Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
And instead of saying all of your goodbyes - let them know you realize that life goes fast - It's hard to make the good things last-you realize the sun doesn't go down - It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round
And instead of saying all of your goodbyes - let them know you realize that life goes fast - It's hard to make the good things last-you realize the sun doesn't go down - It's just an illusion caused by the world spinning round
Post by riversideroo on May 7, 2013 10:33:29 GMT -5
Man I've never seen people get so worked up by the thought that Kanye is not as amazing as you may think he is. I really could care less about Kanye so I'll leave you all to discuss his greatness among yourselves.
While Hendrix has a "time" advantage in the way his music has been glorified for decades, Kanye has a "time" advantage in that the 00's it's easier to share ideas, styles, collaborate, etc.
Hendrix was amazing because in a time when people were isolated he transcended everything. People in Montana down to Miami knew who Hendrix was and treasured him. If you don't see the merit in that (and this is not factoring in his contributions towards creating music), that's unfair to Hendrix and the times he thrived in.
Kanye doesn't have that problem, but that doesn't mean it's any easier for him. We've now gone so far into secularizing ourselves through genres and sub-genres and sub-sub genres that it's rare for artists, especially artists who broke out after the mid-90's, to be such a divine talent that people from all these different narrow sects of music fan come to an agreement.
There isn't an artist to exist that is unanimous in praise or ridicule, but for someone in this current climate of mass-produced radio hits and UNTZUNTZ it's the rarest of rarities to have an artist like Kanye. Everyone on the planet might think he's a certifiable wack-job (and they'd be right), but during Hendrix's era those certifiable wack-jobs were celebrated.
Both Hendrix and Kanye are the victims and the beneficiaries of the eras they were pioneers for. Instead of arguing for or against either, just enjoy them both. I know I sure as hell do.
Allison Krauss has 27 Grammys? What is it I don't know about Allison Krauss that I should know about Allison Krauss. Did they give her 27 Grammys for working with Robert Plant? Was Allison Krauss in The Beatles or something? Did they have Grammys when the Beatles were active? What does someone do with 27 Grammys? It's apparent that I'm completely oblivious to the level of success Allison Krauss has had. Either way, I'm impressed, and I learned something new today!
I honestly just didn't follow your reasoning at all.
Well, I was supporting your side of the discussion regarding Kanye (you can't discount him simply because of the era he's currently performing in), but also supporting the other side (Jimi is a legend, anything that becomes that widely beloved pre-internet age is impressive).
Allison Krauss has 27 Grammys? What is it I don't know about Allison Krauss that I should know about Allison Krauss. Did they give her 27 Grammys for working with Robert Plant? Was Allison Krauss in The Beatles or something? Did they have Grammys when the Beatles were active? What does someone do with 27 Grammys? It's apparent that I'm completely oblivious to the level of success Allison Krauss has had. Either way, I'm impressed, and I learned something new today!
And it's all thanks to Kanye.
She was Beastmode Jones when it came to country/bluegrass stuff from the early-90's up until she made that album with Plant.
While Hendrix has a "time" advantage in the way his music has been glorified for decades, Kanye has a "time" advantage in that the 00's it's easier to share ideas, styles, collaborate, etc.
Hendrix was amazing because in a time when people were isolated he transcended everything. People in Montana down to Miami knew who Hendrix was and treasured him. If you don't see the merit in that (and this is not factoring in his contributions towards creating music), that's unfair to Hendrix and the times he thrived in.
I have to disagree with you on this. If anything, Hendrix had a much larger advantage than you speak of here. A word/phrase that's tossed around with increasing regularity is "monoculture," and its usually used in a discussion about how its dying. The concept of monoculture refers to those things in popculture that everyone experiences for the first time, that everyone gets caught up in together. Most people who speak on it use it to emphasize how today's cultural landscape is both fractured and frantic. The ease with which new ideas are introduced, assimilated, and discarded has rendered the idea of the cultural event obsolete. Basically, there are simply too many options now - you can get an album in 20 seconds, if you don't like it on first listen, download another one. Instant gratification is the game, so the purveyors of pop-culture have stepped up in cycling through trends, events, and genres accordingly. This is why the pop culture landscape moves at lightning speed today, and why it's difficult for artists to gather a lasting impression - you need a near-constant presence in order to stay relevant. This extends beyond music- think about movies, or television shows. Years ago, when there were only a handful of networks available to people, those shows were part of the monoculture. You watched Ed Sullivan because it's just what people did. You went and saw Jaws or Star Wars and maybe saw it a dozen times because that's what there was. Now, you've got 10000 options for everything, so its difficult to retain that hold on the public's consciousness.
Hendrix came up in the Golden Age of Monoculture. Technology had advanced to the point where it was fairly easy to disseminate new sounds, pictures, movies, shows and art, but not yet so advanced where the options became limitless. Everyone had TVs, but they probably only had a few channels. Most music was listened to via the radio, with people puchasing vinyl. Though plenty of people had massive vinyl collections, that still wouldn't scratch the surface of what's available to even the most casual listener today. Therefore, artists like Hendrix, the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, etc., while all undeniably classic, had a built in advantage of a captive audience. They weren't fighting for attention with 1000000 other potential forms of entertainment. That's not to denigrate their accomplishments, but its much, much more difficult to put together a long-lasting career in today's pop landscape.
This has actually become an interesting debate/discussion.
Well, for starters I would point out that Jimi didn't have a long-lasting career, as we all know, so that's abuilt-in advantage for Yeezy. Even in the 60's and 70's, when monoculture was at it's peak, how many bands were truly transcendent? How many bands did everyone love and adore? I understand the logic behind this point, I just don't really agree with it because the number of bands from that era that are on Jimi's level of appreciation, timelessness and ability probably doesn't reach double-digits, IMO.
Jimi was an instantaneous supernova in the historical sense. Something so vibrant and inspiring that people didn't know what the f*ck was going on while it was happening and it took decades for people to fully grasp the far-reaching impact of his meteoric rise and fall. He wasn't around long enough to really know where his career would have taken him, so this is one of those debates that will never, ever have a clear-cut winner (but enjoyable nonetheless).
In the end, it's definitely better for Hendrix's legacy that he died when he did. If people saw Hendrix doing reunion tours or something at 70+ years old and shuffling around playing half his guitar solos because his fingers hurt...our generation's infatuation with him as a mythical demigod would take a substantial hit.
But I don't think anyone here is blinded by that mythical standing. Jimi was innovative in many regards, but the fingerprints he left on the electric guitar would rival (and IMO surpass) anything Kanye has contributed to the music community in a strict musical sense.
On the flip side, I think if Jimi was reanimated and put in a studio with Kanye West he would sh*t himself watching Kanyeezy mastermind an album.
Both guys are musical geniuses in their own regard and I don't think either is above the other because you simply can't compare them directly.
Either way, this conversation beats the piss out of lining everyone up single file and letting them air their anti-Kanye grievances out on the board at the first mention of his name.
(btw I'm reading a science book, bear with the cosmic analogies and whatnot)
Post by Delicious Meatball Sub on May 7, 2013 13:12:57 GMT -5
My problem with the Hendrix cannonozation is that while he's undeniably talented, he gets credit for being an innovator that I think is overblown. A lot of his success I think is the result of being around during a time of significant technological innovation in the music industry. He gets credit for being a stylistic pioneer, but a lot of what he could do live and in the studio was due in part to technological advances of the time. I compare him to Steve Jobs in a way. It was inevitable that someone was going to invent an iPod eventually, Apple was just first. I honestly believe that without Hendrix we would have ended up in the same place.
I also think he benefits from hindsight, like others are saying. He wasn't this overwhelming force during his life that people assume. He had one album that was number 1 in one country for two weeks and one number 1 single in the UK. Compared to the Beatles or Motown thats nothing. He was a cult icon at the time to the baby boomers who went on to write the history books.
Finally, and this is beside the point, the mindset of "all the old stuff was better" really irritates me.
Edit: I typed this on my phone so it's all messed up.
Post by itrainmonkeys on May 7, 2013 13:36:58 GMT -5
I got into a big argument with a friend over the idea that there is still great music/bands/artists out there today. They believe that music stopped being good after the 70's/80's and that bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin cannot be compared to anything done today. This is a person who doesn't actively seek out music and I felt they were being closedminded. Telling me that there's no good music out there anymore made me flip out. That whole notion of "not as good as it once was" always bugs me, as well.
I used to be in the same boat, CPK. I've come around in a big way to it. It's like jackson said, not a 10/10 like his others, but it's still a great album (and underrated by many).
I got into a big argument with a friend over the idea that there is still great music/bands/artists out there today. They believe that music stopped being good after the 70's/80's and that bands like Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin cannot be compared to anything done today. This is a person who doesn't actively seek out music and I felt they were being closedminded. Telling me that there's no good music out there anymore made me flip out. That whole notion of "not as good as it once was" always bugs me, as well.
I feel the same way or actually maybe the opposite. We used to wait in line for a release of an LP just because it was coming out and xxxxx did it. Today there are so so many great young and old, musicians out there. What is considered a crap band today, who knows what people would have thought of them 40 years ago. Long live old and new music ... cr****