Ask 411 Music 03.30.09: The Police, Rap Artists Like The Beatles, and American Idol
Posted by Joshua George on 03.30.2009
Why did the Police break up? Does American Idol have a shelf-life? What rap group might be looked at like The Beatles? All this and more in this week's column!
Hey folks. We're gonna try a little bit of a new format. Let me know what you think! Anywho, let's dispense with the pleasantries and just freakin hop to it! If you want to have your questions answered or your reader mail published in the column, all you have to do is SEND THEM IN NOW!
Here come the...
Ask 411 Music Reader Questions
From Eric Whitesisdes,
Why did the Police finally break up? Wiki doesn't do a great job of explaining this? Is Sting diffcult to work with?
Eric, I think the answer to this is complete and total speculation, so given how much I love to piss people off, I figure I'll speculate. I love The Police and I think that Sting is likely a great person with which to work. I'm sure there's a little bit of ego involved, but I highly doubt that they broke up because of Sting's ego. I think mostly a couple of factors would come into play:
Firstly, remember a few weeks ago when we discussed that it's my understanding that a band or big act needs to know when to stop? That's really a key thing to consider. All of the music that The Police put out there and all the good stuff that Sting shoved in our ears and made us love still exists. The thing is that this music is still as highly revered by those who listened to it as highly now as the day they heard it for the first time. Go figure on that one. The Police knew how to make good music and never looked back (except of course during the reunion tour). What better way to go out, than on top? I know... you can't think of one.
Secondly, a big thing to remember is that music changed. Over the years, music has changed and evolved. We're now in a world full of collaborations from younger, "hipper" artists. It's not the same as it used to be where an artist can put out an entire CD of just their music. Now, we've moved to a point where who else you have on the album is almost just as important as how good your songs are. Think about the fact that this is even affecting Michael Jackson. He's doing 50 shows in London's O2 Arena, and he's worried about how to "make them fresh". He's not even taking chances at doing the whole show by himself. Instead, he's asking Justin Timberlake, Britney Spears, and Timbaland (some gigantic names) to share the stage with him to keep his audience moving and excited about the shows. Of course MJ and PETA are having a little "tiff" about his other ideas for making the concert fresh... whoops. Anyway, back on topic.
I'm sure that Sting and The Police could've done an unbelievable job collaborating with some of today's artists, but I think also that The Police is a group of musicians that were honestly doing it for the love of the music. Sure they were rich and made a ridiculously large sum of money doing what they've done, but they just loved the music and the fans. Consider that when music changes and you have to change your sound just to keep with the time... chances are, if you're still doing it strictly to keep your passion for music alive, you might just say fuck it so you don't have to change your sound. That's one of the reasons that I firmly believe would've been a big kicker (esp if it had been me). My guess is, they saw the industry and the music sound changing, and just decided that rather than trying to change and potentially fail, to go out on top and leave people still talking about them years later. I would say they won.
Sending a question to me is one of the easiest things to do. You send it, and I answer it... that's how this shit works! All you have to do to get a question answered is SEND THEM IN NOW! Variety is great in this column, I think we can all agree, so do me a solid and SEND THEM IN NOW!
From Eric Whitesides,
Do you think any rap group from yesterday will ever be looked at in the same way as the Beatles and the Stones are looked at in the rock world?
I love how I get asked questions that include The Beatles in my columns, considering that most of you know how I feel about their "legendary" status. Anyway, I definitely not only think that there are rap groups from yesterday that will be looked at in the same way today, but I think that there are quite a few from today that will be looked at in the future. Groups in the past? Grandmaster Flash, The Sugarhill Gang, and many others (I'm sure my commenters can come up with some). Groups/people from today? Jay-Z, Diddy, Eminem, Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg (who can go in both categories), T-Pain (not because he's great, but for bringing the autotune sound that I hate), and there are more headed for this list I'm sure. So, I think there are already quite a few people to put in that category.
Consider all of the rap artists right now that are trying to do something new and something that hasn't been heard before. Everyone's trying to make a name for themselves because everyone knows that there is a spot out there for an artist to be talked about like The Beatles and The Rolling Stones. Everyone knows that there's a chance out there to become one of the biggest rap groups/superstars in the industry and to be talked about by everyone for decades and generations to come. Why wouldn't you come out as hard as you can and as uniquely as possible so that people will always remember you? I think there's a lot to look at in the rap world. The only problem is that rap isn't really considered one of the "looked at" genres in the music world. So, I guess good luck to all that are trying to make a name for themselves.
If you want to have your questions answered, it's easy. The best way to do it is to SEND YOUR QUESTIONS IN NOW!
From Eric Whitesides,
What do you think the shelf-life on American Idol is? Do you think that it is tired? Do you like the new judge, or do you think that 3 judges are enough?
Interesting question for me. I like the American Idol franchise. I think that we've had a good amount of good artists come out of that show. Hell, at one point I even considered auditioning for myself. The likes of Taylor Hicks whom I interviewed not too long ago, Chris Daughtry from the same season, Kellie Pickler, Carrie Underwood, and Kelly Clarkson are all some great names that have come out of AI. Needless to say, there is definitely some talent on these shows and I think they're great for what they do.
Do I think there's a shelf-life to this show? Absolutely not. This is a pretty simple show that could find itself going into the end of time. People in America will ALWAYS tune in to see their own. Hell, think about this; how many people in America watch sports such as NFL, NBA, NHL, MLBA, PGA, PBA, or USTA? How many years have they been watching these things? Forever and they'll continue to do so. The funny thing is that these people watch this stuff and it's the same teams (granted a few diff players here and there and sometimes some coaching differences) playing the same games. The outcome is constantly changing and the road to the "big stage" (ie, Super Bowl, etc) is always a highly anticipated one. American Idol is basically the same thing as all of these sports things. It's a show that has competition, which leads to and induces drama, which we all know America LOVES. There's drama, there's passion (for music), there's girls in bikinis, there's freaks and geeks, and there's AMAZING talent. How could you put a shelf-life on a show like this? Sure, shows get tired and stale, but I don't think American Idol is one of them. The fact that it goes on and on and on year after year just goes to show that even if you DO get tired of it, you can take a couple seasons off and then get back into it.
As far as the new judge concept goes, I think that there was plenty of drama and craziness with the three judge panel. I don't really see the need to add another permanent judge. I loved when they would include the occasional guest judge that was some kind of major artist in today's music industry, but having a 4th judge just seems to create more filler for the show and more judge controversy. Why bother with that when we have ever-so-much drama and craziness with the contestants and it's infinitely better than anything the judges can come up with... leave that 4th judge out AI, you don't need it.
Remember that we can always use more questions for this column and we can always use a bigger variety of writers of those questions. To add yourself to the ranks of those that have been answered, simply SEND YOUR QUESTIONS IN NOW!
It's time for...
Joshua's Rant of the Week
I was really interested in ranting about mainstream music vs. underground music and such. I think it's pretty ridiculous that people are so serious about the fact that any band that you've heard of is "mainstream" and sucks. Underground music fans can be some of the most snobby people in the history of the world. I think one of the big things to remember here is that yes, sometimes "mainstream" music fans are pretentious, band-wagon-jumping assholes... but underground music fans many times will refuse to listen to something just because it's mainstream. To that, I say fuck that and fuck you. All of you who refuse to open your ears to something new, should get the hell out of here because I think that's completely ridiculous. Why can't you open your ears to potentially good new music? I found someone that agrees with me... so listen to him instead of letting me keep typing.
Here's tooltime9901 from YouTube:
Would you like to share a rant with me and all of our readers? Want me to post what YOU think about a certain music related topic? All you have to do is Send me your rant NOW!
Who wants to hear something new???
Things You Should Hear
Let's see what I can come up with this time:
1. Here's one for a girl I work with. The audio quality isn't GREAT because it's a Live Version, but she loves this song. It's The Tubes - "She's A Beauty":
2. Another person I work with has requested this song. Jackyl - "Secret of the Bottle":
3. Holy shit. This is for Cliff and for myself to be honest. One of the best a cappella arrangements I've heard in a while. University of Rochester Midnight Ramblers - "I Write Sins Not Tragedies":
4. Let's keep holding down our #4 with Bo Burnham - "Love Is":
5. This one goes out to Milo from Pinfall Recall and it's Bad Religion - "A Walk":
6. Finally, I'll give Kayla one, since she decided to be a crybaby last week. Here's The Cranberries - "Linger":
If you'd like me to post your band or a band that you particularly love, all you have to do is Send me the YouTube link NOW! I'd like to start including some of your personal bands clips, or other bands that you think people should be hearing.
So who wants to get pimped? If you have a website that your band hosts, or something that you think the general public would enjoy checking out, please send me a link and a SHORT description and I may include it in the pimping section of next week's column!
Make sure you check out my reviews. You can see my profile with my blog and all of my reviews/columns here.
Also I'm a co-host and co-founder of a professional wrestling podcast. My friend and I have been running this show and our website for a little over three years now, and we'd love to have more listeners and since I get my own column now, I feel good about pimping it out. If you want to listen to the most recent show, you can usually find it (along with the most recent news which we get from a variety of other sites MOST NOTABLY the amazing 411Mania Wrestling News Section) at www.pinfallrecall.com. If you'd like to spend your days on our forums talking about how this might be one of the most ridiculous and boring Wrestlemanias of all time, like all of us, you can do that on The Pinfall Recall Forums.
Don't forget, if you want to have YOUR questions answered in this column, all you have to do is SEND THEM IN NOW!
Wow, you got it wrong on the Police. In interview after interview, all three members have said that the reason the Police broke up was that all three of them had egos, stoked by the almost non-stop attention that they had received since hitting with Roxanne off their first album. In one interview, they said it got so bad (and they had so much money) that they would take separate limos to the shows so they wouldn't have to deal with each other.
Steward Copeland and Andy Summers also didn't like the way the sound of the band was going. They thought that it was a trio, and they wanted the sound of a trio. Sting was the one who got the horns and other sounds added in production, and while the songs became huge hits, Summers and Copeland wanted to stick to the basics. Add to that Sting's solo album, which he basically did on his own before the band officially broke up, and a handful of film roles that he took (Dune, Brimstone & Treacle), basically pointed to Sting looking for a life outside the band.
Posted By: Sly Reference (Guest) on March 29, 2009 at 11:46 PM
Thanks Sly. Helped me learn quite a bit. I never knew much about the band, I just said what I personally thought might've happened. Appreciate your assistance :)
Posted By: Joshua George (Registered) on March 30, 2009 at 12:43 AM
2pac and Biggie are also legendary, at least they have huge fanbases after all these years.
Posted By: Mikael (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 09:30 AM
The Police suck. Sting is a douche.
Posted By: Jimmy (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Joshua, you should check out Andy Summers memoir "One Train Later". It's a well written book that gives you tons of scoop, not only about The Police, but also about the London music scene in the late 60's and early 70's. In the book it is clear that the reason for the break-up was clashing personalities regarding song writing and control and that ultimately Sting made the decision and left the band.
Posted By: mecca (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 11:37 AM
I don't think any of rap artist will be "The Beatles of Rap." There are many significant rap artists, but none stands head and shoulders above the others the way that the Beatles did.
Thats sort of interesting to me because other new "central genres" have usually had such artists. Armstrong for Jazz, the Bee Gees for Disco, the Beatles for Rock. Its the sub-genres that usually lack such an uber-artist. Swing and Bebop, for example, really have a host of artists (Ellington, Goodman, Basie, etc.; Parker, Davis, Gillespie, Monk, Coltrane, etc.). The only subgenre with an undisputed king is Grunge, with Nirvana.
(Not all top-level genres have a king, however. Nobody holds that role for Techno or the Blues. I don't know my Country very well, but I don't think anyone has that spot - maybe Hank Williams Sr.?)
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM
I don't believe there will ever be a rap artist that is looked at in the same way as the Beatles. If there is a rap artist who still is selling millions of albums 40 years after stopping recording, then I would change my mind. But I don't see how that would ever happen.
Posted By: Pat (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 01:04 PM
errr, public enemy?? wu tang clan?? a bit embarrassing to forget those!!
Posted By: Guest#8655 (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 01:21 PM
The only rap group that I think might be looked at like the Beatles of rap would be Run DMC. They brought it more to the main stream than anyone but I don't think that there is one that is more definitive though. The reason why Notorious BIG and Tupac won't be consider this is because they came after rap was solidly established. I think a better comparison would be Sir George Martin to Dr. Dre if you were looking for the person behind the panel.
Posted By: Common Sense (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 03:07 PM
Good call on the Bad Religion and Jackyl tunes. I had completely forgot about those songs. I'll have to go hunt down my copies of Bad Religion's "Gray Race" (great album) and Jackyl's "Push Comes To Shove".
Posted By: Guest#7999 (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 04:59 PM
How is NWA not mentioned?
Ice Cube, Eazy E, Dr. Dre
on members life tragically cut short.
one produces and finds talent.
one goes on to act in mindless comedies.
Beatles
John Lennon, George Harrison, Paul McCartney
members life cut short.
one goes on to find talent
one joins other groups but continues to be a musical figure.
there's a ton of similarities...
Some went on to join other groups or write on their own and ALL of them made a name for themselves outside of the main group.
If you include associates to NWA, no one had an effect on rap like them. They took the east coast party-battle rap and flipped it on it's head.
While rap existed before NWA, it is obvious what rap came before them.
While rock existed before the Beatles, it was obvious what type of pop/rock came before their influences.
NWA and Public Enemy are the most important rap groups ever. PERIOD.
Posted By: thedick203 (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 05:00 PM
Thats sort of interesting to me because other new "central genres" have usually had such artists. Armstrong for Jazz, the Bee Gees for Disco, the Beatles for Rock. Its the sub-genres that usually lack such an uber-artist. Swing and Bebop, for example, really have a host of artists (Ellington, Goodman, Basie, etc.; Parker, Davis, Gillespie, Monk, Coltrane, etc.). The only subgenre with an undisputed king is Grunge, with Nirvana.
(Not all top-level genres have a king, however. Nobody holds that role for Techno or the Blues. I don't know my Country very well, but I don't think anyone has that spot - maybe Hank Williams Sr.?)
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM
No arguments really as I think this is your opinion but don't you think Miles Davis has surpassed Armstrong in the Jazz category? I agree totally that Armstrong was and is still a pioneer in the genre, but feel may Miles today has gone beyond the great Satchmo.
Also, though not a fan, how sad is it that the Bee Gees are known mainly for their disco days but, originally, were not a disco trio to begin with? As synonymous as they have become with Travolta and SNF, I would say that Donna Summer/Gloria Gaynor would be the true voices of the disco era. I mean you're absolutely right in what you're saying as they've been pegged for so long in that genre but with disco, I think there are plenty of options to define the time.
Posted By: mossby (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 05:03 PM
Thats sort of interesting to me because other new "central genres" have usually had such artists. Armstrong for Jazz, the Bee Gees for Disco, the Beatles for Rock. Its the sub-genres that usually lack such an uber-artist. Swing and Bebop, for example, really have a host of artists (Ellington, Goodman, Basie, etc.; Parker, Davis, Gillespie, Monk, Coltrane, etc.). The only subgenre with an undisputed king is Grunge, with Nirvana.
(Not all top-level genres have a king, however. Nobody holds that role for Techno or the Blues. I don't know my Country very well, but I don't think anyone has that spot - maybe Hank Williams Sr.?)
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 12:24 PM
I'd say Pearl Jam is actually the king of Grunge, based on the fact that they're still around, still relevant, and their music is actually, y'know...good. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Nirvana, and think that their Unplugged album is phenomenal, but they can't hold a candle to Pearl Jam, and the Ten reissue only further proved that.
In terms of country, I'd say Hank Williams Sr is more of an Elvis as opposed to the Beatles - he was a frontrunner who basically defined/revolutionized a genre, but in terms of an honest comparison with the Beatles, I'd say Johnny Cash if I didn't feel like it was an insult to Johnny Cash. Cash has influenced more artists from more genres than the Beatles could ever dream to, and his back catalog is, from top to bottom, vastly superior to any other artist out there.
Posted By: Wyatt (Guest) on March 30, 2009 at 10:01 PM
Mossby asked:
No arguments really as I think this is your opinion but don't you think Miles Davis has surpassed Armstrong in the Jazz category? I agree totally that Armstrong was and is still a pioneer in the genre, but feel may Miles today has gone beyond the great Satchmo.
Miles is my favorite jazz artist and I'd be the last to deny his significance. However, three things work against him. First, he was a contemporary of both Parker and Coltrane. Many critics see either or both of that pair as being as significant as Davis. Second, he tended to be the second or third best in a bunch of sub-genres (Cool Jazz, Hard Bop, Modal, Fusion) rather than the king of any one. Armstrong was (and is) undisputed champion of Dixieland (and hence, at one time, of all jazz!), with no close competitors. Third, he really wasn't as proficient at his instrument as his best contemporaries (Parker, Coltrane, Gillespie) - which isn't to say his trumpet isn't beautiful to listen to.
Now personally I'm more impressed with someone who is second best at a huge variety of things, especially when you're second best to some world class talent. And it doesn't seem quite fair to deny someone the title of giant just because there are giants standing next to him. But the title "the Beatles of" is a pretty big title to aspire to... I'll grant him the title of Giant.
(For the record, my jazz top ten, in order: Armstrong, Davis, Ellington, Parker, Coltrane, Coleman, Basie, Goodman, Jazz Messengers, Hancock.)
As for the Bee Gees, they chose the road they walked down. I'll take a few million to be artistically pigeonholed and not ask anyone to feel sorry for me. :)
I asked a classical-type composer friend of mine who he'd pick for "the Beatles of" classical music. He quickly said Beethoven, then added Stravinsky. Bach's importance was mostly posthumous - I didn't ask about Mozart.
Posted By: Pat Shepard (Guest) on April 01, 2009 at 04:21 PM
Copyright � 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
