A Thread for Musical Blasphemy you Truly Believe

[worldrecordplayer]

Of all the famous singer-songwriters of the last 50 years who have made it big, Neil Young might be the worst writer. He's a good guitar player, and I think he can write a decent melody, but his lyrics are nowhere near as good as anyone else in the upper echelon (Dylan, Joni Mitchell, et al).

 

Just look at some of the lyrics of even his best-known songs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And don't even get me started on A Man Needs A Maid.

Yea but anyone who writes Powderfinger and Cortez gets a lifetime achievement award in my personal rock n roll lyrics HOF. (I'm assuming Neil wrote both?)

[tinnitus photography]

If you are gonna cherry pick Neil, here are some Dylan clunkers

 

"Conceit is a disease that the doctors got no cure

They've done a lot of research on it, but what it is, they're still not sure"

 

 

"She opened up a book of poems and handed it to me

written by an Italian poet from the 13th century

and every one of them words rang true and glowed like burning coal pouring off of every page like it was written in my soul from me to you."

 

And when it's over I'd just as soon go on my way

Up to some paradise

Where the trout streams flow and the air is nice

And ride a horse along a trail.

But then they took him to the jailhouse

Where they try to turn a man into a mouse.

 

 

Neil has more clunkers than Dylan, but no one is immune.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

It's okay. This thread is called "A Thread for Musical Blasphemy YOU Truly Believe" [emphasis mine]. I don't have to convince anyone else. Just posting what I believe.

[uncool2pillow]

It's okay.  It's a forum.  A place for back and forth.  

[LouieB]

Here is some musically blasphemy I believe. Very few musicians are interested in writing songs any more. Oh yea, they write music and put words to it, but songs tend to have structure, rhyme, melody, etc. and few artists are interested in that anymore. Songs used to be a commodity which you sold for someone else to sing, therefore it needed to have something of interest to a large number of people, but since most artists write their own songs, they don't need to have anything to interest anyone else besides themselves. That does not mean people are not writing interesting music (with words), but no one cares that anyone else is going to cover their work. And it is therefore also not important for words to be understood either as literature in and of themselves or heard within the context of the music. It is only artists who are relentlessly old school that produce songs that can be sung along to. And this even goes for artists I like. Most lyrics are either unintelligible or nonsensical, most buried deep in the mix.

 

I recommend the movie Inside Llewyn Davis,, which has nothing to do with this thread, but just a bit with my point in this post.

 

LouieB

[jff]

Here is some musically blasphemy I believe. Very few musicians are interested in writing songs any more. Oh yea, they write music and put words to it, but songs tend to have structure, rhyme, melody, etc. and few artists are interested in that anymore. Songs used to be a commodity which you sold for someone else to sing, therefore it needed to have something of interest to a large number of people, but since most artists write their own songs, they don't need to have anything to interest anyone else besides themselves. That does not mean people are not writing interesting music (with words), but no one cares that anyone else is going to cover their work. And it is therefore also not important for words to be understood either as literature in and of themselves or heard within the context of the music. It is only artists who are relentlessly old school that produce songs that can be sung along to. And this even goes for artists I like. Most lyrics are either unintelligible or nonsensical, most buried deep in the mix.

 

I recommend the movie Inside Llewyn Davis,, which has nothing to do with this thread, but just a bit with my point in this post.

 

LouieB

With the exception of the post-Beatlemania '60s it seems to me that was always the case.  

[LouieB]

With the exception of the post-Beatlemania '60s it seems to me that was always the case.

I am not so sure. I think it has been getting progressively worse to point that the strum and mumble crowd of the last few years (again some of my favorite musicians) and the let's make the words either so obscure or meaningless that you shouldn't bother trying to figure them out crowd (less of my favorites), have reduced words to third place after instrumentation and sound. I really don't think it was this bad in the 70s through 90s. I find it has gotten intolerable for me more recently. Two examples - Bon Iver, who even makes up words (not a big fan) and Califone, who apparently spends a lot of time picking the right words but ends up with meaningless lyrics (who I like quite a lot). It is only the relentlessly old school song writers such as Robbie Fulks and Justin Earle (big fans of both) that give a rats ass if they are conveying anything in their lyrics. There are plenty of others, but the majority of musical "groups" are way less concerned about coherent and/or recognizable lyrics than artists who are concerned with being understood and conveying a message. Actually that isn't even true. Andrew Bird (a semi-fave) does the same thing.

 

So even back to the discussion I interrupted, while both Neil Young and Bob Dylan have written some clunkers, at least we all know what those clunkers are and can discuss why they fall so flat. It goes without saying that all writers care going to have bad days or engage in lazy writing.

 

LouieB

[Jcamp]

Paul Simon seems to have an interesting approach for songwriting.

Maybe just on Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints ?

He is on record claiming to hear the rhythms and music and then writing the lyrics after.

 

I'll be happy to listen to Neil clunkers all day long. Bob's, too.

 

Coldplay and Arcane Fire success' baffles me.

[Moss]

. It is only the relentlessly old school song writers such as Robbie Fulks and Justin Earle \

 

I would throw Jason Isbell in that crowd.  I'm amazed at his ability to consistently write very moving lyrics that tell a story (i.e. Elephant).

[LouieB]

I would throw Jason Isbell in that crowd.  I'm amazed at his ability to consistently write very moving lyrics that tell a story (i.e. Elephant).

I think I need to check this record out. I would agree that he is also pretty old school along with his former bandmates in Drive By Truckers. Country and alt-country artists are nearly always old school. For as much as contemporary country music can be faulted for being highly mediocre, they still hew to the old idea of telling a story in clear language, which doesn't necessarily mean they do it well or it is a story you want to hear.

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

Paul Simon seems to have an interesting approach for songwriting.

Maybe just on Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints ?

He is on record claiming to hear the rhythms and music and then writing the lyrics after.

 

I'll be happy to listen to Neil clunkers all day long. Bob's, too.

 

Coldplay and Arcane Fire success' baffles me.

Needless to say Paul Simon is a fucking genius of the old school (plus he is old.)

 

Yea, can listen to old guys like Neil and Bob and Paul (all old timers) clunk along even in their geezerhood (not a real word.)

 

I may be the only person on here who sort of admires Coldplay, but would never own one of their records ever. Okay I know they suck, but somehow thear something seductive in their sound when I catch one of their songs on the radio.

 

I have a (used) copy of Arcade Fire's Funeral sitting on my needs to be listened to shelf. Clearly I have never been drawn in.

 

LouieB

[Ghost of Electricity]

Some nice observations Louis, although one or two of your points which were intended to be negatives i would put down as positives:

 

they don't need to have anything to interest anyone else besides themselves. ... but no one cares that anyone else is going to cover their work.

 

especially the second one.  If someone writes a song with the intent that someone else will sing it, then that singer is that much more remote from the material, and the writer isn't necessarily writing from a personal perspective to begin with. And as Dylan says "if you believe what you're singing that elevates it."  (or words to that effect) So those songs may come out more universal in a sense, but also more generic and therefore less meaningful.

 

There are some good lyricists working today (okay, a broad definition of today)Two that spring to mind without having to think too hard Connor Oberst can turn a fantastic phrase, and the guy from the Hold Steady (whose name escapes me at the moment) is a good storyteller, albeit perhaps a bit too verbose. 

[worldrecordplayer]

I may be the only person on here who sort of admires Coldplay, but would never own one of their records ever. Okay I know they suck, but somehow thear something seductive in their sound when I catch one of their songs on the radio.

No, you are not alone.  I don't think I ever make the choice to pop them in the CD player but I've listened to a lot of Coldplay over the years as my wife and daughter are very big fans.  I've even seen them live and watched their live DVD a few times.  They've got a lot of songs that I like, and their live show was excellent. Very high energy, and entertaining.  I like the guitar player's playing.  If my wife wanted to see them again, I would have no problem going.

[worldrecordplayer]

Paul Simon seems to have an interesting approach for songwriting.

Maybe just on Graceland and Rhythm of the Saints ?

He is on record claiming to hear the rhythms and music and then writing the lyrics after.

 

And the Los Lobos guys are on record claiming that he totally ripped them off on Graceland, they were in the studio with him and he took one of Hidalgo's tunes they were jamming around on and turned it into one of the Graceland songs (I'd have to look at a track list) and refused to give them any writing credits.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I almost feel like I should like Coldplay just by virtue of the fact that Eno produced one of their records. He must have heard something he liked.

[LouieB]

Some nice observations Louis, although one or two of your points which were intended to be negatives i would put down as positives:

 

especially the second one.  If someone writes a song with the intent that someone else will sing it, then that singer is that much more remote from the material, and the writer isn't necessarily writing from a personal perspective to begin with. And as Dylan says "if you believe what you're singing that elevates it."  (or words to that effect) So those songs may come out more universal in a sense, but also more generic and therefore less meaningful.

 

There are some good lyricists working today (okay, a broad definition of today)Two that spring to mind without having to think too hard Connor Oberst can turn a fantastic phrase, and the guy from the Hold Steady (whose name escapes me at the moment) is a good storyteller, albeit perhaps a bit too verbose.

This is a good point of discussion I think. Maybe too complex for a threaded discussion like this, but let's give it a shot.

 

Singers singing their own songs is a relatively new phenomenon. Not that it didn't happen, it did, but in the "good old days" songwriters who were not singers wrote for people with pipes. No one can ever say that the really good singers Billy Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby (take or leave those and add your own) could inhabit and convince the listener that the song WAS theirs. Fast forward to the Bob Dylan era. Not only did Bob Dylan write songs that everyone wanted to sing (and convince folks were really theirs), he also managed to convince people that they had to write their own material to prove that they were real artists. Hence plenty of folks sing their own songs to sometimes mixed effect, leaving better songs to others. I have seen many a band break into a cover of someone else's and light up a stage they couldn't light up with their own work. What continues to be the most popular band? Any band in a bar covering songs that are famous in their own right. Songs that become standards last forever when the next generation and subsequent generations pick them up and sing them. In some cases we don't even know who the writer was because there were many writers and those are so called folk songs and have the benefit of all the rough edges being smoothed out over years of constant repetition and small editing. (From another thread....you can enjoy Bob Dylan singing a gem like Copper Kettle and think he wrote it, but he didn't, lots of people did.)

 

That is not to say that individuals can't strike gold. They can and do all the time. New songs are added to the cannon and each musician can and should take a shot at immortality. (One of my first arguments here on VC involved the songs "City of New Orleans" and "Gentle on My Mind" from back in the day when VCers were less literate than they are now. Both made the now deceased writers and singers both famous and rich. I assume you can name them because everyone is literate now days, more literate than I am.) And it is very exciting to see a singer or a group shoot for this. It is less enthralling to see singers sing the same old shit even when they are singing something new (yea Jay Farrar, I am talking about you.) I have also said this before. The reason Bob Dylan is called "the voice of his generation" (whatever the fuck that means anyway since he now seem to be the voice of every generation since), is that not only was he singing stuff that people really enjoyed hearing, but he wrote songs everyone could and wanted to sing. And all significant artists understand that the songs others wrote are of equal significance to their own. Dylan covers Warren Zevon, nearly everyone covers Townes Van Zandt, when artists get tired of writing new stuff (or just plan tired and lame) they put out covers or standards albums. Hell Harry Nilsson put out a great standards album and he wasn't even finished writing his own great songs. For some reason the Gershwin's never go out of style. Hank Williams wrote great original material along with singing plenty of songs written by others. If a singer/songwriter can claim just one endearing song he or she can be called a legend.

 

Meanwhile I understand why people like Bright Eyes/Oberst. I am not a big fan, but most people know that. I don't think he qualifies as a legend. I finally saw the Hold Steady this year for the first time (I'm starting to lose it because I simply can't remember which festival it was at...gawd....) They were totally enjoyable, but as you point out, verbose to the max. I kept wanting them to pare it down a touch, but that is their shtick and I they do it pretty well. Seeing them didn't make me a fan, but I understand why others are.

 

Awhile ago my daughter and did a show on families where there were more than one famous musician. In nearly every case the siblings were less than the parents through no fault of their own. (The only one even close to equal are the Buckley's and I maintain even that isn't close.) (Actually Justin Earle does kick ass...) This is a totally different subject to be sure. While I am looking forward to Sarah Guthrie's record produced by Jeff, nothing from her previous album I have heard even comes close to either Woody or Arlo. Not because she isn't a good singer, but because she hasn't found her own voice yet. I hope she does. It would be pretty cool.

 

Each summer when some song gets dubbed the song of the summer (whatever the hell that is), I keep trying to figure out how many summers from now anyone will remember it. The one song in recent memory like that was "Crazy" (not the Patsy Cline single obviously). Others did cover that, although not widely. I hope someone does cover it in years to come because it is a great song (although weird) in its own right, separate and apart from Celo's singing and Danger Mouse's production. Despite the very catchy nature of Blurred Lines, I doubt anyone will really want to cover that. Although I did see someone cover the Daft Punk song, which isn't really a song anyway, but a pretty catchy dance rift. (Strangely the last group I can figure that people really do like covering are the Pixies, and maybe the Replacements.) But as sure as can be and as sure as Janis Joplin covered Summertime by George Gershwin and brought his music to my generation who could have given a rats ass about him, someone will cover songs from years ago. I noticed that someone has put out an album of Childe Ballads. Go figure. Look for someone to start covering the more obscure songs on the mondo Paramount box set that just came out (If someone wants to buy it for me, feel free....) Because ultimately all artists will sing songs from those that came before and do it well and expose an entire new generation to the past. Thank goodness. Because no matter how big Kanye West gets, I doubt anyone is going to put out an album of his material. I sort of hope someone does and proves me wrong about him and his songs.

 

LouieB

[LouieB]

And the Los Lobos guys are on record claiming that he totally ripped them off on Graceland, they were in the studio with him and he took one of Hidalgo's tunes they were jamming around on and turned it into one of the Graceland songs (I'd have to look at a track list) and refused to give them any writing credits.

I read some material related to this controversy a few years ago here. I love Los Lobos and I love their records, but I just don't believe this. They ended up on Graceland, on one of the lesser songs on the album and I think they did get writers credit for it. Perhaps Simon did take some of their ideas and turn it into the big hit single. What do I or anyone know of this really. It won't be the first or last time this happens. (we an crank up the Robbie Robertson/Levon Helm feud if you want.) There is a book out on Duke Ellington with an insightful article about it in the New Yorker (I haven't read the book) but the Duke did about the same thing as Paul Simon and worse, taking riffs his band members thought up and turning them into hits. Does that lessen his stature? Not really according to the reviewer (and apparently the author.) Band leaders do this all the time. They take a bit of inspiration and spin it into masterpieces. Sometimes that's what it takes to bring an idea to fruition. I guess it kind of sucks, but somehow Los Lobos have done fine for themselves without Paul Simon's help. And Duke's men became legends in their own right being part of his band too. It is an artistic trade off.

 

(Levon Helm got to sing some kick ass songs that propelled The Band into the artistic stratosphere.)(BTW the movie about Helm is interesting if really really depressing.)

 

LouieB

[worrierking]

I read some material related to this controversy a few years ago here. I love Los Lobos and I love their records, but I just don't believe this. They ended up on Graceland, on one of the lesser songs on the album and I think they did get writers credit for it. Perhaps Simon did take some of their ideas and turn it into the big hit single. What do I or anyone know of this really. It won't be the first or last time this happens. (we an crank up the Robbie Robertson/Levon Helm feud if you want.) There is a book out on Duke Ellington with an insightful article about it in the New Yorker (I haven't read the book) but the Duke did about the same thing as Paul Simon and worse, taking riffs his band members thought up and turning them into hits. Does that lessen his stature? Not really according to the reviewer (and apparently the author.) Band leaders do this all the time. They take a bit of inspiration and spin it into masterpieces. Sometimes that's what it takes to bring an idea to fruition. I guess it kind of sucks, but somehow Los Lobos have done fine for themselves without Paul Simon's help. And Duke's men became legends in their own right being part of his band too. It is an artistic trade off.

 

(Levon Helm got to sing some kick ass songs that propelled The Band into the artistic stratosphere.)(BTW the movie about Helm is interesting if really really depressing.)

 

LouieB

 

The song was called All Around the World (The Myth of Fingerprints).  I love the tune and it sounds just like a combination of Paul Simon and Los Lobos would sound like in your imagination.  It pains me that it caused a rift between the artists as I like them both a lot. 

[LouieB]

The song was called All Around the World (The Myth of Fingerprints).  I love the tune and it sounds just like a combination of Paul Simon and Los Lobos would sound like in your imagination.  It pains me that it caused a rift between the artists as I like them both a lot.

Thanks for refreshing our memory. It needed refreshing because this song is okay, but sounds like the lesser of both bands actually. Its a fine performance, not a great song, and neither artist got famous from it.

 

LouieB

[worldrecordplayer]

Nope, they didn't get any writing credit. Which is what pissed them off, not that he used it to build a song, but then failed to give credit, and when they pressed the issue he just refused. Simon denies it, but I'm with Lobos on this one. For no reason other than their story seemed believable, and I like them better!

[LouieB]

Nope, they didn't get any writing credit. Which is what pissed them off, not that he used it to build a song, but then failed to give credit, and when they pressed the issue he just refused. Simon denies it, but I'm with Lobos on this one. For no reason other than their story seemed believable, and I like them better!

Well that does suck. Boo on Paul.

 

Edit, yup his website lists him only ....what a douche. I guess they don't call it show business for nothing...

LouieB

[Ghost of Electricity]

This is a good point of discussion I think. Maybe too complex for a threaded discussion like this, but let's give it a shot.

 

Singers singing their own songs is a relatively new phenomenon. Not that it didn't happen, it did, but in the "good old days" songwriters who were not singers wrote for people with pipes. No one can ever say that the really good singers Billy Holiday, Frank Sinatra, Bing Crosby (take or leave those and add your own) could inhabit and convince the listener that the song WAS theirs. Fast forward to the Bob Dylan era. Not only did Bob Dylan write songs that everyone wanted to sing (and convince folks were really theirs), he also managed to convince people that they had to write their own material to prove that they were real artists. Hence plenty of folks sing their own songs to sometimes mixed effect, leaving better songs to others. I have seen many a band break into a cover of someone else's and light up a stage they couldn't light up with their own work. What continues to be the most popular band? Any band in a bar covering songs that are famous in their own right. Songs that become standards last forever when the next generation and subsequent generations pick them up and sing them. In some cases we don't even know who the writer was because there were many writers and those are so called folk songs and have the benefit of all the rough edges being smoothed out over years of constant repetition and small editing. (From another thread....you can enjoy Bob Dylan singing a gem like Copper Kettle and think he wrote it, but he didn't, lots of people did.)

 

That is not to say that individuals can't strike gold. They can and do all the time. New songs are added to the cannon and each musician can and should take a shot at immortality. (One of my first arguments here on VC involved the songs "City of New Orleans" and "Gentle on My Mind" from back in the day when VCers were less literate than they are now. Both made the now deceased writers and singers both famous and rich. I assume you can name them because everyone is literate now days, more literate than I am.) And it is very exciting to see a singer or a group shoot for this. It is less enthralling to see singers sing the same old shit even when they are singing something new (yea Jay Farrar, I am talking about you.) I have also said this before. The reason Bob Dylan is called "the voice of his generation" (whatever the fuck that means anyway since he now seem to be the voice of every generation since), is that not only was he singing stuff that people really enjoyed hearing, but he wrote songs everyone could and wanted to sing. And all significant artists understand that the songs others wrote are of equal significance to their own. Dylan covers Warren Zevon, nearly everyone covers Townes Van Zandt, when artists get tired of writing new stuff (or just plan tired and lame) they put out covers or standards albums. Hell Harry Nilsson put out a great standards album and he wasn't even finished writing his own great songs. For some reason the Gershwin's never go out of style. Hank Williams wrote great original material along with singing plenty of songs written by others. If a singer/songwriter can claim just one endearing song he or she can be called a legend.

 

Meanwhile I understand why people like Bright Eyes/Oberst. I am not a big fan, but most people know that. I don't think he qualifies as a legend. I finally saw the Hold Steady this year for the first time (I'm starting to lose it because I simply can't remember which festival it was at...gawd....) They were totally enjoyable, but as you point out, verbose to the max. I kept wanting them to pare it down a touch, but that is their shtick and I they do it pretty well. Seeing them didn't make me a fan, but I understand why others are.

 

Awhile ago my daughter and did a show on families where there were more than one famous musician. In nearly every case the siblings were less than the parents through no fault of their own. (The only one even close to equal are the Buckley's and I maintain even that isn't close.) (Actually Justin Earle does kick ass...) This is a totally different subject to be sure. While I am looking forward to Sarah Guthrie's record produced by Jeff, nothing from her previous album I have heard even comes close to either Woody or Arlo. Not because she isn't a good singer, but because she hasn't found her own voice yet. I hope she does. It would be pretty cool.

 

Each summer when some song gets dubbed the song of the summer (whatever the hell that is), I keep trying to figure out how many summers from now anyone will remember it. The one song in recent memory like that was "Crazy" (not the Patsy Cline single obviously). Others did cover that, although not widely. I hope someone does cover it in years to come because it is a great song (although weird) in its own right, separate and apart from Celo's singing and Danger Mouse's production. Despite the very catchy nature of Blurred Lines, I doubt anyone will really want to cover that. Although I did see someone cover the Daft Punk song, which isn't really a song anyway, but a pretty catchy dance rift. (Strangely the last group I can figure that people really do like covering are the Pixies, and maybe the Replacements.) But as sure as can be and as sure as Janis Joplin covered Summertime by George Gershwin and brought his music to my generation who could have given a rats ass about him, someone will cover songs from years ago. I noticed that someone has put out an album of Childe Ballads. Go figure. Look for someone to start covering the more obscure songs on the mondo Paramount box set that just came out (If someone wants to buy it for me, feel free....) Because ultimately all artists will sing songs from those that came before and do it well and expose an entire new generation to the past. Thank goodness. Because no matter how big Kanye West gets, I doubt anyone is going to put out an album of his material. I sort of hope someone does and proves me wrong about him and his songs.

 

LouieB

You're sounding a bit like a Hold Steady song yourself with that post!  I'm not going to disagree with anything you say above, except for maybe the part about folk songs.  Because a folk song, unaccredited and existing in many different versions, anyone can take that change a few words, add a verse, delete another, vary it to some degree large or small that makes it their own.  

 

But i think a distinction should be drawn between folk songs and covers.  A cover song is one that (generally speaking) references the original for the sake of referencing the original.  (It's true you get your Elvis Presleys occasionally who try to steal outright from your Arthur Crudups) These sort of covers have an established precedent, the record of the original (unlike folk music). In a way, recorded music has pretty much killed folk music off, at least folk music in the sense that Harry Smith and Alan Lomax set out to document. Now "folk" is largely synonymous with "singer-songwriter" and the sense that there is a source that musicians can draw on that comes from culturally somewhere deep and remote, that no longer exists.

 

The songs being written today that will one day be considered iconic are things that the music snobs that hang around here (and believe me I include myself in this group) are all to quick to discount.  I have a very talented friend who plays guitar/sings.  She swears by a Miley Cyrus song.  I've never even heard a Miley Cyrus song to the best of my knowledge, and have zero desire to do so, unless it is her (my friend) doing it.  maybe curiosity will prompt me to check out the original, but i doubt it.  Too bad I can't find it on youtube (maybe it's there but i don't know what it's called) but here she is doing a Big Star cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3XJv2lKNMA&list=UUuKcJL678XILxtcO88ZQmvg

[LouieB]

You're sounding a bit like a Hold Steady song yourself with that post!  I'm not going to disagree with anything you say above, except for maybe the part about folk songs.  Because a folk song, unaccredited and existing in many different versions, anyone can take that change a few words, add a verse, delete another, vary it to some degree large or small that makes it their own.  

 

But i think a distinction should be drawn between folk songs and covers.  A cover song is one that (generally speaking) references the original for the sake of referencing the original.  (It's true you get your Elvis Presleys occasionally who try to steal outright from your Arthur Crudups) These sort of covers have an established precedent, the record of the original (unlike folk music). In a way, recorded music has pretty much killed folk music off, at least folk music in the sense that Harry Smith and Alan Lomax set out to document. Now "folk" is largely synonymous with "singer-songwriter" and the sense that there is a source that musicians can draw on that comes from culturally somewhere deep and remote, that no longer exists.

 

The songs being written today that will one day be considered iconic are things that the music snobs that hang around here (and believe me I include myself in this group) are all to quick to discount.  I have a very talented friend who plays guitar/sings.  She swears by a Miley Cyrus song.  I've never even heard a Miley Cyrus song to the best of my knowledge, and have zero desire to do so, unless it is her (my friend) doing it.  maybe curiosity will prompt me to check out the original, but i doubt it.  Too bad I can't find it on youtube (maybe it's there but i don't know what it's called) but here she is doing a Big Star cover: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3XJv2lKNMA&list=UUuKcJL678XILxtcO88ZQmvg

Hey I didn't feel like working today so hence the long windedness.

 

Okay I may have confused the "folk song" and folk song issue. A folk song which is truly folk isn't written by anyone, but written by lots of peple as you point out. They are smoothed out by time because many hands have been part of it and/or the couples or quatrains are basically public domain. The other type of folk song is the singer/songwriter material I suppose and not easy to quantify as folk music (it isn't) So I guess we aren't in disagreement on that. You are correct true folk music no longer exists because at this point everyone knows to copyright the shit out of it. Although strangely enough some songs end up with many names on it depending on who is trying to publish it. Green Green Rocky Road has several modern authors depending on who recorded it. It is up to a recording artist to try and copyright it and get away with it. (Both Fred Neil and Tim Harden put their names on it.)

 

A song that has entered the realm of the "folk" through the pop genre is Cher's song "Believe". I know of two versions by alt-country artists, both of whom do it justice, that being Robbie Fulks and Deano of Dollar Store (most "famous" as the guitar player in the Waco Brothers.) It is a song that is easy to discount for being fluff, until you play it outright and it makes a decent rocker.

 

Even the Harry Smith material became folk music after being commercial. What is real folk music was collected a hundred years ago by people like Carl Sandberg and lots of others trying to document traditional music even before it found its way onto records. "Folk music" is a straw man of many different forms, but Child Ballads and other material are the purest sense of the word.

 

It is interesting that the early country bluesman were told they needed four "original songs" before they would be recorded by companies like Paramount. Needless to say, most of these guys merely rearranged what were current blues couplets, stole a few licks from someone else, and then came back with original material. Some people simply do the same thing (I'm talking to you Jay Farrar) today. They either rearrange their old work or cop a lick from someone else. Being original is hard. Hell Bob Dylan was the master after all. Edit - Let's not forget the deified Woody Guthrie who was hardly above borrowing words and music from such folks as the Carter Family who by the same token never gave credit to any of their sources.

 

Edit-Not sure Elvis tried to steal Its Alright Mama. After all it was already sort of stolen (according to Wikipedia which I am stealing from) from Blind Lemon Jefferson. Everyone was doin it.

 

At the risk of being compared to the Hold Steady (I would rather be dissed by being called Connor Oberst.) I will stop here.

 

LouieB

[choo-choo-charlie]

I think I need to check this record out. I would agree that he is also pretty old school along with his former bandmates in Drive By Truckers. Country and alt-country artists are nearly always old school. For as much as contemporary country music can be faulted for being highly mediocre, they still hew to the old idea of telling a story in clear language, which doesn't necessarily mean they do it well or it is a story you want to hear.

 

LouieB

 

I can't recommend the Isbell record enough. Every track on it is a winner. Even the country rocker "Super 8," which lyrically, thematically and musically is different than everything else on the record, tells a fun story. To me, in the midst of a record that's for the most part deeply emotional and serious, it's refreshing to have a song that's sung from the point of view of a guy with a fuzzy memory of a night of drunken debauchery on the road with his band. It's like a more violent and detailed "Casino Queen." 

[LouieB]

Looks like plenty of used CD copies on Amazon. May go ahead and get it.

 

LouieB