Gordon Lightfoot Forums - View Single Post

Bill Allen · 09-01-2002, 04:58 PM

quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman:
Personally, I don't see how anybody can even attempt to say that the Beatles are a better band in any way shape or form. They just don't have what it takes to sustain. They got famous because they came to the US with a new style that was happening in England at the time. They were simple liasons, nothing more. If another band had come over first and been a hit, The Beatles would have not got off the ground. They lack any substance and true writing talent to make it in the US without the "new phenomina" stuff that made them famous.

[This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited August 31, 2002).]

Watchman, I enjoy your posts immensely--they're always well-written, and always thought-provoking. However, in this instance, I respectfully suggest you're missing the point...at least of what I've written previously, anyway. When I wrote my response to the original post, I was trying to say that there are at least two ways (actually many more) of looking at a question. You're making subjective opinions, and that's fine. On a subjective basis, Gordon Lightfoot will always be my favorite songwriter too. What I was getting at is that it's an interesting exercise to try and take an objective approach. If you don't like the Beatles, that's fine. I don't care for Dylan, to take another example, myself. But viewed in their historical context, I can recognize and accept how groundbreakingly important they were.

To take an example from another artistic medium, it seems to be generally accepted that the greatest American film ever made was Citizen Kane. It shows up repeatedly in different critical assessements (like the American Film Institute's, for example) as #1. When I watch it, if I look at it objectively in its historical context, then I can agree: it probably is the greatest film ever made...a quantum leap in filmmaking techniques. But if I just look at as a film, on a subjective basis...well, yeah--I like it, but it will never be my favorite film of all time.

As another example, we look at the paintings from the Impressionist period today and generally think they're pretty, gentle, fairly harmless paintings of Parisian street scenes, the French countryside, lilyponds, etc. But at the time they were working, the Impressionists were considered absolute renegades who were trashing what was then accepted as art.

So, as I say, subjectively, I agree with you 100%: you tell me I'm only allowed one CD on my desert island, and I'll tell you it's going to be Lightfoot (for god's sake, don't ask me to name which one--I got enough troubles!).

But when you talk about great popular songwriters on an objective basis, then you have to start thinking about people like Dylan, Lennon/McCartney, Gershwin, Cole Porter, Joni Mitchell, Paul Simon, and many, many others. Of the six names I listed (pretty much at random), I like three of them and am so-so on the other three. But there's no denying their importance, nor that of many others.

Personally, I try to avoid comparing people--if I start comparing Lightfoot to, for example, James Taylor, well, I'm sure there are plenty of James Taylor fans willing to convince me that I'm wrong and they're right! But when it comes to subjectivity, there IS no right and wrong...just what works for each of us.

The latter section of your quote indicates to me you might want to do a little research into pop music of the late 50s/early 60s to better understand the Beatles in their historical context. There are number of good books out there on the subject.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that I was in no way suggesting the Beatles, Dylan or anybody else is "better" than Lightfoot, and that you should be converted into thinking so. I have had people beat me over the head with Dylan for years: the assumption seems to be that if I like Lightfoot, I must like Dylan. And yet, he just doesn't DO anything for me. I mean, I like his Oh Mercy album, for example, but the cover versions I've heard of the songs on that album ("Ring Them Bells" by GL, and Baez for example, or Joan Osborne's "Man in the Long Black Coat") appeal to me more than Dylan's original recordings!). And yet, I have to admit his influence on nearly all the songwriters that have followed him is nearly incalculable: even Lightfoot acknowledges him as a formative influence.

On a slightly related note, I received the CDs of Shadows and Salute, and had Salute playing in the car so loud, I think the sun roof opened by itself. I wonder if this voids the warranty...

Derek

[This message has been edited by telekidd (edited September 01, 2002).]

09-01-2002, 04:58 PM	#64
Bill Allen Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Bartlesville, OK Posts: 27	quote:Originally posted by TheWatchman: Personally, I don't see how anybody can even attempt to say that the Beatles are a better band in any way shape or form. They just don't have what it takes to sustain. They got famous because they came to the US with a new style that was happening in England at the time. They were simple liasons, nothing more. If another band had come over first and been a hit, The Beatles would have not got off the ground. They lack any substance and true writing talent to make it in the US without the "new phenomina" stuff that made them famous. [This message has been edited by TheWatchman (edited August 31, 2002).] Watchman, I enjoy your posts immensely--they're always well-written, and always thought-provoking. However, in this instance, I respectfully suggest you're missing the point...at least of what I've written previously, anyway. When I wrote my response to the original post, I was trying to say that there are at least two ways (actually many more) of looking at a question. You're making subjective opinions, and that's fine. On a subjective basis, Gordon Lightfoot will always be my favorite songwriter too. What I was getting at is that it's an interesting exercise to try and take an objective approach. If you don't like the Beatles, that's fine. I don't care for Dylan, to take another example, myself. But viewed in their historical context, I can recognize and accept how groundbreakingly important they were. To take an example from another artistic medium, it seems to be generally accepted that the greatest American film ever made was Citizen Kane. It shows up repeatedly in different critical assessements (like the American Film Institute's, for example) as #1. When I watch it, if I look at it objectively in its historical context, then I can agree: it probably is the greatest film ever made...a quantum leap in filmmaking techniques. But if I just look at as a film, on a subjective basis...well, yeah--I like it, but it will never be my favorite film of all time. As another example, we look at the paintings from the Impressionist period today and generally think they're pretty, gentle, fairly harmless paintings of Parisian street scenes, the French countryside, lilyponds, etc. But at the time they were working, the Impressionists were considered absolute renegades who were trashing what was then accepted as art. So, as I say, subjectively, I agree with you 100%: you tell me I'm only allowed one CD on my desert island, and I'll tell you it's going to be Lightfoot (for god's sake, don't ask me to name which one--I got enough troubles!). But when you talk about great popular songwriters on an objective basis, then you have to start thinking about people like Dylan, Lennon/McCartney, Gershwin, Cole Porter, Joni Mitchell, Paul Simon, and many, many others. Of the six names I listed (pretty much at random), I like three of them and am so-so on the other three. But there's no denying their importance, nor that of many others. Personally, I try to avoid comparing people--if I start comparing Lightfoot to, for example, James Taylor, well, I'm sure there are plenty of James Taylor fans willing to convince me that I'm wrong and they're right! But when it comes to subjectivity, there IS no right and wrong...just what works for each of us. The latter section of your quote indicates to me you might want to do a little research into pop music of the late 50s/early 60s to better understand the Beatles in their historical context. There are number of good books out there on the subject. Anyway, I just wanted to say that I was in no way suggesting the Beatles, Dylan or anybody else is "better" than Lightfoot, and that you should be converted into thinking so. I have had people beat me over the head with Dylan for years: the assumption seems to be that if I like Lightfoot, I must like Dylan. And yet, he just doesn't DO anything for me. I mean, I like his Oh Mercy album, for example, but the cover versions I've heard of the songs on that album ("Ring Them Bells" by GL, and Baez for example, or Joan Osborne's "Man in the Long Black Coat") appeal to me more than Dylan's original recordings!). And yet, I have to admit his influence on nearly all the songwriters that have followed him is nearly incalculable: even Lightfoot acknowledges him as a formative influence. On a slightly related note, I received the CDs of Shadows and Salute, and had Salute playing in the car so loud, I think the sun roof opened by itself. I wonder if this voids the warranty... Derek [This message has been edited by telekidd (edited September 01, 2002).]