The Easy-Listening Menace

Oh yeah, and especially R&B. Was a time that people like
Marvin Gaye and the Isley Brothers were writing sophisticated,
sexy slow jams that were musically interesting - but now,
90% of all slow jams are unbearably trite, unoriginal and
easy-listening to me.

better technology and a better sense of what will get on the radio.

the isley brothers in hard-listening shockah

At their height, they produced many skittering, up-tempo
funk tracks that sound absolutely vital today. Plus, they
acquired a blistering, hendrix-style lead guitarist. Sounds
hard-listening to me.

what were the hard-listening isley's slow jams Squirrel?

Anyway, the easy listening menace is Arthur Lee's fault (three cheers for Arthur Lee!)

Does this mean you don't like the Carpenters?

Gaz, I don't use the term "hard-listening," it's dodgy.
The Isley's slow songs weren't "hard" but they didn't
seem sickening, saccharine pap like easy-listening or
elevator music.
Specific titles?
"Hello It's Me,"
"Don't Let Me Be Lonely Tonight,"
"The Highways Of My Life."

not arguing, just interested. i keep thinking between the sheets...

Easy is the new hard.

And the up elevator is going down, down, down.

I'm feeling like a jerk today so I'll just say it.

Squirrel Police, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

R&B's moved much harder and more beat oriented since the hip-hop crossover/bleedthru started to really take hold. "Professional, sophisticated, slightly jazzy" describes the brazilian wave of the 60s perhaps but not at all the R&B records of today.

You also confuse "trite, unoriginal" with easy-listening even though the two have NOTHING IN COMMON. One describing qualities of musical craft and the other a particular sound, if any of the terms are to mean anything at all except for "I don't understand it" which is what I suspect they mean in yr. lexicon.

Have you heard the Isley's collaboration with R. Kelly by the way? "Contageous" -- it's fantastic, one of the best things either have done, and shows that there really isn't as much of a distinction as you seem to imagine.

Also if you want to explain how this has "infected all genres" yr. stuck facing a radio audience that mainly listens to rap, country, and nu-metal none of which seem to show whatever qualities yr. discussing.

Lite-rock, perhaps, but that's really its point isn't it?

Folk, by the way, from the 60s on, has ALWAYS been easy-listening.

And rock and soul had a spectacularly productive period of bleedthru.

Great answer there by Sterling Clover. I don't agree with you about folk music, though...Richard Thompson's first LP is folk, I guess--except it wasn't written by any anonymous "folk," he wrote it himself--and it's not "e-z listening." Gordon Lightfoot is kind of e-z listening, but again, that's just commercial music. Real "folk" music (we ought to retire this meaningless term) is easy to listen to either.

Also, I'm not sure why anyone would equate professional, slick, easy, with "bad." Bossa nova is all of those things--even though the content is deceptively "hard"--but it's great music. Smokey Robinson is slick and professional; so are the Spinners; so is Earth, Wind and Fire. But that doesn't make it bad. James Brown is hard, but that doesn't necessarily make it good (although he's great). Karen Carpenter sang quite well--what's wrong with that? Someone mentioned Arthur Lee--well, a lot of "Da Capo" could pass for elevator music, right? But it's a great record. Of course the whole fucking lounge-music thing is totally disgusting--a buncha hipsters with no place left to turn in "rock"...

I must spend too much time reading the personal ads, but I could have sworn Squirrel Police's orginal question was written in code and decipherable as: "Masochist seeking professorial-type Disciplinarian to administer light-to-medium spanking + history lesson."

I'm sorry you had such a bad day.

It's true that R&B artists have hard songs and soft songs (that's how it's
always been) but I'm talking about the slick, lugubrious, heart-stoppingly
emotional R&B style personified by K-Ci & JoJo, Mariah
and her wannabes at their cooing worst. Y'know, The ass-grabbing
slow songs they play at high school dances.

As juxtaposing "trite, unoriginal" and "easy listening" ;
it was not a careless move, but one that is based on my
listening experience. In my life, I've only heard a handful of good
songs that could be described as easy-listening: "White
Christmas," some Nat King Cole, Bacharach, a few
Sinatras and otherRat packers.
If you could direct me to some easy-listening that does
not sound like it was written by a 66-year-old friendly
pedophile and performed by a legions of fatassed
martini-guzzling WASPS, please do so. Perhaps
I need an education.

"Folk, from the 60s on has ALWAYS been easy-listening"
Bob Dylan and Simon & Garfunkel, for two, deserve better
than that.

I don't have a problem with slick professionalism, BTW, if it
results in good music.

Love - well, yeah, they were soft for their time (when hard
rock was budding) but they still had the drama and dynamics.
And the lyrics, which were fairly strange on _Forever Changes_.

"And rock and soul had a spectacularly productive period of bleedthru."

Examples? As always, I need to do more listening.

Re: Paula, ok, if you insist. Where should we meet? I'm kinda short, will
you take a down payment? Message me.

how were Sinatra or Dean Martin or Sammy Davis Jr. WASPs? or Nat Cole for that matter?

"And rock and soul had a spectacularly productive period of bleedthru." Examples? As always, I need to do more listening.
-- Squirrel_Police

Bleedthru--Sly and Family Stone, for big starters. Funkadelic, Parliament, the Parliaments (Marshall Crenshaw covers George Clinton's late-'60s Parliaments tune "Look At What I Almost Missed," which sounds exactly like a Marshall Crenshaw song).

Bacharach is not easy-listening any more than Brian Wilson is. You're confusing instrumentation with musical content. Take apart a Bacharach tune, it's like jazz...very advanced harmonically, etc. Lots of cool rhythms. Jobim, same thing--a veneer that hides really twisted shit. Try the classic bossa nova album by Jobim and Elis Regina "Elis & Tom" from '74, it's basically the Brazilian equiv. of a good Steely Dan record, except better songs.

Nat Cole--in his early years, a really great jazz pianist, up there with almost anyone. Sinatra is basically a jazz singer. Try his uptempo stuff first? From the mid-late '50s.

Yeah, Dean Martin was not a Protestant.

I

Re: James
For 1 I was obviously being hyperbolic to describe my
negative feelings towards this music.
For 2 I was describing the composer and the orchestra,
not the lead singer.
Re: Brian Wilson, I have problems with him too. I
respect _Pet Sounds_, and understand why it's so
beloved by so many, but it's still one of my
most dissapointing albums.
I plan on investigating Clinton, Bacharach, and
Steely Dan soon.

i really wouldn't worry too much about imaginary genres "infecting" other imaginary genres, mr. police

today's "slow jams" sound crap compared to yesterday's mostly because of the overdone singing, too many notes and vocal gymnastics...

player hater

Bravo, MR. WOLLNER. Your casual cool is well-honed
instrument.

Mariah doesn't have any wannabees and she's hardly R&B anyway so much as pop, unless you consider Celine Dion R&B too. Not that Celine isn't grebt.

Tank? Dave Hollister? hello?

rock & soul bleedthru = otis redding.

K Ci. & Jo Jo are also hardly "easy listening" unless you thought Bell Biv Devoe's "Poison" was easy listening.

And what is 59th st. Bridge song or hell, Bookends, if not easy listening of the highest caliber?

how were Sinatra or Dean Martin or Sammy Davis Jr. WASPs? or Nat Cole for that matter?
thats what they were on the *inside*. Sammy Davis was just a skinny Colin Powell.

Custos go eat a dick.

Oh, Sterling. I'm just playing. Can't you see the goofy grin?

(No, I refuse to use emoticons to clarify my mood.)

Okay. Let me clarify my posision sans any sarcasm.
It always bothered me that instead of inviting Nat King Cole into the Rat Pack, they only let in Sammy Davis Jr.
To me this is the equivalent of inviting Steve Forbert while snubbing Bob Dylan.
I suspect one reason is that Sinatra didn't want someone in the Rat Pack who was his equal (Joey Bishop...HAHAHAHAHAHA!); While I don't respect this reason, I can sympathize.
Reason #2 is the darker, more professor-griff-approved version: They chose Sammy Davis Jr and decided they only needed one "token neeeeegro."; I guess the other rat-packers decided that having one black guy in the bunch was "progressive enough".
There. Is that less snippy?

maybe they didn't know Nat Cole, it was an outgrowth of Bogie's rat pack so who knows, maybe if Cole had been as active in Hollywood...

Ahhhh.
Maybe I forgot to apply Hanlons razor to my own thought process.
But this doesn't explain why Joey Bishop or Sammy Davis got in...

Every time I see this thread title come up, I get this rather disturbing mental image of Morgan Webster wearing some nice chunky knitwear and a pair of smart but casual nylon slacks, attempting to croon "G.L.C., G.L.C.; G.L.C., G.L.C.; You're full of shit!" over a soothing, jazz-lite backing....

Sorry, just had to get to get that off my chest.

GLC? Green Lantern Corps?

"Greater London Council"; it was led by some buffon called Ken Livigstone - thankfully we all have far too much sense to allow an incompetent imbecile like that to take control of running our capital these days!

Ooops, little bit of politics there, my name is Stewart Osborne, Goodnight!

"Hello It's Me" is a great song by the way.

Comparing Sammy Davis, Jr. to Steve Forbert?!? Custos, you go to far!!! They "let him in" because he was one of the most talented entertainers of the 20th Century. Perhaps there were some "token negro" issues involved--I don't know, never read any of the Sammy bios but some of his routines w/ the others are appalling--and sure, I rarely listen to his records, but I'd rather have seen him perform than any of the other Rat Packers. Or Nat King Cole, for that matter. Have you ever seen any of those old performances? He's incredible! Electrifying!

Sammy Davis > Nat King Cole?
Eeeeeeuuuwwwww! Wrong-Wrong Wrong-Wrong WRONG!

They "let him in" because he was one of the most talented entertainers of the 20th Century.
Well, he was better than Joey Bishop, but thats not saying much. And no, he was an irritating, unfunny lounge lizard with an even more irritating, unfunny voice.