Of
all the musical genres out there, the one that scares me the most is the one
they call singer-songwriter. Some
earnest cat with a guitar telling you about his sad luck, or complaining about
what’s wrong with the world. Downer
stuff, man. Run away and hide. We’re all doomed.
Wait
a minute! Wikipedia says
singer-songwriter just means musicians who write, compose and perform their own
music – in the finest folk tradition. Leadbellly,
Woody, Dylan – guys like that. That’s
cool, right?
And
anyway, Buzz, don’t you adore James Taylor and Cat Stevens, and didn’t you
enjoy and respect some of those hippy-era guys like Tim Hardin and Bruce
Cockburn?
And
by the way, Buzz, what the heck do you think most of your music should be called?
OK! Fine!
Then why do I associate the genre with the likes of Harry Chapin and Jim
Croce and Dan Hill, guys whose songs – with all due respect – make me lose my
will to live?
Maybe
it was that bad voodoo going on in the early seventies, the force that
codified, stereotyped and exaggerated everything, the thing that pushed metal
into silliness and prog rock into pointlessness and soul into disco and goofy
hair. Maybe it’s just that little bit of
singer-songwriter that turns me off.
Anyway,
it ought to be the most respected genre, ‘cause it’s got to be the oldest. Troubadours, bards, poets, Homer and all
that.
By
the way, I’d respectfully suggest the Wikipedia entry
needs a major overhaul. Maybe Frank
Zappa did write, compose and play his
own songs, but come on! Is singer-songwriter really the genre that
pops to mind when you hear his name?
Then
again, as David Knopfler’s thoughtful article points
out, it’s a genre that has defied categorization.
No comments:
Post a Comment