DRUMMER CAFE

This thread seems to be associated age with the ability to produce great work over and over.  I'm not sure that's true.  I think most artists, of any kind, have a limited number of great works.  The rest of the stuff is just average.  Afterall, we're all just human.  My favorite musician/writer of all time is John Hiatt.  "Bring the Family" recorded with Ry Cooder, Nick Lowe, and Jim Keltner in only a few weeks, is a rare and wonderful recording.  John Hiatt has done some pretty great stuff since, and some real dingers too.  But he will never match that.

I mean lets face it, most of us will never produce anything great.

Don't you think the Grammy's are an excuse for a lot of middle aged people with cozy, ultra rich life styles to pat a lot of other cozy middle aged people on the back?
Most of the people I know think it is.
If I'm the only one here that thinks it has more to do with sales than pushing boundaries and artistic excellence I'll happily change my opinion. Sorry.
Later addition:
Christopher, I appreciate the efort you put into your post. I'm not trying to be difficult, in fact I'm just trying to be honest.
I really believe a lot of people see the Grammy's as a pat on the back for older artists who have achieved a lot in their careers, not as a pointer to the greatest artistic achievements of that year. Truly, most people I know think likewise.
I take on board all the awards and billboard positions you've typed up etc.....
I have to say I rarely hear Sting, Clapton or Zep fans proclaiming their various output of the last 10 years to be their best. The general opinion is they have set their motors to coast. Yes, the odd diamond does reach the surface and I'm not saying the last few Sting albums are bad or anything, but has he released anything on an artistic level of The Police recently, has Clapton recorded anything blistering like White Room or as universally top40 as Layla......as for Page and Plant, have they ever recorded anything to match Led Zepplin?

So now you can add Brittney to your list of achievers then.
I'm still allowed to have an opinion.
FYI I was at a Grammy ceremony playing with an artist who received an award. I thought it was overhyped nonsense then and that was several years ago.
BTW, I added an apologetic addition to my previous posting which will now seem out of sequence.
 

Did you share your feelings about the insignificance of the award with your employer?

Tell the truth now.  


Getting a Grammy is not the "be all, end all" of course. But many feel that there is much to be said for those that have been recognized.


I'm curious. How do you quantify an artist's success? Obviously record sales, industry and fan opinion doesn't matter to you.

Do they only garner your respect if they toil in anonymity, never reaching the masses and dieing penniless?

Inquiring minds want to know.  

Thought of another one.   I dont know specifically how old Steve Kilby or the other members of The Church are but as they got started 24 years ago, my money is on them being in thier 40's at this point.  Still the young end of the topics discussion, but worthy of mention.

Prior to this years album "Forget Yourself", you might have put 'em on the list of failures.   Sure the past few albums were good, but they were awfully like songs from the Church machine.   But the new album shows them back in peak form.   Its still The Church, and it doesnt sound like they tacked on some "modern" to make themselves fit in, but it is a new and improved Church.  

Actually that brings up a point.   Tacking on "modern" to make yourself fit in.   Its something Ive heard too many older artists do.   In an effort to avoid stale rehashing of old material, theyll add some heavy guitars, or some drum and bass licks and its totally out of character and just sounds iffy at best.   Honestly, Id rather hear Sting do some tamer more "adult" pop than paste on some rap or metal.   It just seems more honest.  

Interesting, I didn't know they had a new album. I liked them when they were around originally, but had thought they would never reappear.
Absolutely. That's exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. Some artists seem to lose their  judgement.....eg the disco remix of Lou Reed's song.
If you get it right however (Aerosmith and Run DMC) it can breath new life into your creativity.

I didn't need to. I think it was generally accepted in the camp that this particular award was a marketing tool.
I would LOVE to receive a Grammy by the way. I just think by and large 'The Grammy's' are a bad example to argue the case for artistic innovation or vitality. 1) Most award systems are more like popularity polls (RE Modern Drummer poll- do you think guys like Travis Barker are THE best drummers in the world?),  2) the industry has long since recognised the award system as a major boost to sales and therefore tried to corrupt the process (ala The Oscars) and 3) there are the odd awards that are a bit more cutting edge than The Grammy Awards (if you want to argue that awards signify creative success) like The Mercury Awards in the UK.....although this looks pretty corrupted by industry meddling, as it seems the major labels are taking it in turns for one of their artists to win the prize each year.

I don't think record sales alone can point to any artists creative peak. I also refer you back to the non winning Grammy list to confirm that the Grammy has failed to salute nearly every major brealthrough in pop music history.........
Led Zepplin, Cream, The Beach Boys,
The Grateful Dead, Jimi Hendrix, The Jackson Five, Queen, The Ramones, Patti Smith
Talking Heads and The Velvet Underground.
Incidentally, the first Grammy David Bowie won was for a video in 1984!
Pretty damning IMHO.

For what its worth, they never disappeared, theyve been at it consistantly this entire time


1981  Of Skins and Heart    
1982  The Blurred Crusade
1983   Seance
1984   Remote Luxury
1986  Heyday
1988  Starfish * thier big breakout and single
1990  Gold Afternoon Fix
1992  Priest = Aura
1994  Sometime Anywhere * thier last major label album
1996  Magician Among the Spirits
1998  Hologram of Baal
2002  After Everything Now This
2003  Forget Yourself

Exactly.  My "career" is just starting to really happen.  My playing is better than it has ever been.  The musicians I play with are of the highest caliber I have ever played with, and the venues and money are the "biggest" yet.

I think as the music industry changes and diversifies more into a niche market we will see "older" people get their due or become more envogue.

There are lots of artists in their 30's that are just breaking.  I don't know about you, but I think (I hope) my best work is yet to come.

And yes, since I have not given a @$%# about "making it" solely in the music business- my approach is much freer and more satisfying/enjoyable than ever.  Who cares what other people think- that's the whole point.  Most of them don't truly "get it" in the first place.  

Like all great artists- I'm quite sure I won't be fully appreciated till I'm dead too funny

Is it age or familiarity?

When I first heard Van Halen, I could hardly sit still.  Same thing happened when I first heard Priest, Leppard, Dokken, Skid Row, Riot, Metallica, Pantera...  (Yeah, I was raised on metal...  Now that I am labeled, I will continue...)  And being labeled, or categorized, is my point.

Your favorite bands are your favorites because of their distinct sound.  The great ones create their own niche.  Look at Boston.  Their latest attempts at resurrecting their sound, beginning in 86, were not nearly as acclaimed as their debut in 76.

Our favorite bands and/or songs uniqueness appeals to us.  We like the feeling that listening to them gives us and we listen to our favorite singles again and again.  When we purchase their new work, we are searching for a repeat of those same feelings.  When this process of pleasurable audible communication is not completed, we become frustrated and search for answers:  Has the band changed?  Are they following a different creative path?  Has somebody left the band?  Are they creatively tapped and their career is finished?

We attempt to figure out this failure instead of accepting it for what it is...  Music.  The barrier that prevents us from doing that is our previous experiences with the artist.

A failure in the artist and listener being able to evolve and grow in a direction that both want to go causes confusion and frustration.  (This is nothing new...  It's the same reason why many marriages end in divorce.  People change.  Either we accept them or move on.)  The artist ultimately will lose old fans, however will gain new ones.  There is nothing wrong with that...  But human nature wants us to rekindle the pleasure that we once had.  So, we long for their classics and search for something new...  Which incidentally our new find is probably somebody else's classic.  

My first listen to Van Halen exposed me to metal, and I never looked back.  Van Halen III almost made me cry...  Was it that bad?  No...  It simply did not affect me like their other 12 albums.

It has to be difficult for artists to set their own standard and consistently raise the bar.  I think Aerosmith plays it safe...  To me all of their stuff sounds the same.  But that's me, and therefore as a concert going music consumer, I choose not to attend their shows nor do I purchase their music; however I listen to them before I listen to country.

Remember the first time you tried onions, or mustard, or maybe tomatoes as a kid?  Remember your reaction?  Did it mean that they were bad, or was it that your palate was not ready for them yet?  Generally kids need to mature before they can enjoy all of the flavors that the world has to offer.  As do we as music critics...  

By the way, I can't wait to purchase Van Halen's latest CD release "The Best of Both Worlds!"  What will be my reaction?  I do not know...  I do know that I will embrace it as I would a long, lost friend.

I did that when "Vapor Trails" (Rush) was released.  Man, I love that one...