From: vpravosu@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Vladimir V Pravosudov)
Subject: Re: Plagiarizer (Was: Boris Grebenshchikov)
Organization: The Ohio State University
 Strouwe) writes:
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:38:29 GMT

But, of course, there as many tastes as many people, and I hope I did not
hurt your feeling. I just want to say that LZ has written complex and variable
music and it's all precious indeed even though some people like only
certain sides of their art.
Sincerely, Vladimir
>>No matter what BG said about Pink Floyd, Aquarium tried to imitate their stuf
f.
>>Most of the times what BG was saying in the interviews was just 'styob'. At
>>least, I got the feeling.
>
>    I wold be interested to learn where. I never found
>    in A. songs neither Floyd nor Genesis influence, not
>    even a slight trace. I guess you just take some
>    Cocteau Twins influenced song (which are indeed numerous)
>    for Floyd-influenced :)
I agree with that. I don't find anything in A that might have been a result
of Pink Floyd influence.
>
>>Well... Are The Doors boring or not is a matter of taste. I am not
>>going to argue with you.
>>
>>Mainstream?
>>
>>Yes, they recorded some commercial songs (usually, they released them
>>as singles), though Jim hated everything that "sounds commercial". They had
>>only 6 or 7  hits, and even these are very different from the mainstream
>>(except Love Her Madly and Touch Me). Note that the short version of
>>Light My Fire became a hit, not the one with a long organ solo by Manzarek.
>>What about the fact that before the contract with Electra The Doors were
>>kicked out by all the recording companies just because their
>>stuff sounded weird.
>
>    This is America of 60-ies where even Hendrix could
>    not find a label (he found one only after a trip
>    to London). Hendrix is God, sure, but nevertheless
>    he was never out of mainstream. He was just too good
>    for American labels. Ditto for The Doors.
>
>    This is also LA - quite unfriendly
>    to rock music city. Can you name a group from
>    60-ies LA escept Doors?

I don't know about groups from L.A, but many other groups had started off
for the world in L.A. For instance, Led Zeppelin had its fame started since
LA tour in 1968. Beatles and Elton John had been taken by LA very siriously
and friendly (of course, you'd argue that they were very commercial). But,
getting back to Doors, I'm absolutely convienced that it have always been
an excellent music that had influenced and still does the rock music. If
somebody does not like Doors, it's fine. It does not harm anything but himself,
and I agree that it is a metter of taste. And Morrison was a great guy not
because he used to demonstrate his penis but because he was always in
searching for something new. Sure, it was not the smartest thing but tell
me who from gifted and talented people has not have something strange. Yes, he
drunk, used grugs and etc, but he was not the only one in the rock world.
I don't know what to say more, but I love Doors. "They are timeless now
because they were created beyond time then. The music of the Doors is at once
both modern and ancient. It is that simple and it was that difficult. It is 
much like the surgeons blade which as it cuts both heals and destroys. It is 
that powerful. It causes questions, it creates belief. That is, IT IS ART,
of the highest caliber and so deserves to be classified as such" (Danny
Sugerman, No one here gets out alive. The Doors illustrated history).
Vladimir
>
>>Now tell me who were The Beatles before "The Sergeant Pepper..."
>>was released?
>
>    I have no idea what changed with Sgt Pepper release.
>
>    Misha.

Well, "the sgt. Pepper" have been placed number one in the list of "100
greates albums that have had a great influence on the rock music" by
Rolling Stone magazine. But, no doubt about it, the Beatles had started
their fame since their "Please, please me" and all their albums since that
one have been accepted by the public with great enthusiasm. Certainly,
we might say that not all of them were equally valuable. And a sign of it,
we see that the Rolling Stone critics valued Sgt Pepper the best. Well, it's
a great album, for sure. But I don't see that the Beatles were striving
to get their fame before. They just kept rolling pretty smoothly since the 
beggining.
And I just wanna add a little bit about "commercial Music". It's really a 
slippery ground. You think that if public or media as you wish, likes the
music it's commercial. I don't agree. Of course, any new music always has
obstacles on its way just because it's new and it's quite natural for many 
people to reject anything new. But, since the moment the music is not new
anymore and people start liking it, it becomes comercial? Well, I agree that
any music that keeps exlploring new grounds deserves more, but I don't see
much of commercialism in some groups like "Dire Straits" for instance.
Then, we have the whole field of blues music and would you dare to make a
clear cut where commercial music starts? I would not. So, I still think
that many commercial criteria for any music is a matter of taste in majority
of cases. What do you think about classical music? Is it a commercial music?
Yeah, Bach had a hard way to his fame, but Mozart obviously did not.
So, I would be more cautious while stick such labels.
Vladimir
Newsgroups: soc.culture.soviet