Transferrable poptimism?

[freakytigger.livejournal.com]

When you start exploring a new genre do you make any assumptions about whether the best-known acts/records/choons in that genre are likely to be the best or not? Do you think, for instance, that there must be a load of obscure better records lurking behind the famous ones that the Real Heads know about?

Of course I think for most people the answer is "depends" - but what does it depend on? For instance, here are two statements someone might make:

"James Brown isn't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure funk acts who are way better than him."

"Incantation aren't actually that good - there are loads of other obscure pan pipe moods acts who are way better than them."

I think statement #1 would raise eyebrows and statement #2 would be more generally accepted as likely to be true.

(I started on this train of thought because I realised when answering a thread on sukrat that for all I knew Merzbow might be a huge noise sell out and despised by all the real noise fans.)

Comments

[martinskidmore.livejournal.com]

I guess the area I know most about is probably soul, and for me the biggest names are some of the greatest (Otis, Al Green, Aretha, etc.) but there are also genuinely and comparably great more obscure acts (James Carr, O.V. Wright, Irma Thomas). Genre fans have their own canon, which can be different from the more general genre-section of the canon, so the rock 'n' roll hall of fame might have my first three in, but might be unlikely to shortlist the second trio, whereas big soul fans might have them more or less on a par.

Whether that means the serious genre fans can point you at obscure stuff you'll love as much as or more than the famous stuff is another matter. The famous stuff is often famous for a reason, and while that may not always be quality, it may be that whatever made it famous is what makes you like it, what draws you into looking at the genre, and the genre may not have so much more like it.

In Northern Soul, incidentally, I think there is little to match Motown amongst the more obscure stuff - Motown had great singers, musicians, songwriters and producers, and most other Northern Soul records seem to fall short in at least one of those areas. There are some great obscure Motown records, of course. In Southern Soul, the quality distinction between the most famous and the unknown seems far less sharp.

[mcarratala.livejournal.com]

James Carr, to me, is a classic example of where I get confused by the experts. I know I've been told endless times that he's better than Otis, but I'm damned if I can equally hear it – they sound pretty equivalent to me (and both excellent). And that's where you start to suspect one-upmanship – is the reason for JC's higher status in serious southern soul circles the fact that he didn't charm the hippies at Monterey?

[martinskidmore.livejournal.com]

I love James Carr a bit more than Otis, but I deliberately bracketed people I thought were kind of in the same quality class and stylistically comparable, but with different fame levels. Carr has a gigantically powerful voice, though he lacks something in subtlety, and while he recorded a few really great tracks, his oeuvre is pretty shallow, so it depends what you want, what you value. I love his Dark End of the Street, for instance, more than almost anything else in '60s southern soul. Yes, I'm sure there is some obscurity oneupmanship happening too - there usually is.

[justfanoe.livejournal.com]

Exactly this, re: genre canon versus overall canon. When seeking out a new genre or new era/type of music, I seek out the genre canon first, not necessarily the most famous. E.g. when I wanted to start listening to country, I went to the rolling country thread and the country universe top 100 albums, I didn't just go out and indiscriminately buy Garth Brooks and Johnny Cash and etc.