Re: Travis' comments: Cream et. al.

["T.W. Hartnett" <hartnett.t@apple.com>]

>Travis said:
>
>> Will say, Art of Noise records be referred back to in twenty years in 
>the
>> same way that Cream records are?
>Interesting question. Probably not, but I think that has more to do with
>timing than anything else. Remember when it was possible to stay aware
>of most major rock releases and even to buy a good proportion of them
>(at least when you include your friends)? That's when Disraeli Gears
>came out. By the time the Art of Noise came out, the record title glut
>was well underway. Regardless of relative merits, but this gave the
>Cream record a far higher historical visibility.

Yes, but I think there should still be a "canon" of important 
synthesizer/sequencer-based records developing.  Again, I'd love for 
keyboard players  on the list to suggest some titles.  Take "Switched On 
Bach"--the historical importance of this can't be denied, but does anyone 
actually listen to it anymore?  What are the significant albums that are 
of lasting enjoyment?  I'm always up for someone's recommendations for 
music that changed their life, so please share.  If you're a musician who 
doesn't use guitar as your primary instrument, please speak up with your 
recommendations.

>
>> No instrument can do everything.  It is not an admission of weakness or 
>a
>> lack of vision to concede this.
>
>Well put.
> 
>> Why is it that it's "Guitar *Player* Magzine", and "Bass *Player*
>> Magazine", and then "Keyboard Magazine"?  Why no "Keyboard *Player*
>> Magazine"?
>
>I don't know. You must have a theory and expect us to understand
>implicitly what that is by now, but it's a mystery to me.

I'm not entirely sure.  I was hoping that you, Warren, would have some 
insight, since I think you've written for two of the three mentioned.  
My off the cuff theory would be that the focus in GP and BP is on 
players, and in KB, the machinery.  The advent of MIDI made things so 
much more complicated that I could see a sizable market for a magazine 
that did nothing other than evaluate gear in an intelligent manner.  I 
used to read KB regularly, and my recollection was that there was much 
more discussion of programming and sequencing software, and keeping the 
trainset running than appeared in GP at the time.  Given the complexity 
of say, getting Cakewalk to sync to tape and controll three modules and a 
drum machine versus getting a crunchy rhythm tone on a Super Plexi, this 
makes sense to me.

It also seemed strange to me, though, that the average reader's letter to 
the editor in KB was about five times longer than those in GP, and a 
thousand times more intelligent than those in Guitar World (sample: 
"Dood--Yngwie fucking rules.  Steve Vai isn't fit to carry his Marshall.  
Singed, The Xterminator").   Again, the off the cuff theory was that KB 
letter writers were, uh, more thoughtful than their GP counterparts.  The 
letters seemed to be of a more philsophical bend, but the actual articles 
didn't seem to carry this non-gear orientation.  I do remember loving 
Freff's column, which always seemed sort of out of place (my apologies at 
this point to all of you who haven't been following the state of MI 
journalism for the last fifteen years--this probably seems needlessly 
obscure).

That said, GP seems to have been dumbed down in recent years, reflecting 
the declining interest in the technical aspects of guitar playing in pop 
music.  

Travis