[Dixielandjazz] Rod Stewart vs. Barry Manilow ^& the Times Review.

[Steve barbone]

 "Jim Kashishian" <jim at kashprod.com> wrote

> Jim writes:
> Steve Barbone wrote:
> Like check out this NY Times review of Rod Stewart singing the songs of the
> fifties. This album arguably does more for gaining new audience for music of
> the fifties than all of us OKOM musicians/fans put together. NUMBER 1 ON THE
> POP CHARTS????? WOW!!!!!!!!!
> Whether "we" like it or not is immaterial.
> 
> 
> Steve.  Perhaps you should read some of what you copy & send to DJML before
> you send it!  
> The article you refer to (see below) is about Barry Manilow singing, not Rod
> Stewart.  What is not "inmaterial" in this particular article is the
> "dislike" of the music by the writer:  see ending sentence..."Even if rock
> 'n' roll hadn't arrived, those years couldn't have been this dull." JON
> PARELES 

Steve Answers
Excuse my Freudian slip about Stewart & Manilow Yes, I am aware that the
reviewer was not wild about it. I read it about 4 times before I sent it to
the list, but that was not the point. The point was about Steve Heist's
earlier contention that this is a "bridge" to gaining audience share. And
here was 1950 ballad music being adored by Manilow's audience. Whether the
reviewer like it or not is immaterial. (After all the reviewer laughs at
"Dixieland" too)
 
> He also says of his singing (not Rod's, but Mr. Manilow's):  "then along
> comes Mr. Manilow, right up front and earnestly trying to emote, which for
> him means laying on the vibrato."
> And, "There's no yearning, no mischief, no lust, just an unctuous diligence;
> the only dramatic tension is whether Mr. Manilow will go flat before the
> next note."
> 
> I honestly think many of us are doing a better job of exposing 1950's, and
> early year's music than Mr. Manilow, if this article is anything to go by
> (although to a smaller audience, or course).

Whether we play the music "better" is not the issue. The issue is who
listens? If we play Great Music to 100 people and Manilow plays the same
music not so great to 1,000,000 people, who wins the audience? Better yet,
who develops that audience to hear more of this tuneful music?

> Certainly not an article to
> hold up as an example of what should be done with the "older tunes".  Ok, so
> it made number 1, and people are buying it, I suppose.  What a shame they
> aren't getting more for their money. Julio Iglesias recorded "Begin the
> Beguine", also.  Big deal!  I even recorded "Chatanooga" with him.  Still
> not particularly good music, but the big names will sell, and they can get
> the cash to hire in the best to surround them.

The article was not put forth as an "example of what should be done with the
'older tunes'". It put forth to state an obvious FACT (that many of us in
the OKOM world seem to miss)

Namely that there is a huge audience out there for tuneful music that we
ignore because we can't seem to make a connection with it, or even accept
the idea that it exists.

It is the MUSIC I am talking about, not how Manilow presents it. The shame
of it is that we experts in the MUSIC, do not present it at all to an
audience that is crying out for it. And worse, we condemn both Manilow and
the audience that buys his album for all the wrong reasons.

Man, we bitch about Rap, and R&R, and Hip Hop, etc., say the audience likes
crap and not "Songs", and here comes a bunch of pop singers doing the
tuneful music that we also play, and now we bitch about that?

Perhaps Pogo was right? "We have met the enemy and they is us."

Cheers,
Steve