Most hideous song

[DogBoy]

This one sucks

 

[Bigboote]

I like this one.

Pales in comparison to the original:

 

[Bigboote]

Was wondering when the Shaggs would be cited. Frank Zappa once remarked that they were better than the Beatles. I disagree. But the Shaggs are way more interesting and entertaining than mountains of derivative, over-produced corporate dreck (much of which is referenced here and (sorry) in other posts). Reminds me of what Christgau once said of Kris Kristofferson: "he's the worst singer I've ever heard. It's not that he's off key--he has no relation to key. He also has no phrasing, no dynamics, no energy, no authority, no dramatic ability, and no control of the top two-thirds of his six-note range." The difference is that "no relation to key"--indeed, no relation to just about anything standard in the 60's pop form--is the Shaggs' genuis. And after all, who would have conceived of a song like "Who Are Parents?" in 1969?

I agree with a lot of what you said. The Shaggs album, which I've listened to quite a bit, is the antithesis of the modern "over-produced corporate dreck" (I'll cite you when I use this expression quite a bit in the future). It almost presaged punk, or at least the Sex Pistols.

Regarding over-produced dreck, if Miles Davis et al. can spend a few hours in the studio and come out with Kind of Blue, why on earth do mediocre bands spend months' worth of studio and millions of dollars recording, re-recording, mixing, layering and all that? It's just more mediocrity.

 

[Bliss]

Pales in comparison to the original:

Good version. Bon Jovi also does a good job with this.

 

[JordyG]

Was wondering when the Shaggs would be cited. Frank Zappa once remarked that they were better than the Beatles. I disagree. But the Shaggs are way more interesting and entertaining than mountains of derivative, over-produced corporate dreck (much of which is referenced here and (sorry) in other posts). Reminds me of what Christgau once said of Kris Kristofferson: "he's the worst singer I've ever heard. It's not that he's off key--he has no relation to key. He also has no phrasing, no dynamics, no energy, no authority, no dramatic ability, and no control of the top two-thirds of his six-note range." The difference is that "no relation to key"--indeed, no relation to just about anything standard in the 60's pop form--is the Shaggs' genuis. And after all, who would have conceived of a song like "Who Are Parents?" in 1969?

The difference between the "corporate dreck" that you so despise and this cow pie/used feminine pad of a song is that the "dreck" is frequently played by hired hands. These hired hands are usually nameless (to you) musicians that have bothered over the years to learn their craft and take music seriously.

To me there are really only two types of people you play music. Type one are those who picked up an instrument in order to attract attention (girls, love etc.) or want to make money. They're looking to amass love, things, or a bank account because this is their need. For this type there is virtually no difference between practice and rehearsal. I have little to no respect for this type.

Type two are looking for none of this. They sit alone in a room for 5 to 8 hours a day for 10, 20 years learning their craft. They are spending time, effort and money to learn because this is their need. Their relationship with music, their craft and their instrument is something spiritual, visceral and intimate. They inevitably become that instrument. The instrument and the music are their lifeblood. They know the difference between practice and rehearsal. Most never make much money. Generally at first enough to continue more lessons, then later, enough to continue to survive. For many taking session money is a way get the former and maintain themselves with the latter.

Therefore I respect that "corporate dreck" far more than I will ever appreciate today's so called "musicians" who have learned 7 chords and their flats, screech into a microphone, and the world falls all over themselves at their relevance, meaning and their insight. All of which to me (and seemingly mostly to me and very few others) was said better and long before in literature.

 

[Scud49]

Was wondering when the Shaggs would be cited. Frank Zappa once remarked that they were better than the Beatles. I disagree. But the Shaggs are way more interesting and entertaining than mountains of derivative, over-produced corporate dreck (much of which is referenced here and (sorry) in other posts). Reminds me of what Christgau once said of Kris Kristofferson: "he's the worst singer I've ever heard. It's not that he's off key--he has no relation to key. He also has no phrasing, no dynamics, no energy, no authority, no dramatic ability, and no control of the top two-thirds of his six-note range." The difference is that "no relation to key"--indeed, no relation to just about anything standard in the 60's pop form--is the Shaggs' genuis. And after all, who would have conceived of a song like "Who Are Parents?" in 1969?

Whoa, the Shaggs- now that stuff is horrid. I'm sure Frank Zappa was talking tongue in cheek with that comment - but then again, Frank never did anything off key, disjointed, avant garde, now did he?? So perhaps, he really did like them! And, I must admit, Frank's "Camarillo Brillo" will always be a favorite of mine.

 

[Bigboote]

Whoa, the Shaggs- now that stuff is horrid. I'm sure Frank Zappa was talking tongue in cheek with that comment - but then again, Frank never did anything off key, disjointed, avant garde, now did he?? So perhaps, he really did like them! And, I must admit, Frank's "Camarillo Brillo" will always be a favorite of mine.

I am a huge Zappa fan, and I'll admit I like some avant-garde music. I'm not sure he was entirely serious when he said the Shaggs were great, but I do think there was a grain of seriousness in it. Don't forget that he cited Edgar Varese as possibly his biggest influence. There is a hint of unconscious avant-garde in the Shaggs music. The thing that comes immediately to mind is the drumming that doesn't mesh at all with the rest of the music*. In a way it's reminiscent of some of Cecil Taylor's music in which the drummer is keeping a furious beat while the piano and sax are playing something quite relaxed. Taylor often played without a bass, too.

*I read a review awhile back, which I can't find now, in which the reviewer said something to the effect, "The drummer is trying to keep a good beat, but it's not the beat of the song the others are playing."

 

[pinotbear]

I once shot a radio playing this

Like he sings .."justifiable homicide"

 

[Replicant]

 

[Replicant]

 

[Replicant]

 

[Bezzz]

I love this song, but I can see some of you hating it.

 

[connie]

used feminine pad of a song

Oh my . . . that is unfortunate.

With respect to the rest, I reject the way you frame the issue--i.e., that there are "two different types" of people who play music. To be sure, there are individuals for whom mastering an instrument, music theory, etc. is a lifelong passion and discipline (the significance of which can vary radically depending on cultural and historical circumstances). And such individuals may well conceive of their relation to their passion as a vital component to their life's meaning.

But that misses the point. Musical expression is not gauged by reference to technical execution. A performance of Stravinsky's Ragtime for 11 Instruments may well be masterfully executed by musicians who have dedicated decades toward their craft. And one cannot gainsay the "spiritual, visceral and intimate" relationship such musicians may profess to experience in the execution. But that does not necessarily make it "better than", say, a warbling 90 year-old Elizabeth Cotton's stalling three chord performance of Irene Goodnight on an out-of-tune six-string. That one may dedicate a life (time, money, effort) to their music is, of course, a personal choice, perhaps a laudable one. But it does not follow that this makes their music more meaningful, more "creative" and so on than a moment of musical expression by another with different interests, priorities and commitments.

As for the Shaggs, much can be said. This is not the time nor the place. But I will comment that what makes their music so interesting and enjoyable to me is, precisely, its simultaneous appropriation of and disconnect from the basic conventions of the pop music form. There are verses and choruses. But the melody lines that populate them are oddly outside the standard logic that informs the pop aesthetic. They are not "tuneful". Yet they bespeak the Wiggins sisters' shared inner voice and aesthetic sensibility. Despite the apparent rhythmic chaos and arbitrary melodies, the two sisters Dot and Betty are eerily in sync. This bespeaks some strange, deeply internal shared muse--something that shines through the obvious amateurism.

Meanwhile, sister Helen just bangs away on her drums, as if she was in another room altogether.

If one cannot take pleasure from this absurd, sincere, guileless, and utterly rarefied form of un-selfconscious pop primitivism, then I don't know if there is anything else I can do for you.

 

[connie]

I am a huge Zappa fan, and I'll admit I like some avant-garde music. I'm not sure he was entirely serious when he said the Shaggs were great, but I do think there was a grain of seriousness in it. Don't forget that he cited Edgar Varese as possibly his biggest influence. There is a hint of unconscious avant-garde in the Shaggs music. The thing that comes immediately to mind is the drumming that doesn't mesh at all with the rest of the music*. In a way it's reminiscent of some of Cecil Taylor's music in which the drummer is keeping a furious beat while the piano and sax are playing something quite relaxed. Taylor often played without a bass, too.

*I read a review awhile back, which I can't find now, in which the reviewer said something to the effect, "The drummer is trying to keep a good beat, but it's not the beat of the song the others are playing."

Thanks for your enjoyable comments. I agree--especially about the not-entirely-serious remark, which is to say that Zappa was also being not-entirely insincere.

 

[JordyG]

Oh my . . . that is unfortunate.

With respect to the rest, I reject the way you frame the issue--i.e., that there are "two different types" of people who play music. To be sure, there are individuals for whom mastering an instrument, music theory, etc. is a lifelong passion and discipline (the significance of which can vary radically depending on cultural and historical circumstances). And such individuals may well conceive of their relation to their passion as a vital component to their life's meaning.

But that misses the point. Musical expression is not gauged by reference to technical execution. A performance of Stravinsky's Ragtime for 11 Instruments may well be masterfully executed by musicians who have dedicated decades toward their craft. And one cannot gainsay the "spiritual, visceral and intimate" relationship such musicians may profess to experience in the execution. But that does not necessarily make it "better than", say, a warbling 90 year-old Elizabeth Cotton's stalling three chord performance of Irene Goodnight on an out-of-tune six-string. That one may dedicate a life (time, money, effort) to their music is, of course, a personal choice, perhaps a laudable one. But it does not follow that this makes their music more meaningful, more "creative" and so on than a moment of musical expression by another with different interests, priorities and commitments.

As for the Shaggs, much can be said. This is not the time nor the place. But I will comment that what makes their music so interesting and enjoyable to me is, precisely, its simultaneous appropriation of and disconnect from the basic conventions of the pop music form. There are verses and choruses. But the melody lines that populate them are oddly outside the standard logic that informs the pop aesthetic. They are not "tuneful". Yet they bespeak the Wiggins sisters' shared inner voice and aesthetic sensibility. Despite the apparent rhythmic chaos and arbitrary melodies, the two sisters Dot and Betty are eerily in sync. This bespeaks some strange, deeply internal shared muse--something that shines through the obvious amateurism.

Meanwhile, sister Helen just bangs away on her drums, as if she was in another room altogether.

If one cannot take pleasure from this absurd, sincere, guileless, and utterly rarefied form of un-selfconscious pop primitivism, then I don't know if there is anything else I can do for you.

And the discussion was the difference between corporate "dreck" and banging on a tin can.

"But that does not necessarily make it "better than", say, a warbling 90 year-old Elizabeth Cotton's stalling three chord performance of Irene Goodnight on an out-of-tune six-string." I respectfully and wholeheartedly disagree. I'd rather hear an out of tune youth orchestra fumble through Stravinsky's Ebony Concerto or Debussy's La Mer than one minute of Ms. Cottonmouth.

The blues is a genre of musical expression, yet any of those musician's you can probably mention are masters of their craft: how to give each note meaning, color, emotion, and an historical and social weight.

"...they bespeak the Wiggins sisters' shared inner voice and aesthetic sensibility". Hog and wash. I can bring together a quartet of 5 year olds with a "shared inner voice" etc. choking on kazoo's while screaming for their mommies. Here I'm sure they share a muse of discord. It doesn't make it music. I think you are confusing musical with music. A crocodile splashing and farting in a swamp can be musical, but that don't make it music. I'm sure someone, if they wanted could spend their life pounding on a tree with a silk hat, singing (badly) about coal miners and rafting down the Colorado and an audience would find his "simultaneous appropriation of and disconnect from the basic conventions of the pop music" refreshing.

Frankly my discourse was more about musicianship and less about music, although yeah, with a true musician it's hard to separate the two.

I have no real wish to go further with this. However, I did see Zappa 4x back in the day and believe me, he was very serious about his product and hired the best musician's he could find.

 

[connie]

And the discussion was the difference between corporate "dreck" and banging on a tin can.

Well, okay--in that event, I'll take banging on a tin can, provided it is not (like corporate dreck) in the service of the almighty dollar. Even then, I think I'll take the banging; at least it's more honest about means and ends (which is all another way of saying, given the choice between Phil Collins' Sussudio and the screaming 5 year-olds on kazoos . . . I'll take the 5 year-olds. Seriously.)

I'd rather hear an out of tune youth orchestra fumble through Stravinsky's Ebony Concerto or Debussy's La Mer than one minute of Ms. Cottonmouth.

Assuming there is a value judgment implicit in the choice (which I take to be the case), this merely begs the question, "why?" That, of course, takes us back to where we started. And that also begs the question, "why?"

Hog and wash. I can bring together a quartet of 5 year olds with a "shared inner voice" etc. choking on kazoo's while screaming for their mommies. Here I'm sure they share a muse of discord. It doesn't make it music.

You miss the point: the Wiggins' sisters vocals are so close as to be virtually double-tracked. That is not the case in the absurd example you provide.

I think you are confusing musical with music.

Hmmm . . . If this is where we've been lead, then I share your desire to go no further. I do not profess to provide some trans-cultural, trans-historic definition and theory of what constitutes "music". That said, I perceive severe limitations to any conceptions of "music" organized around the highbrow-lowbrow sensibility that appears to structure your position.

p.s. Never saw Zappa, though had most of his albums from Freak Out! through the early 80s (even Joe's Garage). He was, of course, of great significance, a fine composer and capable guitarist. Some of his stuff is certainly entertaining. I can do without much of the arch-cynicism and snobbery, not to mention the rather pedestrian misogyny that unfortunately contaminates his Flo and Eddie phase.

 

[JordyG]

"...provided it is not (like corporate dreck) in the service of the almighty dollar". Like your favorite band is in it for the holistic, magnanimity of it all. Finally face the truth. Your band is in it for the money. Or the girls.

"this merely begs the question, "why?". Because the music at its core is better and the kids are trying their hardest.

"...the Wiggins' sisters vocals are so close as to be virtually double-tracked." Wow, and this is not at all an accident of birth. Perhaps if they were conjoined it would be even purer. Again, I suppose the cryptophasia of 5 year old twins is music to your ears. To me however your example just makes their saw toothed yelping more egregious, and even less an example of music.

I, in clear opposition, reject your rather catholic view of music as fairly typical of the modern idea that if it can be created it's art. If I say so, it's art. If you say so, it's art. Never mind the craft, it's the concept and the opinion that counts.

 

[chrissaran]

Oh Mickey

 

[connie]

"... Like your favorite band is in it for the holistic, magnanimity of it all. Finally face the truth. Your band is in it for the money. Or the girls."

I have no idea who or what this is directed to. But if you think we are discussing "Favorite bands" (and whatever that is supposed to suggest), then we are truly at cross purposes and the discussion should be set aside.

I won't respond to the rest since it is so fundamentally misplaced as to my position as to leave no efficient place to even start. The use of rather metaphysical phrases such as "true musician" and the like suggests some root analytical differences between the two us. Shame, really.


Sorry you have taken such a hostile approach. It was certainly not my intention to elicit that kind of a response. I was merely attempting to suggest to whoever may be bored enough to read, that the Shaggs are actually not without some redemptive features. More than one reader appears to agree. Obviously, something touched a nerve.

 

[UConnNick]

Just remembered this one

I still have the 45 rpm record. The flip side is the same song played backward. If you hate it, imagine what it sounds like backward. In fairness, it seems like it was intentionally bad, as a sort of joke or novelty recording.

 

[UConnNick]

There's a reason Manilow started out by writing songs for TV commercial jingles. He should have never stopped doing that. The world of music would have been a far better place.

 

[FairView]

As a father, anything Raffi and anything Barney.

 

[JordyG]

Oh my . . . that is unfortunate.

With respect to the rest, I reject the way you frame the issue--i.e., that there are "two different types" of people who play music. To be sure, there are individuals for whom mastering an instrument, music theory, etc. is a lifelong passion and discipline (the significance of which can vary radically depending on cultural and historical circumstances). And such individuals may well conceive of their relation to their passion as a vital component to their life's meaning.

But that misses the point. Musical expression is not gauged by reference to technical execution. A performance of Stravinsky's Ragtime for 11 Instruments may well be masterfully executed by musicians who have dedicated decades toward their craft. And one cannot gainsay the "spiritual, visceral and intimate" relationship such musicians may profess to experience in the execution. But that does not necessarily make it "better than", say, a warbling 90 year-old Elizabeth Cotton's stalling three chord performance of Irene Goodnight on an out-of-tune six-string. That one may dedicate a life (time, money, effort) to their music is, of course, a personal choice, perhaps a laudable one. But it does not follow that this makes their music more meaningful, more "creative" and so on than a moment of musical expression by another with different interests, priorities and commitments.

As for the Shaggs, much can be said. This is not the time nor the place. But I will comment that what makes their music so interesting and enjoyable to me is, precisely, its simultaneous appropriation of and disconnect from the basic conventions of the pop music form. There are verses and choruses. But the melody lines that populate them are oddly outside the standard logic that informs the pop aesthetic. They are not "tuneful". Yet they bespeak the Wiggins sisters' shared inner voice and aesthetic sensibility. Despite the apparent rhythmic chaos and arbitrary melodies, the two sisters Dot and Betty are eerily in sync. This bespeaks some strange, deeply internal shared muse--something that shines through the obvious amateurism.

Meanwhile, sister Helen just bangs away on her drums, as if she was in another room altogether.

If one cannot take pleasure from this absurd, sincere, guileless, and utterly rarefied form of un-selfconscious pop primitivism, then I don't know if there is anything else I can do for you.

How was my response hostile? I deeply apologize if I came across as such and you found it so.

 

[connie]

How was my response hostile? I deeply apologize if I came across as such and you found it so.

No apology needed! Let's move on as we are now shamefully off topic.

 

[Scud49]

Let's get right back on track with a truly atrocious song: