A nice perspective on music from John Mayer

[The Dean]

While I own none of his music, I've like most of what I've heard from John Mayer. I've managed to see him on TV a few times and I thought his playing was solid and his taste was pretty good, too.

 

Apparently, his album, Continuum, has taken some criticism for being too polished. Here's a little excerpt from a recent interview with him:

 

 

Are you moving from pop musical snapshots to a more timeless music?

- Yeah, I’m trying. Again it’s at balance. You’re trying to have the immediacy of pop music that everybody can identify but at the same time have a soul background, or some background that will protect it from sounding like today 10 years from now.

 

Are you then moving forward by moving backwards in history?

- Yeah, giving up on things that don’t come natural to me and going for the things that do, and that is blues and soul, pop and jazz.

 

Some critics seem to think that the production on Continuum is very polished.

- If I’m gonna watch a movie I want the movie to be on focus. If I wanna listen to a record I want the record to sound good. I understand we are talking about the very DNA of rock’n’roll and that rock’n’roll is supposed to be rough. But rock’n’roll wasn’t supposed to be rough. Rock’n’roll were people trying to be clean but messing up. So if you can be clean then be clean.

 

- Rock’n’roll is about making a lot out of the little you are given. And the reason I’m not a rock artist is that I’ve applied myself to learning as much as I can on my instrument and rock’n’roll doesn’t really support that. Rock’n’roll is about looking good, picking up a guitar and how you can defy everyone else in your life by picking up this music and making something out of it instantly.

 

- That’s not where I come from. I come from more of a jazz side, which is trying to grow inside of the music. Bring more to it - not take more from it.

[RuntheDamnBall]

While I own none of his music, I've like most of what I've heard from John Mayer.  I've managed to see him on TV a few times and I thought his playing was solid and his taste was pretty good, too. 

 

Apparently, his album, Continuum, has taken some criticism for being too polished. Here's a little excerpt from a recent interview with him:

Are you moving from pop musical snapshots to a more timeless music?

- Yeah, I’m trying. Again it’s at balance. You’re trying to have the immediacy of pop music that everybody can identify but at the same time have a soul background, or some background that will protect it from sounding like today 10 years from now.

 

Are you then moving forward by moving backwards in history?

- Yeah, giving up on things that don’t come natural to me and going for the things that do, and that is blues and soul, pop and jazz.

 

Some critics seem to think that the production on Continuum is very polished.

- If I’m gonna watch a movie I want the movie to be on focus. If I wanna listen to a record I want the record to sound good. I understand we are talking about the very DNA of rock’n’roll and that rock’n’roll is supposed to be rough. But rock’n’roll wasn’t supposed to be rough. Rock’n’roll were people trying to be clean but messing up. So if you can be clean then be clean.

844312[/snapback]

I don't buy it. Rock'n'Roll wouldn't exist without the transistor radio, broken amps, and 3rd harmonic distortion. It's part and parcel of the genre. If you wanna be smooth, be smooth and call it "white boy wimp rock" or "wuss rock" or whatever it is the Doobie Bros. play. But rock and roll was never meant to be clean. It was always meant to be at least a little subversive. That's completely lost on a lot of people.

[The Dean]

I don't buy it.  Rock'n'Roll wouldn't exist without the transistor radio, broken amps, and 3rd harmonic distortion.  It's part and parcel of the genre.  If you wanna be smooth, be smooth and call it "white boy wimp rock" or "wuss rock" or whatever it is the Doobie Bros. play.  But rock and roll was never meant to be clean.  It was always meant to be at least a little subversive.  That's completely lost on a lot of people.

844445[/snapback]

 

 

I don't entirely disagree with your points...but there's this:

 

Rough does not equal subversive. Steely Dan is about as subversive as it gets, and there are few cleaner sounding bands. OTOH, the Stones, once subversive, are now the essence of corporate rock, no mater how rough they attempt to sound.

 

Part of what Mayer is saying is rock has become equated with rough due to some of the things that happened to be associated with it. The crappy sound of the transistor radio wasn't planned. If the technology allowed it at the time, a great sounding transistor radio would have been the tool of choice among those at the beach.

[ajzepp]

I don't own any of his albums yet, but his "John Mayer Trio" discs are supposed to be pretty damn good. I'm looking forward to picking one up.