Yeah, I was engaging in a little bit of rhetoric there. Of course it's about personal musical taste, and I certainly wouldn't want to suggest that anyone's taste is wrong.
"Rock" is a big tent, maybe bigger even than the big tent Duke talked about back in the 40's in relation to jazz. There's lots of space in there.
I'm just reacting to this whole sub-text in this thread of great artists, committed artists, principled artists, worthy of big fees and riders, etc., versus lowly simpleton artists. I used to be a jazz snob in my teens and early 20's. I was such a snob when Elvis came out on the scene. I hated him. Hated the glasses. Hated the use of the name when the real King was fresh in his grave. I was ready, willing and able to Heap Scorn with the best of them. How could Elvis be good when there are Weather Reports in the world? But then something happened. I grew up a bit. I traveled the world a bit. I heard all kinds of stuff. And I started listening to myself more -- I could actually tell if a piece of music was moving me or not! Hey! I don't need anybody else's opinion! And I grew to realize that I dig practically everything at some level. Doesn't mean I wanna spend my time playing just anything -- far from it. But it does mean I feel offended when someone opines Peacock is better than Costello, or operates at some higher level. This is B.S., pure B.S. They are different types of people playing different kinds of music, probably for different reasons. People use their music for different purposes and respond to it in different ways. Sounds like neither one of those artists should have been anywhere near that particular bandstand that night.
Well, their respective fields have inherently different mindsets, goals etc.
Comercial pop music is a lot like politics, it takes very dark and shady moves to claw your way to the top.
Just as there are politicians I can respect more than others, same goes for pop musicians, but no one gets near the top with integrity intact.
There is a lot more fame and money at stake so it is all understandable.
While I admit I like very little pop music, I am not as hardline about it as many of my free music peers.
I like good musicianship, and good bass playing, pop music has it's share of those things.
While I wouldn't try to say Elvis is a hack, or that he lacks integrity, his approach took a lot more than just being a good musician.
Image, marketing and all that figures in heavily.
He has done well for himself, the star wife, the millions of dollars,
It is tought to separate those ends to from initial goals.
That he has done all of and maintained a high level of craft and musicianship is where he gets my respect.
A musician like Peacock has a kept a narrow and true focus throughout his career, much more than I have even at this early stage. His intentions are clearly alined with making music and playing the bass in a certain way.
He staked out a certain area to work in and refine and has done an admirable job.
While he has done well with the Standards trio, that is fluke and an anomaly in the world it comes form, where EC's success is fairly standard.
You may not respect his decisions, but expect him to stray from them after sticking to it for 40 years certainly is not reasonable.
I don't think that the two paths are always at odds, but they are certainly not in sync with each other.
A bit like cats and dogs, there are plenty of cat curled up with a dog photos, but having a blanket expectation that any given cat will get along with any given dog is not reasonable.
As far as who belonged on the bandstand, I think Peacock was well suited for that quartet and it was more than likely awesome.
As for fees and riders, we know EC fee is far higher and we can guess his rider is more complicated.
