On John Denver: Musical Forefather, and the American Idol Generation

I wonder if in thirty years people will be saying, “remember back in the 00’s when they had American Idol and music was good?”

I was thinking about this stuff this morning and I realized that there are two pop music worlds. There is the world of the “artist” and the world of the “entertainer.”

Supposedly, entertainers are much more adept at translating the artist’s “unspeakable visions of the individual” for the masses.

But therein lies the tension–when a beautiful, American Idol-type person deigns to present the material of an artist–something isn’t right. It “feels” fake and forced.

But how about non-performing songwriters? Should they, (i.e. those who work along with publishing compaines, churning out the stuff that you hear entertainers perform) be considered “artists?”

I’m not sure. People that get paid to write the stuff that a person like Carrie Underwood performs are looking to appeal to as wide an audience as possible. It’s almost ‘music-by-focus-group.’ Which is fine.

But when those types of entertainers start messing with the stuff we’ve held dear and associated indelibly with their original artist, it hits a raw nerve, doesn’t it? Is nothing sacred?

I was going to say it was fitting that the music of your childhood that you mentioned was consistently that of the “Singer/Songwriter” category or at least wrote their own material–John Denver, Simon and Garfunkel, the Who, Bread, etc. But there are a couple exceptions that undercut my argument–notably, the Supremes- who, to my knowledge, never wrote a single one of their songs. Their material came from the staff of Motown. Which is not to make fun of them. Motown had a good run in the 60s and 70s. I think that’s some wonderful material.

I can’t vouch for David Cassidy, though!

Do you think that a performing songwriter’s contribution is more valid because they have more to lose when presenting this part of themselves to an audience?

In comparison, Amercian Idols are just trained monkeys.

Speaking of Judy Garland, There is a popular and exciting new group on Yahoo called THE JUDY GARLAND EXPERIENCE.The group features amazing audio files, photo’s, lively discussions, and more!
This weekend they are having a contest where you can win unreleased concert recordings by Frank Sinatra (in Jerusalem, 1975), Barbra Streisand (in San Francisco, 1963), Judy Garland (in Chicago, 1958), Johnnie Ray (in New York, 1989), Frances Faye (in San Francisco, 1980), and others. You can hear sample tracks from all the rare CD’s at the site until tomorrow evening. Just go to

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/thejudygarlandexperience/

Clancy,

Kudos on being a girl-nerd. This party was getting uncomfortable.

And thank you for a wonderful music article. 50 points to Griffindor.

The John Denver choking parody can be found on an old Monty Python album called The Contractual Obligation Album and that particular track can be heard in it’s entirety from Amazon.com by clicking here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/music/wma-pop-up/B000002VSS001009/ref=mu_sam_wma_001_009/102-8365587-0047359

You bring up some great points. The music industry certainly has changed, maybe more in the last 10 years than ever. The digital revolution and iPods have completely redesigned how music is produced, marketed, and sold. The popular music culture has always been about revenue. By its very definition, it isn’t pop unless it’s popular. But now all artists have to do is pass the American Idol audition or write one song that circumnavigates the internet and they’re a success. Ipods have shifted the focus from artists making great records to artists recording hit singles and only hit singles. The days of John Denver, the Mamas and the Papas, Elton John, the Beatles, and Pink Floyd are dead and gone. There will always be good music made, but the revenue now lies in a young, “fresh” generation recycling the best the past has to offer. The only successful singer/songwriters left are the ones who also have the look and stage presence that the American Idol audience is looking for. Thus, the question of aesthetics must be raised: is the beauty in music derived from what the artist intends for it to be or by how people perceive it and are affected by it? The purpose of music as art is to evoke emotion, but is the art in the intent or the effect? Is successful music good or popular? I have a hard time grappling with this. I have my share of strong opinions on what I think is good music (and not much of it is popular) but I must remind myself that in the scheme of things people are more important that music. This often makes me sad.

To address Medulla’s question, I think that a performing songwriter’s contribution is more valid because they are more of an artist. Ben Folds is better than Katherine McPhee. In the cocktail lounge arena, I will always hold Harry Connick, Jr. in higher esteem than Michael Buble or even the “greatness” (read: popularity) of Frank Sinatra.

The John Denver strangle bit can be found on Monty Python’s Contractual Obligation album (1980) and can be heard in it’s entirety from amazon.com by clicking here.

Oh thank you! It’s been years.

A particularly moving rendition of Annie’s Song can be found near the end of “My Best Friend’s Wedding” when a trio of boys partakes of some helium and then bursts into song.

Another particularly moving rendition of that song was by Rascal Stallion at the top of his lungs in a darkened movie theater before watching “The Wedding Singer.”