Tweet
OK: cat among the pigeons. Who cares? 99.99% of the songs are ephemeral, anyway, and very few have any artistic merit, either in lyric or score. They are written in the hopes that they will bring a bucketful of $$$ to those concerned, especially the record companies.Let me give a couple of illustrations:
Listen to MJ's 'Thriller'. Without doubt it evokes the video clip of it - annd that was extremely well made with some artistic merit. Now try and erase the memory of that and listen to the words and music, both of which are pretty putrid.
Think Abba. Their songs were 'catchy', starting with Waterloo and appealed to the mindless audience but they were forgotten a few months later, most of the performances being of two blokes and two gals in outrageous costumes. Nothing substantial to remember them by. Then along comes 'Mamma Mia' to provide a visual anchor to the same music and it has suddenly become, decades later, a 'hit' of sorts. The film has broken records and has inspired the recording studio to have a great inrush of lolly. Does that make the songs any better? Of course not! Once the stage show and film have finished doing the rounds, it will fall back into oblivion.
On a slightly better scale, many songs from Lloyd-Webber's musicals have become hits and have remained more popular. This is because he is a superb musician and has the nous to work with good lyricists. Nevertheless, there iis still the visual prop.
Go back 100 or so years. What songs can you still hear? Verdi and Puccini spring to mind with their great arias. But who can hear, 'Un bel di, vedremo' without evoking the vision of a heartbroken Japanese girl about to commit suicide? We still have that visual prop. On a lighter scale, Gilbert & Sullivan's or Offenbach's comic operas have it as well. The vision of a majestic Mikado enouncing his politics is as firmly fixed as the music. Yet these have survived because the music is great, even if the words of some of the Grand Opera arias can be very trite, albeit poetic.
Coming back to more modern times, even those with both good music and words often die with the performers artistic or physical death: do you ever hear Johnny Cash nowadays, except perhaps on specialist Country shows? Even living legends like Dylan and McCartney have had their day.
IMHO, if you want good songs broadcast integrally, it has to be something the DJs can respect as works of art, both musically and lyrically, that THEY want to listen to. I can understand that they become jaded by the awful trash that passes as songs, especially when they have no visual props. The sooner that the rubbish passes the better, in favour of a commercial, the better. At least the commercial is paying their salary.
Finally, look at the Susan Boyle phenomenon: she chose an excellent song and was able to execute it impeccable. This sent everyone wild with joy, yet she didn't have anything visual going for her (some may have memories of 'Les Misérables', though). This is Music with a capital M that commands respect in its own right. The same with Paul Potts, although everyone was comparing his 'Nessun dorma' with Pavarotti's in their mind! Have Music and maybe the DJs will listen to it themselves.
Now for the onslaught!
Listen to MJ's 'Thriller'. Without doubt it evokes the video clip of it - annd that was extremely well made with some artistic merit. Now try and erase the memory of that and listen to the words and music, both of which are pretty putrid.
Think Abba. Their songs were 'catchy', starting with Waterloo and appealed to the mindless audience but they were forgotten a few months later, most of the performances being of two blokes and two gals in outrageous costumes. Nothing substantial to remember them by. Then along comes 'Mamma Mia' to provide a visual anchor to the same music and it has suddenly become, decades later, a 'hit' of sorts. The film has broken records and has inspired the recording studio to have a great inrush of lolly. Does that make the songs any better? Of course not! Once the stage show and film have finished doing the rounds, it will fall back into oblivion.
On a slightly better scale, many songs from Lloyd-Webber's musicals have become hits and have remained more popular. This is because he is a superb musician and has the nous to work with good lyricists. Nevertheless, there iis still the visual prop.
Go back 100 or so years. What songs can you still hear? Verdi and Puccini spring to mind with their great arias. But who can hear, 'Un bel di, vedremo' without evoking the vision of a heartbroken Japanese girl about to commit suicide? We still have that visual prop. On a lighter scale, Gilbert & Sullivan's or Offenbach's comic operas have it as well. The vision of a majestic Mikado enouncing his politics is as firmly fixed as the music. Yet these have survived because the music is great, even if the words of some of the Grand Opera arias can be very trite, albeit poetic.
Coming back to more modern times, even those with both good music and words often die with the performers artistic or physical death: do you ever hear Johnny Cash nowadays, except perhaps on specialist Country shows? Even living legends like Dylan and McCartney have had their day.
IMHO, if you want good songs broadcast integrally, it has to be something the DJs can respect as works of art, both musically and lyrically, that THEY want to listen to. I can understand that they become jaded by the awful trash that passes as songs, especially when they have no visual props. The sooner that the rubbish passes the better, in favour of a commercial, the better. At least the commercial is paying their salary.
Finally, look at the Susan Boyle phenomenon: she chose an excellent song and was able to execute it impeccable. This sent everyone wild with joy, yet she didn't have anything visual going for her (some may have memories of 'Les Misérables', though). This is Music with a capital M that commands respect in its own right. The same with Paul Potts, although everyone was comparing his 'Nessun dorma' with Pavarotti's in their mind! Have Music and maybe the DJs will listen to it themselves.
Now for the onslaught!
Oh, and Brian, I do listen to Johnny Cash...well, two songs at least; I'm a bit afraid to dig more at the moment 
Comment