New album releases, week of 7-19-2005 - Page 2

Read comments on this article, and add some feedback of your own

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 1 - godoggo

  Jul 18, 2005 at 10:56 pm

  Carmen McRae!!!
  
  And Sammy!!!!!!

• 2 - godoggo

  Jul 18, 2005 at 11:03 pm

  And by the way, ka ka poo poo to you too.

• 3 - Temple Stark

  Jul 19, 2005 at 1:09 am

  good lord iggy is ripped !!!

• 4 - confused

  Jul 19, 2005 at 1:16 am

  Iggy is greater than all else released on this list, combined.

• 5 - Al Barger

  Jul 19, 2005 at 1:36 am

  Confused, I can see that your pseudonym is well chosen, if'n you think that Iggy Pop is in any way close to being in a league with Emmylou Harris, much less Michael Frickin' Jackson- or even the dreaded Keith Emerson. At least he can actually play his instrument.

• 6 - confused

  Jul 19, 2005 at 1:41 am

  Al, if you have never stood in the pit at CBGB's and seen the Stooges, or understand what they brought to the art form, then we don't share enough vocabulary in these matters to communicate properly. I am a musician, and while I can appreciate the pop of Jackson for the commercial tripe it is, and greatly enjoy Emmy Lou's voice, I stand by my initial offering.

• 7 - Al Barger

  Jul 19, 2005 at 1:49 am

  Now I'M confused that a musician would not have the vocabulary to know that "commercial tripe" = MELODY, or more broadly SONGS. Those certainly seem to be words with little or no meaning to Iggy, either.

• 8 - confused

  Jul 19, 2005 at 1:54 am

  Question, do you listen to any jazz? Overly simplistic, fainthearted "melodies" in major keyes, with blatant and insipid harmonic components, all lashed over 4/4 time at 120 beats to the minute so white kids can dance to it, don't thrill me, Al.
  
  Neither does the overly worn out, verse chorus verse structure of pop. Try some Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillespie to hear how intricate harmony, and implied melody can be delivered around "out" beats and times.
  
  If pop is your thing, and all that you ear likes, that's fine, everyone is entitled to what they like. I just don't enjoy the least common denominator, over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over

• 9 - Al Barger

  Jul 19, 2005 at 2:04 am

  Funny you should mention Charlie Parker. I've been listening to some of the Savoy recordings in my mp3 walking mix this week.
  
  But if you're sophisticated enough to listen to classic jazz and get something out of it, why are you wasting your time with tuneless Iggy crap?

• 10 - confused

  Jul 19, 2005 at 2:13 am

  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some may enjoy Rembrandt, or landscapes. I prefer DaVinci.
  Musical taste is similar, Iggy's poetry as well as the energy of the Stooges delivery counts a lot for me.
  I don't consider anyone's raste in Art to be a waste of time, rather a method of spending one's precious time.

• 11 - godoggo

  Jul 19, 2005 at 6:08 pm

  Confused, if you appreciate Dizzy and Bird, I should think you'd realize that, as an artist, Carmen is greater than all else released on this list, combined.
  
  As for Barger's comment about Iggy, see my previous comment.
  
  
  
  

• 12 - godoggo

  Jul 19, 2005 at 6:42 pm

  By the way, Bird and Dizzy's music used "verse chorus verse structure." Nothing wrong with that. Nor is what makes them great merely a matter of complexity. It's a matter of searching for "pretty notes," to use Bird's phrase - that is, considering and rejecting notes that are obvious or nonsensical. I think that finding pretty notes generally requires knowing how to improvise, which is a discipline beyond mastering one's instrument, as is too little known nowadays, which is why most of the contemporary pop that so impresses Barger is so insipid.
  
  None of which has to do with Iggy's music, which is all about passion and an attitude toward life. It's largely an adolescent expression, like most of the non-shitkicker music that Barger favors, but at least it is truly expressive.

• 13 - godoggo

  Jul 19, 2005 at 6:58 pm

  OK OK, I'm not familiar with everybody on the list. Maybe some of them, combined or even singularly, are as great as possible. More things in heaven and earth, Horatio, and all that.

• 14 - godoggo

  Jul 19, 2005 at 6:59 pm

  "possible" meant "Carment"

• 15 - Al Barger

  Jul 20, 2005 at 3:00 pm

  Godoggo, would you please elucidate on which "contemporary pop" music that I'm so impressed by is insipid? Please inform me what acts you have in mind.
  
  I am certainly all in favor of shitkicker music. I just prefer actual musicians, who also actually have something to say. I'll just say I wouldn't trade "Sweet Home Alabama" for your Iggy and RATM careers combined. (Thought I should get my gratuitous RATM bashing in.)

• 16 - Mark Saleski

  Jul 20, 2005 at 3:20 pm

  al, is there some actual reason that a person can't enjoy both Iggy Pop and Charlie Parker?
  
  

• 17 - Al Barger

  Jul 20, 2005 at 3:30 pm

  Apparently not Mark, as Confused seems to dig Parker and Iggy. I'm just confused myself as to what anyone, jazz fan or no, would see in Iggy. I just dug out a copy of Raw Power, and am again reminded of how utterly generic and bland those "songs" are. Crappy generic blues songs with no hooks or obvious distinctive personality. Ho-hum.

• 18 - Mike

  Jul 25, 2005 at 5:29 pm

  Al, the obvious distinctive personality of the Stooges is not in the songs--true. It's in the performance, and that's not a minor consideration.

• 19 - Al Barger

  Jul 25, 2005 at 5:37 pm

  So you think I'd get a significantly different idea from watching a Stooges concert video?

• 20 - Mike

  Jul 25, 2005 at 5:45 pm

  I can't say you'd like them better if you watched a concert video (Hell, if you don't like em, you don't like em), but I suspect you'd have a much harder time saying that the band, and Iggy in particular, showed no obvious distinctive personality.

• 21 - Mike

  Jul 25, 2005 at 6:31 pm

  Actually, the more I think about it the more I think that you could recognize that fact just by listening to the band's recorded performance, regardless of what song they're performing (which is all but irreverent). Nobody, no-now, in 1970 sounded like that.

Add your comment, speak your mind

Personal attacks are NOT allowed.
Please read our comment policy.

Name:

URL:

Remember name and url?

Comment:

Please preview your comment.