. If that were true all
jazz musicians would be at a disadvantage in your rating system. Musical
innovation and performance ability, I grant you. But "catchy lyrics?"
Nah... ;-)
> Moby-music-75 catchiness-75 live-75 versus Little Axe-music-85 catchiness-
> 50 live-30 (this last number is just a guess-and only for
> illustration).
OK, but you've at least conceded that Little Axe make better music.
The more I think about your rating system, though, the more dubious I am of
it. I buy records, I do not buy artists. Records stand or fall on their
own merit. I may go to see a good performer who puts out mediocre albums,
but I sure won't buy mediocre albums from good performers. Or if I do, I
wind up selling them later.
> If
> you add it all up then Moby wins. He's the "better" artist even
> though he's
> not as creative. Don't you rate a song like Willie Washington's "Ain't No
> Running Away" better than many instrumental house tracks because
> there's an
> actual song and not a groove?
Well the problem with too many instrumental house tracks is that they're
designed for club use and not home listening. There's not enough variation
to keep them interesting. But...would "Strings of Life" have been a
"better" song if it had lyrics. I don't think so.
______________________________________________
Mark Turner nugroove@pacbell.net
Hear "Jazzadelica" with Rocky Rococo on KFJC
Sundays 10pm-2am, 89.7 FM, Los Altos Hills, CA
Web: http://home.pacbell.net/nugroove/
______________________________________________
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 30 2000 - 19:28:21 MET DST