[Ben Sims]

I couldn't help myself--I looked at the list again--The Clash at #53, behind, for example, ZZ Top, Aerosmith, GNR, Foreigner and Boston?  I'm speechless.

Tim, over here, golf.  Focus.  Add something or move on.

[Mark Pearce]

In my opinion (and that's all it is) Van Halen weren't and aren't great, or even remotely approaching greatness.  Indeed, until I read this thread it never occurred to me that anybody would consider them so.  Like Tim, I think that list is terrible and not just for the inclusion of van Halen (The Eagles?  The Police? Metallica?  All in the top 15.  In whose world?)

I couldn't help myself--I looked at the list again--The Clash at #53, behind, for example, ZZ Top, Aerosmith, GNR, Foreigner and Boston?  I'm speechless.

I couldn't bring myself to go that far down the list.  Now I'm glad to know that someone else has spared me the pain.  That really is unbelievable.  Except that it appears to be true.  Who the hell are these people that produced this list?

Bringing it back to golf, for Ben's sake, doesn't this just prove that rankings are a pile of stinking horse dung unless that raters are reliable?

[Tim Pitner]

Geez Ben, way to police your own thread.  Alright, here's my contribution--I agree with those who believe that Van Halen wasn't very groundbreaking; they seemed to borrow heavily from earlier, more original artists and then repackaged the music to be more mainstream.  So, maybe Nicklaus with Dismal River and Jones Jr. with Chambers Bay might be somewhat analogous--their work borrowed from the more minimalist GCAs and then they used their name recognition to market it as a different product.  Probably a reach.  

My comment on the music list also touches on something that often gets talked about here--the golf rankings.  These things are so subjective, I just don't see the point in them at all (except from a marketing perspective).  The more such lists try to be objective, it seems the worse they get.  

[Ben Sims]

Geez Ben, way to police your own thread.  Alright, here's my contribution--I agree with those who believe that Van Halen wasn't very groundbreaking; they seemed to borrow heavily from earlier, more original artists and then repackaged the music to be more mainstream.  So, maybe Nicklaus with Dismal River and Jones Jr. with Chambers Bay might be somewhat analogous--their work borrowed from the more minimalist GCAs and then they used their name recognition to market it as a different product.  Probably a reach.  

My comment on the music list also touches on something that often gets talked about here--the golf rankings.  These things are so subjective, I just don't see the point in them at all (except from a marketing perspective).  The more such lists try to be objective, it seems the worse they get.  

Tim,

The Police were at #11, still not as high as VH. (joke funny)

I look at Van Halen's music much in the same vein as Fleetwood Mac.  Lindsay Buckingham's ability and Mick Fleetwood's composition ability will always be overlooked due to their easy listening style and pop-ish riffs.  Listen to "Big Love" or "I'm So Afraid" from their live album The Dance from 1997.  Buckingham was good.  No credit for musical ability due to high sells and high band drama and pop-ish sound. 

But this isn't about just talent (or percieved greatness).  I don't care what any of you say, EVH took some guitar techniques, routed them through a pedal and amp in a way that noe guitarist had ever done before--at least popularly.  They combined that new sound with a flamboyance and marketability that hadn't been done THAT way in 1978.  It was different than the other big names at the time.  It was a new LA sound.  Did they get stale, yeah.  I agree their staying power has been based mostly on nostalgia rather than real greatness. 

My question, and direction of this thread has been as much about the future of golf architecture as the past.  When I think of flamboyance in golf architecture, I don't think of the bunkering and aesthetic shapes of Fazio.  I think of the use of ground movement, rawness, and difference from what came before that.  In that ilk, Stranz probably fits the bill pretty well.  But Wolf Point is definitely different, combines some older techniques and turns the volume up to 11.  Ballyneal does a pretty solid job of combining old techniques with new flamboyance.  Tom and crew turned an old boring flat course in Denver in it's ear with green contour and bunker position.   

I think the future direction and newest innovators in golf architecture--at least over here in the US--will have to refine and adapt to more efficient maintenance ideals.  This will cause naturalness to float to the surface as a huge proponent of the golf course.  Whomever manages that naturalness, through efficient use of existing ground features and flora, will be highly regarded. 

[Tim Pitner]

Ben,

I know you're working hard here but I just don't see the parallels between the over the top guitar riffs (EVH) and flamboyance (DLR) of Van Halen and Doak's work at Ballyneal or, especially, CommonGround.  There is nothing flamboyant about CG.  I readily concede I might just not be able to get past my lack of respect for VH. 

[Ben Sims]

Ben,

I know you're working hard here but I just don't see the parallels between the over the top guitar riffs (EVH) and flamboyance (DLR) of Van Halen and Doak's work at Ballyneal or, especially, CommonGround.  There is nothing flamboyant about CG.  I readily concede I might just not be able to get past my lack of respect for VH. 

Tim,

I assume you've been to both courses?  The 7th and 8th greens at BN, the #15 (or #17, I forget) green at Common Ground?  You see no showmanship in those surfaces?  You see status quo? 

I see--according to your beloved raters--a very popular set of golf holes that take old ideas, and marry them with a very new presentation, even flamboyant presentation. 

We can debate this all day long.  The premise of the thread remains.  In 1978 EVH brought a new and bold sound--whatever you think of it--to market and presented in in a format agreeable to the masses.  I think the way forward for minimalist genre, is to take some minimalist ideas and continue to refine them into even more mainstream easy listening. 

[Tim Pitner]

Ben,

I have played both courses; in fact, I live in Denver and CG is my home course. 

I don't mean to suggest there isn't great movement in the greens at BN and CG--there is, more so at BN, obviously.  What I see from Doak, though, is much more of an acknowledgment of his influences--namely, classic golf courses--than was the case with Van Halen in musical terms. 

Frankly, I see VH as a little schlocky.  Maybe I don't know their music well enough, but it seems to me they aren't like Jimi Hendrix or the Rolling Stones who took their blues influences and then created something that simultaneously was instantly recognizable as borrowing from the past, but was also something totally new.  That's what I see Doak doing with courses like Pacific Dunes and Ballyneal. 

The person in music in whom I see some similarities to Doak is Jeff Tweedy of Wilco--both Doak and Tweedy are highly intelligent, know pretty much exactly what they want, tend to be very opinionated and are steeped in things from the past that relate to their work (in Doak's case, links and other classic golf courses; in Tweedy's, roots music). 

What this may mean, though, is simply that I like Wilco and you like Van Halen.  We both seem to like Doak's work.   

[Tom Yost]

...  Who would be the Van Halen (Roth version please) of golf architects?

Would like to weigh in but unfortunately, my GCA notable golf resume is limited to what may be comparable to the Gary Cherone version of Van Halen.

As to VH's place on the list of great rock bands, I don't think their overall body of work puts them near the top, but everyone should admit that first album knocked down the door and kicked some major ass.

[JC Jones]

But, in a stodgy business such as golf, their work is more polarizing than groundbreaking.

Tom,

Do you think this is why golf architecture isn't all that comparable to other forms of art, i.e, it has to play more to the middle?

And does this mean that you don't think a natural style or "minimalist" can be edgy and engaging?

By "play more to the middle," do you mean "appeal to the market"?

I have said that golf course architecture is not comparable to other (read: real) forms of art for several reasons.  This, however, I don't think is one.  Unfortunately, in the post-MTV, internet/garage-band-software era where everyone is a writer, critic, connoisseur, artist, musician, etc., we as a society have decided that whatever appeals to the market (or focus groups) must be "good."  Golf courses, generally, are no different in this regard.

[Sean_A]

Obviously Ben thinks the world of Van Halen, but I would say at the very least they were a polarizing band when taking in the big picture of music.  It could be the case that nearly every great (no, I don't and didn't consider VH to be great) band was polarizing.  As with polarizing architecture such as Strantz, maybe this type of art just isn't meant to last long - its of its time (this is how I see Van Halen anyway) - no more - no less.  Perhaps the odd revival which manages to grab a kitsch foothold, but this is still polarizing rather than seen as classic - no?   No, I think if we are looking at the big picture we need to point toward guys like Colt and the Rolling Stones as much more permanent trend setters - to the p;oint where they revolutionized their art.  I could never say that about Van Halen or Strantz.

Ben

There is a market of at least one for sub 6000 yards and sub 70 par.  Somehow, I think the idea is too radical for the stodgy golf world.  Although, at a much lower level than Colt in terms of fame, I do believe there is a place for this sort of architecture.  The problem is any archie confident enough to give it a go and can likely pull it off would be charging more than Ma and Pa can afford.  

Ciao

Sean,

Let's explore the idea of polarization.  That is to say--at least in my mind--what isn't polarizing today?  Opinions are thrown about so frequently and with such amazing circulation due to the current world of communication, that any opinion on any subject is readily available.  I bet 5 quid I can find someone who thinks sliced bread is a bad thing in less than 30 seconds with a Google search.  Want an opinion that Pine Valley isn't a great golf course?  I bet I can find it somewhere on this site over the past ten years.

Polarization to me is something that arises due to the nature of the people, not the object of the polarization.  That's why someone saying a band or a golf course is polarizing has little effect on me.  The market has spoken regarding the music of Van Halen whether you like it or not.   

That's why I asked Tom and Don--and everyone else too--if there is a market for a NEW golf course.  Edgy, natural, short.  The market dictates what it dictates.  My opinion is that golf architecture MUST work with golf maintenance and develop a new way of building and maintaining golf courses.

Taking various ideas from great men in the industry from years past, smashing them together with alacrity and clarity, and presenting them in a new way might be the answer for the golf club of the future.   Both business-wise and golf-wise.  

Ben

Sure, I dislike VH a lot, but its not just them, its the entire genre of spandex metal which never got my attention as 16 year old and certainly wouldn't today.  Very popular in their niche - perhaps the most popular (but I think they are well short of a few bands).   

Polarizing in terms of music in general - Van Halen - certainly.  The were a band in a niche in the big scheme of things.  True, one could say that about a lot of bands that did very well, but because of VH's style I would venture to guess that for a significant percentage of folks who didn't buy their records that they disliked the band.  A lot of popular bands may not be liked, but tolerated by non-buyers so they aren't polarizing.  In any case, I don't think the analogy doesn't works. 

Ciao 

[Peter Pallotta]

An observation others might have also had. After playing older courses, there are often pictures in the bar or clubhouse of holes as they appeared in the 1920's or earlier. I am struck by how often the older iterations of those holes appear to be much more edgy, hazards were much more severe, recovery shots much more dicey. Features appear deeper and hairier. The same holes are now domesticated. There is not a hair out of place. Their edginess has been removed.

The least interesting take-away is that the photos are evidence of improved maintenance practices. Perhaps a more interesting take-away is that the photos are a warning about how hard it is to build a modern, edgy, thrills and spills course.   

Bob   

Bob - I think Don M and I agreed that any significant breakthrough will be client driven (though of course it will require an architect who knows and loves the forms/rules to step up and break them).  Perhaps a little recognized result of the decades-worth of NON-discussion about gca's most fundamental philosophical underpinnings.

Peter

[Brad Isaacs]

I think Rupert ONeal is a self admitted "Dead Head" and I have no doubt that that is where the edginess of Ballyneal comes from, that Tom Doak refers to.




Brad Isaacs

"Get down with brown"

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()