Conversation

[John]

What happened to all of the great conversations we used to have on this board? Maybe they got a little heated, maybe some people got a little argumentative, but it was all in good fun. It seems like now everyone just drops off their lists and the only debates we have are about the contents of those lists instead of about the artists and the music.

Do we know each others tastes so well by now that it's not worth the conversation? Or is it just a case of everybody is sick of debating the same topics? It's not just debates though, there were some good stories that have been told over the years as well. Anyway, I'd love to get some good conversation back in these threads.

[John]

We used to have a rule with polls that you needed to comment on your selections for them to count. Maybe that's a good rule to bring back?

[Henry]

I think that many of us need a catalyst to start pouring out our comments.

As I recall, NJ used to provide some very off the wall comments that I could sometimes not decipher, but he loosened the rest of us up.

I'm sure that the opinions and conversation will heat up again as the year develops, but I am not sure what the catalyst will be. Stay tuned.

[Henrik]

Here's a discussion for you...

Anyone else who find it strange that we use so many superlatives for artists in the MA and World Cup games and yet Frank, Brel, Brahem, Piazzolla, Pärt, Shankar, Kuti, Bregovic, Nordenstam, Evora and others rarely stand a chance against the "canon" in our all-time or decade polls? Do these artists deserve to be mentioned among the "greats" or are they just better in comparison to other "obscurities".

[Stephan]

This is something I've noticed as well. I was first worried that it happened due to the switch to these new forums, but I had a look and it already started back on the other boards. I'm not sure what we can do to get it back.

Henrik's question is a good start though. I think part of the reason is that while we all have our favorites among those people (e.g. nicolas has a lot of Brel in his list, I have a lot of Kuti) none of them really have a fanbase all across the boards. Particularly in the all-time polls we see a lot of participation from people who don't regularly post here and don't participate in the (in my opinion) more interesting games like MA and FWC. That's perhaps why we always see the established favorites pop up in those lists. So, I think in order to solve this we need to make MA and FWC mandatory for voting in the all-time polls.

[Jirin]

I think the reason for that is that more people vote in the decade polls than participate in the WC and moderate polls, so there's just a major exposure advantage.

But also, a lot of the great obscure artists have the same quality of appeal, but far narrower appeal than the people like The Beatles. People who like Serge Gainsbourg like him every bit as much of the Beatles, but he's just not as many peoples' bag.

I agree the forum has been just about poll games lately, we should definitely make an effort to start different conversations.

[Nick]

Here's a discussion for you...

Anyone else who find it strange that we use so many superlatives for artists in the MA and World Cup games and yet Frank, Brel, Brahem, Piazzolla, Pärt, Shankar, Kuti, Bregovic, Nordenstam, Evora and others rarely stand a chance against the "canon" in our all-time or decade polls? Do these artists deserve to be mentioned among the "greats" or are they just better in comparison to other "obscurities".

I'm only somewhat familiar with the artists listed above (what little I have heard of Kuti though was great) so maybe my opinion isn't the most well informed, but a possible reason for why the artists listed above pale in comparison to the classic Beatles/Radiohead/Dylan/Rolling Stones echelon we have here (not like I'm complaining, those are 4 of my favorites) is because this board is inherently biased towards anglophone music. When the artists above are ever discussed it the general consensus may be "well they're great......for non-anglophone music". Is this fair? Not really. But as most of the board members (from my rough observational skills) seems to be native English speakers, it only seems to reason that they would be attracted to artists that were also in the English language.

[nicolas]

I'm only somewhat familiar with the artists listed above (what little I have heard of Kuti though was great) so maybe my opinion isn't the most well informed, but a possible reason for why the artists listed above pale in comparison to the classic Beatles/Radiohead/Dylan/Rolling Stones echelon we have here (not like I'm complaining, those are 4 of my favorites) is because this board is inherently biased towards anglophone music. When the artists above are ever discussed it the general consensus may be "well they're great......for non-anglophone music". Is this fair? Not really. But as most of the board members (from my rough observational skills) seems to be native English speakers, it only seems to reason that they would be attracted to artists that were also in the English language.

So how would you explain that Spanish or French or Swedish or Dutch people are so attracted by songs in English ?
Your argument doesn't hold the other way round.
NO, I think that the majority of anglo saxon people (especially Americans) are not interested in cultural productions from the rest of the world.
ATTENTION : it is a fact, not an opinion. Don't you think I'm judging anybody.

And the canon (I mean the body of rules) of this forum is UK/US rock. That's what we have in common.

[Nick]

I'm only somewhat familiar with the artists listed above (what little I have heard of Kuti though was great) so maybe my opinion isn't the most well informed, but a possible reason for why the artists listed above pale in comparison to the classic Beatles/Radiohead/Dylan/Rolling Stones echelon we have here (not like I'm complaining, those are 4 of my favorites) is because this board is inherently biased towards anglophone music. When the artists above are ever discussed it the general consensus may be "well they're great......for non-anglophone music". Is this fair? Not really. But as most of the board members (from my rough observational skills) seems to be native English speakers, it only seems to reason that they would be attracted to artists that were also in the English language.

So how would you explain that Spanish or French or Swedish or Dutch people are so attracted by songs in English ?
Your argument doesn't hold the other way round.

As I am neither Spanish, French, Swedish, or Dutch it would be very difficult for me to give a totally sound reason why English language music is so popular over there. All I can do is speculate that the reason for English music's prominence is the fact that all the members of this forum have at least a passable fluency when it comes to English, while the majority of the members of this forum are unable to speak Spanish, French, Swedish, or Dutch.

I guess another interesting point to look at would be to prominence of English language music around the world. If you look at a list of the all time top selling albums/singles/artists you see that the extreme majority of them are in English or from the US/UK.

Are a lot of Anglo-Saxons ethnocentric? Perhaps. But when so many English speaking albums/songs/artists dominate the worldwide music scene it may be hard for some to escape that kind of overwhelming Anglo-Saxon dominance and seek out music from other cultures/countries.

[Henrik]

Nicolas, did you exaggerate to really get the discussion going? Because I think your argument doesn't hold very well. Brits and Americans don't have a second language like we do, something you confirmed when you said that US/UK rock is what we have in common.

However, I don't understand why language should be such a barrier to anyone. The music is more important than the lyrics for a music fan, or no? Anyway it's easy today to find the lyrics on the web and google translate them. A fun exercise unless you have to know the lyrics for every song you hear.

[nicolas]

Brits and Americans don't have a second language like we do

Henrik I don't understand this sentence. Do we have a second language ? I don't think so.

[Henrik]

A common view is probably that songs sung in a foreign language have a countryspecific appeal, so why bother? And well, to some extent this probably makes sense, as the possibility for the type of music to reach an audience outside its country is something that many artists think about when they decide what language to sing in, at least in Sweden.

[Henrik]

Brits and Americans don't have a second language like we do

Henrik I don't understand this sentence. Do we have a second language ? I don't think so.

I forgot you are French!

[Henrik]

Well, according to Wikipedia "Arguably, English in countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands can be considered a second language for many of its speakers, because they learn it young, speak it fluently, and use it regularly"

I thought English was considered the second language in many more European countries. In any case, it certainly is a first or second language for the vast majority on this forum.

[Nick]

Even the artists from non-anglophone countries we hold in high esteem speak English in their music. Daft Punk, Justice, Phoenix, M83, Bjork, The Knife, and Robyn all sing in English. Perhaps they know there's a larger market for English worldwide than their native languages?

[Henrik]

Even the artists from non-anglophone countries we hold in high esteem speak English in their music. Daft Punk, Justice, Phoenix, M83, Bjork, The Knife, and Robyn all sing in English. Perhaps they know there's a larger market for English worldwide than their native languages?

Oh, yes. But as I said a few posts up, it depends on what type of music they play. Some artists would sell less in English because they wouldn't hit big worldwide and "their own people" would be less interested.

[John]

I find it fascinating that non English speakers are attracted to music in the English language. I don't mind hearing non-English music, but that's just because I'm not really paying attention to the lyrics the first time around just to the music. That goes for music of any language. But, the second or third time, I start to connect with the song a little more and when the song is not in my native language it's difficult to make that connection. It always has surprised me how many members on these forums aren't native English speakers.

I can think of a couple reasons why this is the case. First, our members on this board who's native language isn't English seem to be the ones who take the time to explore music. That exploration makes it easier to connect with an artist or song if you're taking the extra step to read the lyrics or research the artist. The other explanation is that English is a world language. To my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong, almost all students in developed countries have some kind of English training. In the US, learning a foreign language isn't a high priority and if you do take a foreign language in high school or college you have options. We don't all learn to speak Spanish, some of us learn French, or Mandarin Chinese, some of us don't ever learn one. When we do learn one, very few are immersed in the language and forget all but the very basics once we don't need to use it anymore. Very few Americans truly have a second language that they can comprehend and even fewer can speak another language fluently.

[Henrik]

Following your post Jirin, I think it boils down to this:

Everyone all over the world with a big music interest who doesn't have English as the first language listen to English-sung music, he/she would simply be missing out on too much otherwise. It takes an extra effort to understand the lyrics but you get used to it. From there the step to a third language is not as big as for someone who has always spoken only one language to get into another.

[nicolas]

Brits and Americans don't have a second language like we do

Henrik I don't understand this sentence. Do we have a second language ? I don't think so.

I forgot you are French!

yes I am, and from a country where the teaching of English is kinda bad. It's changing now, though : my daughter has English lessons at school (she's 7). but it's not taught by "real" English teachers, only by the regular teachers, so I have doubts about it.
The "real" English classes start at age 11. Much too late IMO. So yes, French people (and Spanish, and Italian, I'm sure my Spanish friends here won't deny it) suck at English. Here I suspect it's mainly for political reasons. French was the international language before English (but it goes back to Napoleon the first in the early 19th century), and there are strong francophone lobbies here still. Stupid national pride.

John, you made a very good point : non English speakers are almost "forced" to hear songs in English (it's all over the radio and TV and the Web), while Uk and US citizens are not used to hear foreign language songs. That makes a big difference. Here we are used to hear a song without understanding what it's all about, so world music is not a problem for us.

[nicolas]

And to understand the very first question (why no conversations anymore) maybe it has to do with the fact that we old regulars are more busy than before and have less time ???

[Dan]

Just a few thoughts on why a lot of Anglo-Saxons don’t listen to music that’s not in English:

1. If people mostly listen to American or British genres (pop, rock, R&B, hip hop, etc.) then they probably won’t feel the need to listen to similar music from other countries if it’s not sung in a language they understand. Why bother listening to Noir Désir’s Tostaky when it sounds like so many other generic American rock albums sung in English?

2. As for the enormous amount of international music that doesn’t sound like American or British genres (chanson, morna, qawwali, tango nuevo, the list goes on for ever), the prospect of exploring all these genres can be daunting. It’s a big world out there with so many different styles of music. Where do you start? So a lot of people give up before starting.

3. It’s probably a little controversial, but I think an inability to understand or immerse yourself in other cultures also plays a part. If you have friends who are from a different country/nationality than you, or if you have been fortunate enough to travel outside of your own country, you are more likely to comprehend how the culture and environment of a place shape its music. A lot of Brits travel abroad, but the lack of sunshine here makes them want to lie on a beach in Malaga instead of visiting the Alhambra up the road in Granada (I’m obviously generalising here). And I wonder if the reason why the European posters on here are more inclined to recommend music from outside of their own country (and outside of the US & UK) has something to do with the fact that inter-European travel is not uncommon. If you travel from the Netherlands to Italy, you still go from one European country with Western comforts to another, but the culture and people are not the same.

There are ways to get around these obstacles: find English translations of lyrics (as Henrik pointed out), start exploring international music by participating in the Foreign World Cup game or by listening to the highest rated music from each country on RYM, research artists from other countries to find out about their music style and the cultural environment that mould them. But that’s easier said than done. A lot of people simply don’t have the time and would rather spend the free time they have to explore music they know they’d like.

Hmmm... longer post than I had planned.

[Gillingham]

I don't understand why language and lyrics should be so important in (great) discussions like this one. When it comes to (instrumental) jazz, practically all the greats are American (Davis, Coltrane, Mingus, Parker, Monk, Blakey, etc.). And for jazz musicians like these, language is not imporant at all when it comes to their music. Then there's (instrumental) electronic music. Of course there are some great non-anglosaxon artists like Daft Punk and Air (although they use the English language as well), but a lot of the greats are anglosaxon, or, to be precise, British (Aphex Twin, Autechre, Boards of Canada, Burial, Four Tet, Squarepusher, etc.). And again, lycrics are not that important for these guys and neither for their admirers. This means the dominance of Anglosaxon music can't be explained by just language.

In my opinion, it's the dominance of Anglosaxon culture in general. This is apparent from the comparable dominance in film. One could argue that language is more important for film that for music, but interestingly this dominance isn't necessarily obvious when it comes to literature. And to what art could language possibly be more important to than to literature? All in all, I'd even suggest that there is an anglosaxon dominance in music precisely because language is not that important to this art.

[Gillingham]

Everyone all over the world with a big music interest who doesn't have English as the first language listen to English-sung music, he/she would simply be missing out on too much otherwise. It takes an extra effort to understand the lyrics but you get used to it. From there the step to a third language is not as big as for someone who has always spoken only one language to get into another.

Actually, a lot of the music (almost all) heard on radio and tv here in the Netherlands is in English. You don't have to be a music geek to listen to English music. Moreover, I think it's the other way around here, you have to be a music geek not to listen to English (and occasionally some Dutch) music.

I don't know the exact situation in Sweden, but I imagine it's not that different from the Dutch situation. We northwestern Europeans have always been quite Anglosaxon focused, as your previous post about English also implies.

yes I am, and from a country where the teaching of English is kinda bad. It's changing now, though : my daughter has English lessons at school (she's 7). but it's not taught by "real" English teachers, only by the regular teachers, so I have doubts about it.
The "real" English classes start at age 11. Much too late IMO. So yes, French people (and Spanish, and Italian, I'm sure my Spanish friends here won't deny it) suck at English. Here I suspect it's mainly for political reasons. French was the international language before English (but it goes back to Napoleon the first in the early 19th century), and there are strong francophone lobbies here still. Stupid national pride.

In Holland, when I was in primary school, we only started with half an our of English a week at the age of 10. Only in secondary school, at the age of 12, we were thaught by specific English teachers. I think today kids start to learn English a bit earlier, but my generation didn't really need English at a young age to learn it fluently. As I said before, it's just our culture in general. We watch foreign (non-Dutch, the big majority) films and series subtitled (unlike i.e. Germany and Spain). Our MTV used to be the British MTV and Eurosport as well (both not even subtitled if I remember correctly, maybe Stephan can help me out). But I guess it's very different for a small country surrounded by world/continental languages like German, French and English. Dutch take ('stupid national'? possibly) pride in being able to speak other languagues.

[Henrik]

Gillngham, I'm not sure if I understood your post. Jazz, is certainly an interesting field in this discussion, but while I think that there are many great non-US musicians who would have been major artists if they just had been born in the US, I got the impression that you're were saying the opposite, that since jazz is instrumental all musicians have the same chance of making it and since all great jazz artists are from America, this is proof that almost all great music is Anglo-Saxon...?

[Gillingham]

Yes, I'm afraid that you got the wrong impression Henrik. (pop)Music in general is very, very Anglosaxon. And that is true for jazz as well, in my opinion. Not (necessarily) because it's better, but exactly because it's Anglosaxon, like you also think (although on the other hand we have to admit that jazz originated in the U.S., which somehow complicates the argmument). Although jazz is non-lyrical, it follows more or less the same pattern as pop music based on lyrics.
In short, jazz does not stand outside the realm of regular pop music, unlike, for example, classical music. (western) Classical music is different, since that was always something typical European (here's another potentially interesting discussion about language and nationalities, won't go there now).

Come to think of it, we cannot generalise Anglosaxon music in the first place. Jazz seems to be the province of the U.S., while electronic music kind of seems to be the province is the U.K. That needs a totally different explanation. Still I think Anglosaxon culture is a useful expression to explain the predominance of English-language music in the West.

[Henrik]

Yes Gillingham, I read your post again, and realised, relieved, that I was wrong in my interpretation.

In my opinion, it's the dominance of Anglosaxon culture in general. This is apparent from the comparable dominance in film. One could argue that language is more important for film that for music, but interestingly this dominance isn't necessarily obvious when it comes to literature. And to what art could language possibly be more important to than to literature? All in all, I'd even suggest that there is an anglosaxon dominance in music precisely because language is not that important to this art.

Three reasons why I think literature is not dominated by Englishwriting authors:
1. The most read and wellknown book in the western culture is the bible, which wasn't written in English, and this book influences our view on literature still today - almost everyone have read translated books.
2. It's non-vocal, which makes translations easier. Films are semi-easy with subtitles or dubbed voices. In music we have translated covers, but then it's often the English-singing artist who becomes the star.
3. The Nobel Prize (probably the least important of these three but I have to show some national pride too!)

[Zorg]

I think another factor is that importance breeds importance. Just who would be calling Oasis "the next Beatles" if they came from Japan? That somehow the US/UK "got there first" in establishing rock and pop in the 50s/60s is very important to the continued success of these anglo saxon countries.

I think one of the reasons conversation has dwindled is because of the absence (for legitimate reasons, I'm sure) of Schleuse and Honorio, two posters whose long posts were a joy to read not only for the content, but also for the provocation. Come back (especially since Schleuse's favourite album is London Calling, it missed you in the album poll)!

[Stephan]

I emailed Schleuse yesterday when I realized he hadn't registered here when I was transferring the Hall of Acclaim. He's said he's lurking, but I don't think he's planning to come back yet.

[nicolas]

Lurking... I love that word... So expressive

[Jirin]

For people who are only interested in mainstream, the charisma of the artist is a huge part of the appeal, and the charisma of the artist hinges on understanding the language.

I think part of the reason is also that when people try to branch out from mainstream and find what's really out there, they turn to critics, and what do critics mostly cover? Stuff in english. There's simply nobody who's put the great non-anglophone music on a big list standing next to the Beatles and Bob Dylan.

Another thing is, it's true, people who want to reach a global audience have to record in English. So things that aren't in English are usually being made for a local audience.

There's also...well, this may be more controversial, but maybe it has something to do with the fact that a lot of popular American music is about rich people throwing money and power around in careless hedonistic frenzies. Maybe it has something to do with wish fulfillment?