Johnny Cash

[E.A Rumfield]

Who here is a fan of The Man In Black? Cash rocks and he conveys the sadness of life in every word. It's not complicated and he covered a lot of songs but I believe he somehow did it better almost like he was saying "No, this is what you were trying to do."

[MorpheusSandman]

I can't watch the music video for Hurt without crying. Cash was the man, and I typically hate country music.

[E.A Rumfield]

I can't watch the music video for Hurt without crying. Cash was the man, and I typically hate country music.

I dig the blues but Cash wasn't up there with the real blues musicians. I think he was the last true folk artist. A true musical story teller. I have a pretty hungry appetite for music typically though I haven't really delved into country but Dan Tyminski and his band make some good music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKLm7-KrQdM

[Desolation]

Cash is one of those classic musicians that just scream "Cool" from every pore, along with Miles Davis and Bob Dylan.

When he's good, he's really good. I especially like his last batch of cover albums, The American Recordings. That stuff is heartbreaking, solid gold.

[MorpheusSandman]

I think he was the last true folk artist. A true musical story teller.Surely you'd have to include Dylan in that category, especially seeing how much Cash was influenced by him.

[E.A Rumfield]

Surely you'd have to include Dylan in that category, especially seeing how much Cash was influenced by him.

How can you say Cash was influenced by Dylan? Cash had country blues in his blood. If anything he was inspired by Hank Williams. Cash was doing his thing long before Dylan. Cash was in Memphis when Elvis was, when Carl Perkins was and Howlin' Wolf. He was getting big in the late 50's while Dylan was what 16? Not to mention he looks like a lesbian. (no offense to the lesbian communities)

I ****ing hate Bob Dylan. What I hate more is when people call him a poet. And I'm the King of Mars. But don't listen to me I also hate the Beatles and Led Zeppelin. I've done my research and I found that there are far greater talents out there than those fluffed up poster boys. Bunch of fakers. Arthur Lee and his band Love deserved far much more praise than Bob Dylan or any other American artists at the time. Check em out https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmTkBB5yxr0
Anybody ever heard of The Move? Who eventually formed Electric Light Orchestra. Far better song writers, harmonizers and overall musicians than the Beatles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ghFMlYyh3A
If you disagree I'd love to hear why.

This is what Roy Wood was doing in 73 long after the Beatles called it quits. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8PdHg84zUE

[MorpheusSandman]

Older artists can be influenced by younger generations and Cash has admitted to being influenced by Dylan (the same way Dylan admitted to being influenced by Cash; it was mutual). Cash even said his favorite album was Another Side of Bob Dylan, and his Understand Your Man is a practical rewrite of Don't Think Twice, It's Alright. Say what you want about Dylan, but he was undeniably a folk artist and storyteller in his early years (not surprising since his primary influence was Woodie Guthrie). Your hatred of Dylan (and Beatles, Zeppelin, etc.) doesn't change music history. As to his poetry, well, finer poetry minds than yours disagree on Dylan (perhaps our finest living critic, Christopher Ricks, wrote a book-length study on him). I actually am familiar with Arthur Lee and Love and quite like them, but I don't know why you're comparing him/them to Dylan... at least, I've never made a connection between them. Also, suggesting that anyone that was involved in ELO are in any way better than The Beatles is :rofl:

[E.A Rumfield]

Older artists can be influenced by younger generations and Cash has admitted to being influenced by Dylan (the same way Dylan admitted to being influenced by Cash; it was mutual). Say what you want about Dylan, but he was undeniably a folk artist and storyteller in his early years (not surprising since his primary influence was Woodie Guthrie). Your hatred of Dylan (and Beatles, Zeppelin, etc.) doesn't change music history. As to his poetry, well, finer poetry minds than yours disagree on Dylan (perhaps our finest living critic, Christopher Ricks, wrote a book-length study on him). I actually am familiar with Arthur Lee and Love and quite like them, but I don't know why you're comparing him/them to Dylan... at least, I've never made a connection between them. Also, suggesting that anyone that was involved in ELO are in any way better than The Beatles is :rofl:

I've heard plenty of people hate on Dylan, minds I more align myself with. He was a false prophet. Just like Leary he lead a generation right into the dumps. He did more than Nixon or MK Ultra to kill that "Movement". You say music history like that makes a difference. The true artists never sell. The safe and predictable is what is consumed by the masses. The Beatles were never ahead of the tide they just rode the bandwagon. When the psychedelic thing went down the Beatles jumped on cause they knew it would be big. I mentioned that I thought The Move was a better band than the Beatles but so is ELO while we're at it. Words can't express my hatred for the Beatles. What a bunch of punk asses. They came over here singing fifties songs on some Elvis 2.0 jive, Twistin and Shoutin like a bunch of baby faced fakers. I gave them a chance cause everybody says they are so great but I never thought highly of those people anyway. I can only speak for myself but they never made the connection in my brain much like Jesus Christ or non-alcoholic beer. I'd say I know a fair deal about music, from classical, to jazz, to blues, rock, progressive rock, krautrock (one of my favorite genres), to whatever was going on in the 80's, "post-rock", I even found some proper electronic jams but The Beatles aren't for me.

[Desolation]

Forever Changes is a great record...And one of maaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnny that wouldn't exist without Bobby Zimmerman's immense influence.

Hate him all you want, but it would be hard to argue that he didn't help the evolution of rock 'n roll from "twist and shout" pop to serious songwriting. He did more than Nixon or MKULTRA to kill the movement? That's a laugh. It wouldn't have happened without him in the first place.

[MorpheusSandman]

He was a false prophet.Dylan wasn't a prophet; he was singing folk songs in a very old tradition that people just happened to think were especially relevant to the times.


You say music history like that makes a difference.It makes a difference what people will still be listening to in 100 years. The Beatles and Dylan aren't going anywhere, despite your hatred.


The true artists never sell. The safe and predictable is what is consumed by the masses.Yeah, like Shakespeare, Hitchcock, Mozart... those popular hacks.


The Beatles were never ahead of the tide they just rode the bandwagon.If Sgt. Pepper wasn't ahead of the tide then nothing of that era was.


I gave them a chance cause everybody says they are so great but I never thought highly of those people anyway.You mean like most every critic of 20th century pop music?


I'd say I know a fair deal about music, from classical, to jazz, to blues, rock, progressive rock, krautrock (one of my favorite genres), to whatever was going on in the 80's, "post-rock", I even found some proper electronic jams..Errr, OK? You claim to know so much, but didn't know Cash was influenced by Dylan? Strange.


Forever Changes is a great record...And one of maaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnny that wouldn't exist without Bobby Zimmerman's immense influence. True dat.

[E.A Rumfield]

Forever Changes is a great record...And one of maaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnny that wouldn't exist without Bobby Zimmerman's immense influence.

Hate him all you want, but it would be hard to argue that he didn't help the evolution of rock 'n roll from "twist and shout" pop to serious songwriting. He did more than Nixon or MKULTRA to kill the movement? That's a laugh. It wouldn't have happened without him in the first place.

What wouldn't have happened? The sixties faltered and when they did Dylan lost all credibility. He was nothing more than a pacifier for a confused group of people. The Times They Are A Changin'. Well let's look at that, the 70's was a real dumb time for America the 80's were worse and things have been getting worse since so how did these Pop icons really help anything. If he was a true visionary and a poet you think he would have been a little wiser instead he proved to be a product of the times as Love would say. Rather than be above the times as a true artist would be. You put him in any other decade and he's irrelevant. He reminds me of those people during World War I that thought they were changing the world for good but they were really ending it. You know how I know Dylan was a fake he became a born again Christian. After all the drugs and premarital sex he had he decides to become a hypocrite and release a gospel album. Give me a break. The hippie movement would have happened with or without Dylan it was the obvious evolution after the beats. The Beatles were obviously fake. Bad musicians hand picked because they looked clean, a product of a good record producer nothing more. I respect Neil Young. I think he was a good musician. A simple but effective guitar player who not only was a successful solo artist but played in two great bands. A innovative musician and a true poet and storyteller. Check out Harvest Moon. They call him the Godfather of Grunge. Next people will be telling me Kurt Cobain wasn't a hack and didn't damage society with his over emotional incoherent nonsense. Just because you sold a few million records doesn't mean you're any good, just means you wrote something vague and water down enough that a few million people who are breed to follow decided to buy your crap. Like it or not that's the truth we are a society breed to follow like a herd of sheep.

[MorpheusSandman]

There's so much wrong with your above post that if I attempted to correct it I would break the internet... Auden got it right when he said poetry makes nothing happen, and you equating pop artists with affecting culture at large is rather humorous.

[E.A Rumfield]

Dylan wasn't a prophet; he was singing folk songs in a very old tradition that people just happened to think were especially relevant to the times.

It makes a difference what people will still be listening to in 100 years. The Beatles and Dylan aren't going anywhere, despite your hatred.

Yeah, like Shakespeare, Hitchcock, Mozart... those popular hacks.

If Sgt. Pepper wasn't ahead of the tide then nothing of that era was.

You mean like most every critic of 20th century pop music?

Errr, OK? You claim to know so much, but didn't know Cash was influenced by Dylan? Strange.

How many Dylan songs did Cash cover? Lay Lady Lay? Like everyone else. Cash was a legend while Dylan was sucking on his mothers tit. I didn't say the guys logic was infallible just that I like his music. Sgt Peppers is a crap album. If anything Revolver was there album. What does it matter what people are going to be listening to in 100 years. The world is looking ****tier and ****tier everyday. You keep saying pop culture but **** pop culture. We have no culture. Everybody likes the Beatles. It's cool to like the Beatles. I'm just keeping to known musicians. There are musicians in the last 50 years who in there time would have been Mozart or Bach or Haydn because they are just as good. And that is truly lasting because anybody that cares to learn will look back at these records and be amazed.

Let's talk about a guy like Robert Fripp and King Crimson all the singers they had could really sing. I mean we
re talking about classically trained musicians here. People that absolutely dedicated their lives to music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kcuqIqmIU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlNantlznCA

Or Emerson Lake And Palmer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0FuFfcCZiE

The Nice this is 1968 while the Doors were still pumping out garbage these guys were founding a new era of music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_X9YqWu4pU

Ash Ra Tempel Founders of German Progressive rock you're not trying to be popular writing 19 minute songs but they rock
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTZeaAIDvTo
and one of the band members was probably the closet things to Mozart anyone alive has ever seen you want to take about ahead of your time Klaus Schulze and Manuel Gottshing created electronic music Gottshing is the founder of house music
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSZL0DPmlkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-iNhqlY8hg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki_vMkzp0RY

Gong German progressive band who in the early seventies was making music untouched by western culture and that resembled in a lot of ways electronic music the way different sounds come together to create texture
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iiy5K81qvbg

Can more German progressive music
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QLL2j8ZtxE

Camel part of the wealth of German progressive bands in the late 60's and 70's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEQPScrYGm8

I can go on and on and if you bother to listen to any of those bands maybe you'll understand why I feel the way I do but the Beatles were not creative or groundbreaking or daring in anyway. They were a pop sensation and should be regarded as such. That's great they really changed the way bad music is recorded but I don't care. That's all they did they changed the way pop music was written and recorded and what we get now is Katy Perry. Seriously Katy Perry owes everything to the Beatles. Thanks John Lenon.

[MorpheusSandman]

Look, we get it, you're a snob that favors obscure bands and is all pissy because bands/artists you don't like are popular. Get over it and quit being a child. Many of those bands you listed (especially King Crimson, whom I bet I have more albums from than you do) are amazing, some are crap, all of them will be forgotten. You care or you wouldn't be trying to promote them and diminish Beatles, Dylan, et al. I don't see why Cash covering Dylan is relevant, but he did indeed, and besides Lay Lady Lay he also covered It Ain't Me, Babe, and Don't Think Twice, It's Alright. I also don't see what the point of pointing out Cash was a "legend" before Dylan was, either. Mozart was a legend before both... so what? Quit being an arrogant dick that thinks that nobody but you listens to cool, obscure bands. I have the new albums from a Polish jazz artist named Anna Maria Jopek I'll be listening to tonight, so go suck on that for obscure greatness. All of your blathering about The Beatles being non creative, original, and groundbreaking just completely flies in the face of reality, but do keep proclaiming it and maybe you'll lose credit with everyone who might've been willing to listen to you for half a minute.

[Charles Darnay]

Reading EA rant about popular (x) is always hilarious - whether it's Bob Dylan or Fitzgerald - as long as they have been titled "great" by some people, he will cobble together inane arguments to prove that he is far better than the world because he likes them. I'd label it "hipster" but hipsters are too mainstream I suppose.

[stlukesguild]

Arthur Lee and his band Love deserved far much more praise than Bob Dylan or any other American artists at the time.

We have no culture. Everybody likes the Beatles. It's cool to like the Beatles. I'm just keeping to known musicians. There are musicians in the last 50 years who in there time would have been Mozart or Bach or Haydn because they are just as good. And that is truly lasting because anybody that cares to learn will look back at these records and be amazed.

:smilielol5:

Do you actually practice your inane comments ahead of time, or do they just come naturally. Oh yes... and with your vast knowledge and experience of classical music please do tell me just who these musicians/composers of the last 50 years who would have been Bach, Mozart, and Haydn because they are just as good. I could use a good laugh today. :smilielol5:

Reading EA rant about popular (x) is always hilarious - whether it's Bob Dylan or Fitzgerald - as long as they have been titled "great" by some people, he will cobble together inane arguments to prove that he is far better than the world because he likes them. I'd label it "hipster" but hipsters are too mainstream I suppose.

Bingo! There will always be those who imagine that by denigrating what others deem to be "great art" they will make themselves appear far more sophisticated... or hip. One of my favorite scenes from Calvin & Hobbes puts this quite well:

Calvin: People always make the mistake of thinking art is created for them. But really, art is a private language for sophisticates to congratulate themselves on their superiority to the rest of the world. As my artist’s statement explains, my work is utterly incomprehensible and is therefore full of deep significance.

All of your blathering about The Beatles being non creative, original, and groundbreaking just completely flies in the face of reality, but do keep proclaiming it and maybe you'll lose credit with everyone who might've been willing to listen to you for half a minute.

You are being generous... assuming he still has a degree of credibility worth saving.

[Emil Miller]

This thread is hilarious. It starts ......"Who here is a fan of The Man In Black?"

Continues with the reply......."I can't watch the music video for Hurt without crying. Cash was the man."

And ends....."Cash was a legend while Dylan was sucking on his mothers tit."

And........ "Look, we get it, you're a snob that favors obscure bands and is all pissy because bands/artists you don't like are popular."

Now I have no knowledge of Cash, or any of the other guitar strummers mentioned, but he does figure in a brief incident from my younger days.

I was staying in Norway with an English friend who had taken to wearing a pair of cowboy boots and, as we were walking along the main street in Oslo one evening, we passed by some sort of club from which pop music could be heard. A group of girls standing outside looked at my friend, who was quite tall and lean, and one of them nudged another and said in all seriousness: "Johnny Cash!"
Eventually my friend's contract came to an end and realising that cowboy boots, that might impress the girls in Oslo, would be looked at askance in his English village decided to leave them in his office. Some weeks later he received a parcel and found on opening it that it contained the boots with a note saying that he appeared to have forgotten them.

I think, perhaps, that Johnny Cash would have smiled.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your comments.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further notice.

~

[Sancho]

My mother knew this one by heart, and since she liked to sing it so much – so do I.

Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash, Jackson:
http://youtu.be/nzhzCF77GDo

Also, Emil, true cowboy boots on an icey street - bad Ju-Ju. Those suckers are slicker than snot.

(P.S. I toggled through the rant; don't have time to read it; figured Emil's summation would suffice.)

[E.A Rumfield]

Cash covered Hank Williams to Depche Mode. That's something.

Anyway you should admit you at least got some entertainment from this.

[Calidore]

Yep, in addition to doing his own thing, he covered Bob Dylan, Hank Williams, Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails, Soundgarden, Leadbelly, Beck, Tom Petty (I wish Cash had joined the Traveling Wilburys--that would be the best supergroup ever), Louis Armstrong, Danzig, Neil Diamond, Bob Marley, Sheryl Crow, Neil Young, Nick Cave, U2, and lots more, because rather than rejecting music for being too alt or too popular, he had an open mind and only cared about whether the music was good.

[E.A Rumfield]

Yep, in addition to doing his own thing, he covered Bob Dylan, Hank Williams, Depeche Mode, Nine Inch Nails, Soundgarden, Leadbelly, Beck, Tom Petty (I wish Cash had joined the Traveling Wilburys--that would be the best supergroup ever), Louis Armstrong, Danzig, Neil Diamond, Bob Marley, Sheryl Crow, Neil Young, Nick Cave, U2, and lots more, because rather than rejecting music for being too alt or too popular, he had an open mind and only cared about whether the music was good.

As do I. You can surely accept that I dislike something that you like, right?

[Anton Hermes]

If Sgt. Pepper wasn't ahead of the tide then nothing of that era was.


The Beatles actually did very little trailblazing; their talent was in appropriating the innovation of others and making better music with it. The only indisputable first on Sgt. Pepper was the lyric sheet on the back cover.

They certainly had more expensive equipment and coin for studio time in the Sgt. Pepper era than the people who actually pioneered psychedelic rock, like the 13th Floor Elevators. It should also be said that rock musicians like Frank Zappa and Brian Wilson had been using the studio as an instrument well before Sgt. Pepper. But the amount of talent and effort they lavished on the project paid off. On the only occasion the Beatles musically one-upped the Stones, Pepper's calculated trippiness was coherent, tuneful, and full of recognizable characters. The Stones' stab at genuine trippiness, Their Satanic Majesties Request, was embarrassingly feeble.

[E.A Rumfield]

The Beatles actually did very little trailblazing; their talent was in appropriating the innovation of others and making better music with it. The only indisputable first on Sgt. Pepper was the lyric sheet on the back cover.

They certainly had more expensive equipment and coin for studio time in the Sgt. Pepper era than the people who actually pioneered psychedelic rock, like the 13th Floor Elevators. It should also be said that rock musicians like Frank Zappa and Brian Wilson had been using the studio as an instrument well before Sgt. Pepper. But the amount of talent and effort they lavished on the project paid off. On the only occasion the Beatles musically one-upped the Stones, Pepper's calculated trippiness was coherent, tuneful, and full of recognizable characters. The Stones' stab at genuine trippiness, Their Satanic Majesties Request, was embarrassingly feeble.

I forgot about the Elevators! Ever heard of Procol Harum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmewFHJNuRA

And that is my point The Beatles made more waves in recording techniques than anything else. They were average to bad musicians. That can't be ignored. They made the formula for the modern day pop song. It's like the Zombies or the Monkees or the Kinks, anyone really in the scene joked on those bands.

This is what Bryan MacLean of Love had to say of the Monkees. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCY_hOKp6ZQ
They were square, he says. Their music was comedy.

[MorpheusSandman]

The Beatles actually did very little trailblazing; their talent was in appropriating the innovation of others and making better music with it. I don't see why such a thing isn't trailblazing in itself. In the vast majority of creative trailblazers we can trace their innovations back to pre-existing ideas. The "greatest film ever made," Citizen Kane, that is so often praised for revolutionizing cinema in all its originality and innovations didn't have a single unique invention in it, but instead synthesized all of the cinematic tools available at the time. Shakespeare didn't invent any new stories, but merely reworked old ones. Trailblazing and innovation doesn't necessarily equate with being the absolute first to do anything beyond bringing old ideas/material together in new ways.

[jajdude]

I don't recall ever hearing anybody say, "I don't like Johnny Cash." I'm sure some people must dislike his music, or not think highly of it at least, but I have never heard anyone say it. I know every time I hear him played in a bar, no one ever complains.

[Gilliatt Gurgle]

My mother knew this one by heart, and since she liked to sing it so much – so do I.

Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash, Jackson:
http://youtu.be/nzhzCF77GDo
...

My old lady is known to belt that one out between her nagging episodes and renditions of Coal Miners Daughter.

Johnny covered Shel Silverstein too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1BJfDvSITY

[ralfyman]

I like "The Man Comes Around," which in many ways is connected to current global crises.

[jajdude]

Johnny Cash was and is great. End of story.

[MarkBastable]

I don't recall ever hearing anybody say, "I don't like Johnny Cash." I'm sure some people must dislike his music, or not think highly of it at least, but I have never heard anyone say it. I know every time I hear him played in a bar, no one ever complains.


I don't like Johnny Cash.

There you go - a new experience every day.

[MarkBastable]

I don't see why such a thing isn't trailblazing in itself. In the vast majority of creative trailblazers we can trace their innovations back to pre-existing ideas. The "greatest film ever made," Citizen Kane, that is so often praised for revolutionizing cinema in all its originality and innovations didn't have a single unique invention in it, but instead synthesized all of the cinematic tools available at the time. Shakespeare didn't invent any new stories, but merely reworked old ones. Trailblazing and innovation doesn't necessarily equate with being the absolute first to do anything beyond bringing old ideas/material together in new ways.

Completely true. Innovation is about context.

Though, if the suggestion is that they didn't innovate, I'd like to know from which of their contemporaries they nicked the concept and execution of I Am The Walrus and the suite-structure of the second side of Abbey Road.

And, incidentally, anyone who thinks that McCartney wasn't a fantastically talented musician doesn't know much about playing bass guitar.

[Anton Hermes]

Completely true. Innovation is about context.

Though, if the suggestion is that they didn't innovate, I'd like to know from which of their contemporaries they nicked the concept and execution of I Am The Walrus and the suite-structure of the second side of Abbey Road.
The Beatles weren't trailblazers in the sense that they were the originators of the innovations, but they absorbed the new ideas around and presented them in more pop-oriented contexts. "I am The Walrus" is as good an example as any. Cage and Stockhausen were doing sound collages while Lennon & McCartney were still trying to suss out the lyrics of "Twenty Flight Rock." Frank Zappa had been using sound collages and wacky orchestration for years in his work, and McCartney acknowledged his influence on Sgt. Pepper. I happen to think "Walrus" is a real step forward in the use of any of these techniques, and certainly one of Lennon's most accomplished creations. But the Beatles weren't the ones who invented them.

Same thing with the suite on Abbey Road. Pete Townshend had been stringing together bits of songs to make his mini-operas since the nine-minute "A Quick One" in 1966. By the time Abbey Road came out in 1969, rock musicians had already made a cliché out of this sort of free-form suite: Brian Wilson, Syd Barrett, The Jefferson Airplane, you name it.


And, incidentally, anyone who thinks that McCartney wasn't a fantastically talented musician doesn't know much about playing bass guitar.
No argument here.

[jajdude]

I don't like Johnny Cash.

There you go - a new experience every day.

Finally!

[Enchantress]

Cash makes some of the best remakes. He did Nine Inch Nails "hurt" and he did a far better job than Nine Inch Nails IMO. Then he did Depeche Mode's rendition of "Personal Jesus" and he did a fine job with that one too. The man in black rocks!

[JanetAbruzzi]

Johnny Cash is a real actor. The way in which he shows emotions and onscreen presence, I'm very much impressed by his acting skills. Kudos. johnny cash albums (www.ranker.com/list/johnny-cash-albums-discography/reference)