Top Ten Singles 20 Years Ago This Week

Week ending January 16, 1993

  1. I Will Always Love You-Whitney Houston
  2. If I Ever Fall in Love-Shai
  3. In the Still of the Nite-Boyz II Men
  4. Rump Shaker-Wreckx-N-Effect
  5. Saving Forever For You-Shanice
  6. Rhythm is a Dancer-Snap
  7. I’d Die Without You-P.M. Dawn
  8. Good Enough-Bobby Brown
  9. What About Your Friends-TLC
  10. Deeper and Deeper-Madonna

(Source: Billboard Hot 100)

Justin Timberlake Brings Sexy Back, Again

timberlake

Had enough of electropop dance music? As its hold on the pop charts seems to loosen a little more with every passing month, a variety of musical styles have so far slipped into the vacuum: currently Top 40 slots are occupied by the reliable crossover country of Taylor Swift, the Americana-inflected folk pop of The Lumineers and Of Monsters and Men, and even actual rock music here and there, represented by Imagine Dragons and unlikely rock hero Pink.

Still, in the same way it took major artists like Rihanna and Britney Spears committing albums to the electronic dance pop sound for it to take such hold in the first place, it might take an artist of significant stature to toll the bell signaling its demise.

Like maybe Justin Timberlake.

If his new single “Suit & Tie” is any indication, Timberlake will be pushing the pendulum back in the direction of actual R&B-flavored dance music with his new album, expected later this year. In a perfect synergy of style and lyric, the song suggests a restoration of dignity and class to a genre that’s been caught up in stut-tut-tuttering vocal samples, warp speed drum sample fills and stabs of synthetic keys for a few years now.

Timberlake is squarely in R. Kelly territory, which means music in the tradition of the Al Greens, Barry Whites and Marvin Gayes of decades past. But where Kelly’s very good Write Me Back album of 2012 charted high but didn’t effect an overall stylistic change, Justin Timberlake’s gravitas as an artist could be enough to push the needle back toward a more organic sound.

If so, it would be a welcome return indeed.

(Note: be sure to listen beyond the 40-second intro)

“Suit & Tie”

 

Beatles 1965 Tour Rider Demanded Equality For Fans

beatles 65

(Reprinted from MSN Reverb Music Blog and The Smoking Gun)

The Beatles had modest demands when they toured the U.S. in 1965 (The group’s standard three-page rider and a one-page contract for the tour’s Portland stop contain) no requirement of bendy straws, Rough Rider condoms, or Cristal for the Fab Four. Instead, the most influential band ever just wanted adequate police protection, a “hi-fidelity sound system with adequate number of speakers,” and “a platform for Ringo Starr and his drums.”

The backstage dressing room accommodations were also spartan: “four cots, mirrors, an ice cooler, portable TV set and clean towels.” As for ground transportation, the performers were not above sharing a ride: “Two (2) seven-passenger Cadillac limousines (air-conditioned if possible), with chauffeurs.”

…The four-page list of demands (is) modest by today’s standards. Dressing rooms? A fence to keep fans from rushing the stage from behind? Cots? What primadonnas those four were!

The fascinating thing is demand #5.

Beatles rider

Remember, this is 1965 — mere months after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, and the band was demanding that all promoters extend racial equality to all the band’s fans. Say whatever you want about the way the ’60s are remembered through rose-colored glasses. Some people were walking the walk.

By the way, ticket prices for the Portland show: $6, $5 and $4.

Any Objections to Inducting This Woman into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?

“I Never Will Marry”

With Johnny Cash

“Long Long Time”

“You’re No Good”

With Andrew “Thank You For Being a Friend” Gold on guitar and the great Jeff “Skunk Baxter” on congas!

“When Will I Be Loved”

____________________

An artist like Linda Ronstadt exposes a significant flaw in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s execution of its own concept.

First, one must admit that all judgments of music’s quality are subjective at least to a degree. There are people out there who think the Beatles were rubbish. So no judgment the Rock Hall makes can be backed up by “facts of quality”, only statistics of popularity at best. In short: it can, in the main, only be opinion-based. So the arguments of fans against the inductees the committee select, or for the ones they don’t, have validity because our criteria are the same as the committee’s: opinion. That said, I try to be responsible about my rantings against the Hall, though I do think it’s obscene that the work of The Moody Blues from 1967-72, and that of Chicago from about ’69 to ’75, for example, haven’t been recognized.

But Linda Ronstadt is a different case. She falls through a crack the Hall may want to patch up, though the patch might look a little messy.

Again, recognizing that this can only be an opinion-based argument, I think the following opinion would find a lot of support among those who listened to pop radio forty years ago:

Some of the best popular rock of the 70’s was released under the Linda Ronstadt banner.

She worked the same country-pop musical territory as the Eagles, who were in fact her studio band before they found stardom. Her singles were the equal of theirs in terms of songwriting, performances and production. But notice I didn’t phrase my opinion this way:

Linda Ronstadt belongs in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

That’s an opinion that may or may not have as much support. And it’s clearly not the opinion of the Rock Hall’s committee. Probably because there are two main differences between Ronstadt and Hall inductees like the Eagles–other than levels of cocaine usage of course; they don’t call it the “rock hall” for nothing.

1) The Eagles primarily wrote their own material. Linda Ronstadt performed almost exclusively covers. Hmm. This does have validity with me to a point. In my own mind the Beatles will always be “greater” than Elvis (whatever that means) because they were the best pop songwriters of their generation in addition to what they did as performers and “pop stars”. Kind of like Babe Ruth was greater than Barry Bonds because he could pitch.

But no one held cover versions against Elvis. Or indeed any Motown act. Should it disqualify Ronstadt?

2) Secondly and more to the nub of the matter for me: Linda Ronstadt’s great singles are her best argument for the Hall–not her great stage presence or a groundbreaking style or any musicianship (she didn’t play an instrument). But those great singles were produced by a committee of sorts. As I said, the Eagles played on her early work. Andrew Gold, Waddy Wachtel, Russ Kunkel and some of the same stellar musicians who made Steely Dan records helped make those singles great. Listen again to “You’re No Good” or “When Will I Be Loved”–sometimes a guitar solo or great ensemble playing could be a highlight of a Linda Ronstadt song. It’s odd to say but perhaps true that if the same music had been released under a band name, that band would be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. But the label on the record said “Linda Ronstadt”. And she was “just a singer in a rock ‘n roll band” to borrow a phrase. But if the “great pop by committee” approach didn’t keep a lot of Motown acts out of the Hall, once again why should it hold Ronstadt back?

So: my opinion is that if there is a museum dedicated to Rock and Roll (a weird idea in the first place) and it encompasses acts that straddle the borders of rock, pop and country (The Mamas and the Papas and Brenda Lee are in) then the great pop music credited to Linda Ronstadt ought to be recognized. And the simplest way to do that is to induct Linda Ronstadt–even if a girl, a microphone and a re-worked song don’t fit your mold as snugly as you may wish.

And I think Three Dog Night should be inducted by precisely the same logic.

I Often Get the Impression the British Don’t “Get” Country Music…

glenn

For example:

“The Genitalia of a Fool” by Glenn Tilbrook

Does Listening to Mozart Really Boost Your Brainpower?

mozart

(Reprinted from BBC Future)

by  Claudia Hammond

It is said that classical music could make children more intelligent, but when you look at the scientific evidence, the picture is more mixed.

You have probably heard of the Mozart effect. It’s the idea that if children or even babies listen to music composed by Mozart they will become more intelligent. A quick internet search reveals plenty of products to assist you in the task. Whatever your age there are CDs and books to help you to harness the power of Mozart’s music, but when it comes to scientific evidence that it can make you more clever, the picture is more mixed.

The phrase “the Mozart effect” was coined in 1991, but it is a study described two years later in the journal Nature that sparked real media and public interest about the idea that listening to classical music somehow improves the brain. It is one of those ideas that feels plausible. Mozart was undoubtedly a genius himself, his music is complex and there is a hope that if we listen to enough of it, a little of that intelligence might rub off on us.

The idea took off, with thousands of parents playing Mozart to their children, and in 1998 Zell Miller, the Governor of the state of Georgia in the US, even asked for money to be set aside in the state budget so that every newborn baby could be sent a CD of classical music. It’s not just babies and children who were deliberately exposed to Mozart’s melodies. When Sergio Della Sala, the psychologist and author of the book Mind Myths, visited a mozzarella farm in Italy, the farmer proudly explained that the buffalos were played Mozart three times a day to help them to produce better milk.

I’ll leave the debate on the impact on milk yield to farmers, but what about the evidence that listening to Mozart makes people more intelligent? Exactly what was it was that the authors of the initial study discovered that took public imagination by storm?

When you look back at the original paper, the first surprise is that the authors from the University of California, Irvine are modest in their claims and don’t even use the “Mozart effect” phrase in the paper. The second surprise is that it wasn’t conducted on children at all: it was in fact conducted with those stalwarts of psychological studies – young adult students. Only 36 students took part. On three occasions they were given a series of mental tasks to complete, and before each task, they listened either to ten minutes of silence, ten minutes of a tape of relaxation instructions, or ten minutes of Mozart’s sonata for two pianos in D major (K448).

The students who listened to Mozart did better at tasks where they had to create shapes in their minds. For a short time the students were better at spatial tasks where they had to look at folded up pieces of paper with cuts in them and to predict how they would appear when unfolded. But unfortunately, as the authors make clear at the time, this effect lasts for about fifteen minutes. So it’s hardly going to bring you a lifetime of enhanced intelligence.

Brain arousal

Nevertheless, people began to theorise about why it was that Mozart’s music in particular could have this effect. Did the complexity of music cause patterns of cortical firing in the brain similar to those associated with solving spatial puzzles?

More research followed, and a meta-analysis of sixteen different studies confirmed that listening to music does lead to a temporary improvement in the ability to manipulate shapes mentally, but the benefits are short-lived and it doesn’t make us more intelligent.

Then it began to emerge that perhaps Mozart wasn’t so special after all. In 2010 a larger meta-analysis of a greater number of studies again found a positive effect, but that other kinds of music worked just as well. One study found that listening to Schubert was just as good, and so was hearing a passage read out aloud from a Stephen King novel. But only if you enjoyed it. So, perhaps enjoyment and engagement are key, rather than the exact notes you hear.

Although we tend to associate the Mozart effect with babies and small children, most of these studies were conducted on adults, whose brains are of course at a very different stage of development. But in 2006 a large study was conducted in Britain involving eight thousand children. They listened either to ten minutes of Mozart’s String Quintet in D Major, a discussion about the experiment or to a sequence of three pop songs: Blur’s “Country House,” “Return of the Mack,” by Mark Morrison and PJ and Duncan’s “Stepping Stone”. Once again music improved the ability to predict paper shapes, but this time it wasn’t a Mozart effect, but a Blur effect. The children who listened to Mozart did well, but with pop music they did even better, so prior preference could come into it.

Whatever your musical choice, it seems that all you need to do a bit better at predictive origami is some cognitive arousal. Your mind needs to get a little more active, it needs something to get it going and that’s going to be whichever kind of music appeals to you. In fact, it doesn’t have to be music. Anything that makes you more alert should work just as well – doing a few star jumps or drinking some coffee, for instance.

There is a way in which music can make a difference to your IQ, though. Unfortunately it requires a bit more effort than putting on a CD. Learning to play a musical instrument can have a beneficial effect on your brain. Jessica Grahn, a cognitive scientist at Western University in London, Ontario says that a year of piano lessons, combined with regular practice can increase IQ by as much as three points.

So listening to Mozart won’t do you or your children any harm and could be the start of a life-long love of classical music. But unless you and your family have some urgent imaginary origami to do, the chances are that sticking on a sonata is not going to make you better at anything.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries