Search The Web
Custom Search
Showing posts with label artists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label artists. Show all posts
Tuesday, 14 December 2010
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Every Picture Tells A Story, Don't It?
This morning i happened to listen to a radio programme, on Radio 4, all about the cover art for Led Zeppelin's 1973 album, "Houses Of The Holy"
Cover Story - Houses Of The Holy.
Anyone who has ever seen the cover of that album, especially the original vinyl version, will probably remember it & if not, here is a reminder:
Pretty distinctive isn't it?
The programme was about one of the young children, who featured on the album cover. Despite there being several images on the cover, there were actually only two children. A brother & sister.
I must admit, i always thought, as did my wife, that the children on the cover were actually Robert Plant's. The singer with Led Zeppelin.
That is obviously not the case. The two children concerned were in fact models, who were used to appearing in adverts.
Well, the premise for the programme was that the boy in the photo, Stefan Gates, was somehow disturbed by that image. He saw it as almost apocalyptic, with the naked children climbing over the rocks, towards a strange orange sky.
Throughout the programme, both my wife & i kept looking at each other with an increasing sense of incredulity. It was very obvious, to us at least, that Stefan was making far too much of his "fears".
He was concerned about the child nudity, the disturbing vision that the cover art suggested & a feeling that he & his sister had been somehow exploited to produce the image.
He interviewed his mother, sister, the photographer & a respected Rock Music critic. All of whom seemed to think that he was making far too much of this. His sister even said as much.
The programme concluded with Stefan making a strange kind of pilgramage back to the Giants Causeway, in Ireland, where the famous photograph was taken.
Whilst there, it turned out that he had never actually heard the "Houses Of The Holy" album! WTF?
So, what's the point of this blog you ask?
Well, two points actually.
The first being that this, to my wife & i at least, was just an excuse to make a radio programme & possibly get some kind of attention from it. After all, i had never heard of Stefan Gates before today & i consider myself to be a big Led Zeppelin fan.
If he was really that disturbed about this whole episode, why did he have to go on national radio & make a big song & dance about it all? And make himself look a bit of an idiot in the process.
I have many ideas for possible radio programmes. Maybe i should submit them to the BBC?
My other point is that this is yet another case of somebody making a mountain out of a molehill.
Stefan spent the whole programme, reading far too much into what the real meaning of the album cover was & therefore worrying about it
Even the original photographer told him that it didn't really mean anyting. In common with many more album covers & especially those made by the "Hipgnosis" group, who actually designed this cover.
Hipgnosis are also famous for designing many Pink Floyd album covers.
Maybe Stefan can tell me what they're all about? I've been trying for nearly 30 years & haven't figured it out yet!
Art is so often misunderstood & so much, that often isn't really there, is read into it.
Apart from being misleading, that could also end up being dangerous.
Well, that's it, rant over.
There's just time for me to tell you that "Houses Of The Holy" is actually one of my favourite Led Zeppelin albums &, in my humble opinion, a very much under-rated album too.
OK, so it does have a couple of their worst songs on there. But, the rest are all crackers.
Guess what i'm listening to whilst writing this?
Yep.....
Cover Story - Houses Of The Holy.
Anyone who has ever seen the cover of that album, especially the original vinyl version, will probably remember it & if not, here is a reminder:
The programme was about one of the young children, who featured on the album cover. Despite there being several images on the cover, there were actually only two children. A brother & sister.
I must admit, i always thought, as did my wife, that the children on the cover were actually Robert Plant's. The singer with Led Zeppelin.
That is obviously not the case. The two children concerned were in fact models, who were used to appearing in adverts.
Well, the premise for the programme was that the boy in the photo, Stefan Gates, was somehow disturbed by that image. He saw it as almost apocalyptic, with the naked children climbing over the rocks, towards a strange orange sky.
Throughout the programme, both my wife & i kept looking at each other with an increasing sense of incredulity. It was very obvious, to us at least, that Stefan was making far too much of his "fears".
He was concerned about the child nudity, the disturbing vision that the cover art suggested & a feeling that he & his sister had been somehow exploited to produce the image.
He interviewed his mother, sister, the photographer & a respected Rock Music critic. All of whom seemed to think that he was making far too much of this. His sister even said as much.
The programme concluded with Stefan making a strange kind of pilgramage back to the Giants Causeway, in Ireland, where the famous photograph was taken.
Whilst there, it turned out that he had never actually heard the "Houses Of The Holy" album! WTF?
So, what's the point of this blog you ask?
Well, two points actually.
The first being that this, to my wife & i at least, was just an excuse to make a radio programme & possibly get some kind of attention from it. After all, i had never heard of Stefan Gates before today & i consider myself to be a big Led Zeppelin fan.
If he was really that disturbed about this whole episode, why did he have to go on national radio & make a big song & dance about it all? And make himself look a bit of an idiot in the process.
I have many ideas for possible radio programmes. Maybe i should submit them to the BBC?
My other point is that this is yet another case of somebody making a mountain out of a molehill.
Stefan spent the whole programme, reading far too much into what the real meaning of the album cover was & therefore worrying about it
Even the original photographer told him that it didn't really mean anyting. In common with many more album covers & especially those made by the "Hipgnosis" group, who actually designed this cover.
Hipgnosis are also famous for designing many Pink Floyd album covers.
Maybe Stefan can tell me what they're all about? I've been trying for nearly 30 years & haven't figured it out yet!
Art is so often misunderstood & so much, that often isn't really there, is read into it.
Apart from being misleading, that could also end up being dangerous.
Well, that's it, rant over.
There's just time for me to tell you that "Houses Of The Holy" is actually one of my favourite Led Zeppelin albums &, in my humble opinion, a very much under-rated album too.
OK, so it does have a couple of their worst songs on there. But, the rest are all crackers.
Guess what i'm listening to whilst writing this?
Yep.....
Thursday, 10 December 2009
...And Music Of the Past.
I've just finished reading the book "I'm With The Band", the pretty infamous story of Pamela Des Barres.
Yes, the book is primarily about her sexual exploits with many famous rock stars of the 1960's & 70's. But, another thing that jumped out at me, whilst reading the book, was a realisation that we just don't seem to have rock stars, or even music like that these days.
If i name some of the bands, or artists, mentioned in the book you might see what i mean:
The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart & The Faces, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa etc etc.
With the possible exception of Frank Zappa, who i know is still widely respected in musical circles, all of those bands listed are still listened to, revered & very much appreciated today. Possibly even more so than they were back then. In fact i still listen to all of them regularly myself.
Many of those artists are also considered a huge influence on modern day music & i certainly wouldn't argue with that.
So, i suppose that hat i'm getting at is, does the music of today stand up to the music of those heady years & also, will we still be playing the music of today in 30 years time?
Unfortunately, on both counts, i'd have to say a big fat NO. Well, ok, there may be a few exceptions, but not very many. I'm wracking my brains here...
I fully realise that at least a part of what i feel is influenced by the fact that i was born in 1958 & grew up listening to that same music. That always makes a difference to the way you feel about certain music & artists. The music of your youth will always have a huge influence of your future listening experience. That's only natural.
But, i really don't see many bands around these days who stand up to those of the past.
Are there really any big influential bands around now. Or, are they all just copycats of the past?
Maybe we've just run out of ideas & it's now a case of "it's all been done before"
When something supposedly "new" does come along, it often harks back to the past. And even then, the few original bands that do try a new angle are followed by many substandard hangers on.
I know that it has always been this way, even back in the 60's & 70's. But, the quality of the copycats just seemed better & more original back then.
The only really "new" music that has come along in the past 30 years, in my humble opinion anyway, has been electronic music & hip hip/rap. And i suppose the only reason that has happened is because, for the most part, the technology just wasn't available any earlier to actually help produce that type of music?
It could, of course, just be a case of the way that music is produced & sold now?
Maybe experimentation is frowned upon by record comapanies? Whereas, back in those early days it was positively encouraged. (This is a topic i may well cover in a future blog, or vlog post)
Or, maybe, the problem is far deeper than that?
There is still some very good music being made right now. But, i'm not sure that much of it will ever be considered to be "great" music.
Only time will tell, i guess?
Yes, the book is primarily about her sexual exploits with many famous rock stars of the 1960's & 70's. But, another thing that jumped out at me, whilst reading the book, was a realisation that we just don't seem to have rock stars, or even music like that these days.
If i name some of the bands, or artists, mentioned in the book you might see what i mean:
The Beatles, Rolling Stones, The Who, The Kinks, Led Zeppelin, Rod Stewart & The Faces, The Byrds, Bob Dylan, Frank Zappa etc etc.
With the possible exception of Frank Zappa, who i know is still widely respected in musical circles, all of those bands listed are still listened to, revered & very much appreciated today. Possibly even more so than they were back then. In fact i still listen to all of them regularly myself.
Many of those artists are also considered a huge influence on modern day music & i certainly wouldn't argue with that.
So, i suppose that hat i'm getting at is, does the music of today stand up to the music of those heady years & also, will we still be playing the music of today in 30 years time?
Unfortunately, on both counts, i'd have to say a big fat NO. Well, ok, there may be a few exceptions, but not very many. I'm wracking my brains here...
I fully realise that at least a part of what i feel is influenced by the fact that i was born in 1958 & grew up listening to that same music. That always makes a difference to the way you feel about certain music & artists. The music of your youth will always have a huge influence of your future listening experience. That's only natural.
But, i really don't see many bands around these days who stand up to those of the past.
Are there really any big influential bands around now. Or, are they all just copycats of the past?
Maybe we've just run out of ideas & it's now a case of "it's all been done before"
When something supposedly "new" does come along, it often harks back to the past. And even then, the few original bands that do try a new angle are followed by many substandard hangers on.
I know that it has always been this way, even back in the 60's & 70's. But, the quality of the copycats just seemed better & more original back then.
The only really "new" music that has come along in the past 30 years, in my humble opinion anyway, has been electronic music & hip hip/rap. And i suppose the only reason that has happened is because, for the most part, the technology just wasn't available any earlier to actually help produce that type of music?
It could, of course, just be a case of the way that music is produced & sold now?
Maybe experimentation is frowned upon by record comapanies? Whereas, back in those early days it was positively encouraged. (This is a topic i may well cover in a future blog, or vlog post)
Or, maybe, the problem is far deeper than that?
There is still some very good music being made right now. But, i'm not sure that much of it will ever be considered to be "great" music.
Only time will tell, i guess?
Monday, 9 November 2009
Music Of The Past & Present.
If you have visited my page at http://andymooseman.posterous.com/ recently, you might have noticed a link that i have shared.
It was a link to an article on the BBC news website by John Taylor. John is the bass player with the band Duran Duran. The article was entitled "Is The Internet Stifling New Music? " & it is well worth reading by the way.
Without going into detail, he was saying how he felt that music was more exciting when he was growing up & that the Internet was to blame for this. He went on to say that because of the immediacy of the Internet & it's accesability, music was more widely available & this was, in some way, slowing down the creative culture.
Whilst i can see where John Taylor is coming from on this issue, i can't say that i agree with him.
Yes, there is now more music available for all of us to hear & be exposed to than ever before. But, i fail to see how this can be a bad thing.
Most of the great music of the past & present is influenced by those who have gone before.
There is a great musical timeline that can be drawn from right back to the days of jazz, blues & gospel music, right through Elvis, rock 'n' roll & then on through The Beatles, the music of the 60's & 70's & right through to the present day.
So, it surely follows that with this great educational resource that is the Internet now available, there is more music than ever out there just waiting to influence the modern musical artists?
If modern music is not as creative, or as exciting as what has gone before. I don't think we can blame the Internet. Maybe we have to start asking ourselves whether modern music is just not as good as it used to be?
A radical thought maybe? But, in my humble opinion anyway, it is a question that needs to be asked.
So, now that i've posed the question. I'm going to leave it hanging in the air & come back to it in the days to come.
In the meantime, i'd love to hear anyone elses thoughts on this topic.
It was a link to an article on the BBC news website by John Taylor. John is the bass player with the band Duran Duran. The article was entitled "Is The Internet Stifling New Music? " & it is well worth reading by the way.
Without going into detail, he was saying how he felt that music was more exciting when he was growing up & that the Internet was to blame for this. He went on to say that because of the immediacy of the Internet & it's accesability, music was more widely available & this was, in some way, slowing down the creative culture.
Whilst i can see where John Taylor is coming from on this issue, i can't say that i agree with him.
Yes, there is now more music available for all of us to hear & be exposed to than ever before. But, i fail to see how this can be a bad thing.
Most of the great music of the past & present is influenced by those who have gone before.
There is a great musical timeline that can be drawn from right back to the days of jazz, blues & gospel music, right through Elvis, rock 'n' roll & then on through The Beatles, the music of the 60's & 70's & right through to the present day.
So, it surely follows that with this great educational resource that is the Internet now available, there is more music than ever out there just waiting to influence the modern musical artists?
If modern music is not as creative, or as exciting as what has gone before. I don't think we can blame the Internet. Maybe we have to start asking ourselves whether modern music is just not as good as it used to be?
A radical thought maybe? But, in my humble opinion anyway, it is a question that needs to be asked.
So, now that i've posed the question. I'm going to leave it hanging in the air & come back to it in the days to come.
In the meantime, i'd love to hear anyone elses thoughts on this topic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)