Topic: So....Music (Read 28331 times)

Ikrik · « **on:** 23 Jul 2009, 00:52 »

I love music, I enjoy listening to it, love discovering it, talking to people about it, getting recommendations and giving them. I'd like to think I know a lot about music but the truth is, that whenever I come into this music forum I feel like a twelve year old kid reading a medical text-book. So I thought it would be cool to ask the people that I use for music the most about music. Not about recommending music or listing off their favourite bands but to talk about music. What your favourite time in music was and why, why your favourite band is your favourite, why certain cities breed certain kinds of sound, the driving force and influence of pop music...I know almost nothing about music, I thought I'd start here. Book recommendations aren't really...useful to me. I have over 30 books that I own that I have to get through...Moby Dick, Don Quioxite, and The Silmarillion to name three. So. Let's talk about music.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #1 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 00:57 »

Well ... first, don't read the first and the third of those books. They are horrible. Also, as a starting point, on topic, what do you, personally, like, in the realm of music.

I mean, it's such a vast universe ...

Joseph · « **Reply #2 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 01:30 »

Quote from: BeoPuppy on 23 Jul 2009, 00:57

Well ... first, don't read the first ... of those books. [It is] horrible.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

I mean, I know judging art is almost entirely subjective, but there comes a point where it is possible to be wrong. This is like saying High School Musical is a better made movie than The Godfather.

Ikrik · « **Reply #3 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 03:07 »

Quote from: BeoPuppy on 23 Jul 2009, 00:57

Well ... first, don't read the first and the third of those books. They are horrible. Also, as a starting point, on topic, what do you, personally, like, in the realm of music.

I mean, it's such a vast universe ...

To say I like rock and alternative probably doesn't help too much. I also dig oldschool funk and hip-hop as well as the oldschool blues. People like Blind Willie McTell I really, really enjoy. Asides from that I'm also really interested where pop music evolves from and the music it evolves from. Like, I have the idea that Madonna was not the pioneer that people say she is but I have no idea where she took her music from. Actually, thinking about it, I would love to know how the mainstream music works.

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #4 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 03:15 »

I always think that everyone builds on from what everyone else made before ... so, for instance, to keep it close to your heart, there were more people who really loved the blues. But they started to play it heavier and suddenly there was Led Zeppelin.

That was the condensed version, by the way ...

Still; look, listen and then steal.

MrBlu · « **Reply #5 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 05:18 »

I dunno what to tell you. Usually I just have Google and Last.FM open when discussing music to people.

And most haven't caught on yet, so I figure that's a plus.

Thrillho · « **Reply #6 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 07:18 »

In response to the 'best time for music' bit, for me, the best year for music was 1994. Something like a dozen of my favourite albums came out that year. Definitely Maybe, Parklife, Grace, Ready To Die, Ill Communication, Nirvana Unplugged In New York...

michaelicious · « **Reply #7 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 07:30 »

Yeah, 1994! is a pretty great band.

The Joker · « **Reply #8 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 09:39 »

For me, though I wasn't alive then, it's the sixties, seventies, and eighties. Stuff like The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Guns N' Roses is what I like. With the Beatles and Zeppelin, they had some wonderfully crafted songs (in terms of musical theory) as well as all being excellent musicians. With bands like Aerosmith and GN'R, the songs aren't as complex, but they're good, simple songs to rock out to.

To be honest, I don't really get much from most of today's music. I'm basically indifferent to indie rock, and pop music disgusts me somewhat. Almost all the bands I like are the bands that are still around that started in the 70's/80's or are composed of members of bands like that (Chickenfoot, Velvet Revolver).

I wish there were more bands of young people who play straight rock and roll. If anyone has recommendations for such bands, please post them along with a video or link to a download.

That's my opinion, please feel free to rebutt or discuss.

Be My Head · « **Reply #9 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 09:49 »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVttLgDj5F8&fmt=18

There you go.

JimmyJazz · « **Reply #10 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:00 »

Can you possibly get any more bland than Chickenfoot and Velvet Revolver?

Critiscisms aside Joker, I don't really think that you can say "pop music disgusts me" when all the bands you mentioned you liked ARE pop music. Pop music is just short for "popular music." It's not really a genre that has a certain sound; ahything that is generally well liked by the popualce can be called pop music. Now, I know that what you probably meant by pop music was something like Britney Spears, but that's not really what the term defines.

Also, do you like punk at all? Even if you don't, the whole basis for the punk movement was to "play straight rock and roll" as you said, albeit faster and louder at a time when progressive rock and bands with emphasis on technical virtuosity and solos were popular and permeating the airwaves.

The Joker · « **Reply #11 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:09 »

You are correct in assuming what I meant by pop music. Stuff like Taylor Swift and the Jonas Brothers (who, in response to your criticism, are more bland than Chickenfoot and Velvet Revolver - bands who I don't consider to be bland at all).

I don't particularly like punk - The Clash is good, and some Celtic punk is all right, but other than that it doesn't seem to me like there's not much variety.

Also, I really like technical virtuosity and solos, so that's one reason why I don't go for punk much.

Be My Head:

Thank you! I can hear a definite Zeppelin influence there, although it's obviously heavier.

Be My Head · « **Reply #12 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:11 »

"technical virtuosity"

Then what are you doing listening to The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Guns N' Roses?

sean · « **Reply #13 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:12 »

Quote from: michaelicious on 23 Jul 2009, 07:30

Yeah, 1994! is a pretty great band.

Do you know how badly I wanna see these guys preform? DO YOU KNOW?

Yeah to be honest you probably do.

The Joker · « **Reply #14 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:14 »

Quote from: Be My Head on 23 Jul 2009, 10:11

"technical virtuosity"

Then what are you doing listening to The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Guns N' Roses?

I didn't mean to imply that those were the only bands I listen to, that's just the majority of it.

Some examples in music that I listen to: Pink Floyd, Joe Satriani, Derek Trucks, etc.

Avec · « **Reply #15 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:14 »

If we're talking punk, I'd check out the Dead Milkmen.

The Joker · « **Reply #16 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:21 »

Listened to Punk Rock Girl by them just now.

Loved the accordion. And hey, there was a guitar solo in there!

Avec · « **Reply #17 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:44 »

I'd start here:

Code: [Select]

http://www.mediaf!re.com/?6b4wcy9zb9z

JimmyJazz · « **Reply #18 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 10:58 »

And from what I've seen in other threads, you like Nirvana. That means it's likely that you'll like at least SOME of their influences, a lot of which are punk or precursors to it.

I reccomend the Stooges' Funhouse. I think you'll like it; it's loud, primal rock and roll that kicks more ass than anything else in the 60's. It's simple, but it has guitar solos that aren't long-winded or pretentious and blistering saxophone on some songs. Download it, turn your speakers up all the way up and enjoy.

Code: [Select]

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=mvo5xbfh

Will · « **Reply #19 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 12:00 »

For hardcore as it pertains to my life, there was something magical about the period from about '99-'02 that I miss. Absolutely landmark albums came out during those years; American Nightmare's "Background Music," Converge's "Jane Doe," Dillenger Escape Plan's "Calculating Infinity," Poison the Well's "Opposite Of December..."the list goes on and on.

If I had to pick, out of the style of music that most deeply resonates with me, what period was the best...that would be it.

Now, if Wet Helmet could come in from the hardcore thread and talk about his days from the 80's, we got that scene completely covered!

EDIT-can't believe I forgot the "We Are The Romans" juggernaut that Botch released!

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #20 on:** 23 Jul 2009, 23:54 »

I have been pondering the question of periods in music for a bit and I can't really say that I have a favourite time frame in which my favourite albums came out. I think in albums. Spectacular albums*. An ideal moment in music ... nah. I also still like new music. I'm grateful that I'm not stuck in a time frame yet, though I'm sure it will happen at some point. Right now, though, the idea that old music is somehow better than new strikes me as ridiculous.

(*7th son of a 7th son, Mindcrime I, Jonah's Ark, ... And Justice For All, Roots, Midian, Led Zep IV, ... stuff like that).

David_Dovey · « **Reply #21 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 01:52 »

Quote from: JimmyJazz on 23 Jul 2009, 10:00

Critiscisms aside Joker, I don't really think that you can say "pop music disgusts me" when all the bands you mentioned you liked ARE pop music. Pop music is just short for "popular music."

If anybody is thinking of replying to these sentences, please don't, 'k? We really have had this conversation so many times and it never goes anywhere constructive. Obviously this is coming across as severe dickishness on my part but it really, really needed to be said. Thanks for your time.

Hat · « **Reply #22 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 02:38 »

Quote from: JimmyJazz on 23 Jul 2009, 10:00

Pop music is just short for "popular music."

Quote from: JimmyJazz on 23 Jul 2009, 10:58

I reccomend the Stooges' Funhouse.

it's like a bizarre mirror into the past

Hat · « **Reply #23 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 02:41 »

I mean you can't blame new folks for not knowing the tedious details of every ridiculous semantic argument people have had on this message board for the last five years or whatever, but maybe he's just gotta learn the hard way

billiumbean · « **Reply #24 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 04:17 »

I've been wondering, what is the consensus round these parts on The White Stripes?

BeoPuppy · « **Reply #25 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 04:26 »

I wouldn't know about the concensus. I can only give you my opinion but I really don't think you'll be any the wiser for it.

Hat · « **Reply #26 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 13:04 »

Quote from: billiumbean on 24 Jul 2009, 04:17

I've been wondering, what is the consensus round these parts on The White Stripes?

That the White Stripes are a band that some people think are pretty rad, some people think are ok, and some think they suck

I personally think they sound good when they are being rambunctious like a bunch of toddlers findin' shit around the house to make noise with except they are using guitars and drums, otherwise they are pretty boring although some of their videos are pretty neat to turn up on 3am on a Sunday morning on rage.

Retrospectre · « **Reply #27 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 19:43 »

I think The White Stripes are pretty okay bordering on good.
I haven't heard everything they've done but I've liked all the stuff I have.

(I also dig that Jack White seems to get bored not making music and just forms new bands)

David_Dovey · « **Reply #28 on:** 24 Jul 2009, 19:45 »

I was long of the opinion that Jack White would be pretty O.K. if he got a decent band behind him. The Raconteurs and the Dead Weather borne this theory out. To wit, I am not crazy about the White Stripes, no.

Thrillho · « **Reply #29 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 04:22 »

Quote from: The Joker on 23 Jul 2009, 10:09

I don't particularly like punk - The Clash is good, and some Celtic punk is all right, but other than that it doesn't seem to me like there's not much variety.

Also, I really like technical virtuosity and solos, so that's one reason why I don't go for punk much.

This is incredibly ignorant.

As for Jack White, I really only give a shit about him with a decent band behind him, and Meg White does not constitute a decent band. As such, I love the Raconteurs.

variable_star · « **Reply #30 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 08:55 »

I saw Jack White at a Dave & Buster's in Nashville. Oh, the hours we spent in the Galaxian Theatre!

In retrospect, I probably should've hung out with Steve McNair instead.

Hat · « **Reply #31 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 11:29 »

Quote from: DynamiteKid on 25 Jul 2009, 04:22

Quote from: The Joker on 23 Jul 2009, 10:09
I don't particularly like punk - The Clash is good, and some Celtic punk is all right, but other than that it doesn't seem to me like there's not much variety.

Also, I really like technical virtuosity and solos, so that's one reason why I don't go for punk much.

This is incredibly ignorant.

To be fair as a person who enjoys punk music, but also enjoys wanky shit, the attitude of the majority of punks towards technical virtuosity has caused me some serious grief because it is just really hard to explain to a punk how stupidly wanky guitar work can still be creative.

This doesn't mean that punk music is inherently untechnical, but that to someone not deeply involved in the scene, I can see how this attitude could develop pretty easily in a person who is not a dick.

skydivingninja · « **Reply #32 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 18:08 »

For me the best time in music was the 70s. You had the perfect combination of guitar heroics, epic, orchestral pieces, the absurd, awesome jazz, memorable pop songs (though pop's time to shine was the 80s). As xkcd put it, "the baby boomers are kicking our asses. We need to get it together guys." You listen to the radio nowadays and you'll never hear a song that you know will approach "Stairway"/"Smoke on the Water"/"Don't Stop Believin'" status. Back then you could turn on the radio and hear something good, or at least I think so, since I wasn't alive back then.

But that's why everybody here listens to bands that no one's ever heard of, amirite?

The greatest music moment for me personally was seeing Rush for the first time on June 26th, 2006. My girlfriend and I had just broken up as she was going to London for a month and just didn't feel like keeping in touch (this was all but said). Two days before the concert I saw an ad for Rush at Walnut Creek. My favorite band at the time, Dream Theater, was heavily influenced by Rush, so I asked one of my friends if he was interested in seeing them. I had only heard Moving Pictures and only knew the big hits from that album, aka side 1, and since my friend was going with a few of his pals I decided to tag along. Oh my God what a show. Here were three 50-60-year-old guys going out there with all the energy in the world giving everyone the experience as if it was their last show ever. The crowd was singing along as soon as they heard the beginning chords to "Limelight," and the Peart-wannabees air-drumming to every tune. I hadn't heard most of their material, but songs like "Natural Science," "Digital Man," "Malignant Narcissism," and "Freewill" blew me away the first time I heard them. Especially in a live setting. It was impossible for me NOT to get sucked into the atmosphere of South Park, Chicken Rotisseries, and rock 'n roll, forgetting any other troubles at the time. The next day I went out and bought 2112, Permanent Waves, and Hemispheres, filling in the gaps of last night's set in iTunes mp3s and listened to that set list for a good while. I have almost the entire discography now and to this day they are, in my mind, the greatest band in the world. After three years, Geddy inspired me to pick up the bass, and "Limelight" was the first song I set my sights on learning. When I hear a band for the first time and the first thing I think is, without any "maybes" or "interestings" or "this seems like a grower...", that's how you know how special that band is. All of my favorite bands are like that, its just that none of them have really came into my life guns blazing like Rush did.

Hat · « **Reply #33 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 19:18 »

Quote from: skydivingninja on 25 Jul 2009, 18:08

You listen to the radio nowadays and you'll never hear a song that you know will approach "Stairway"/"Smoke on the Water"/"Don't Stop Believin'" status. Back then you could turn on the radio and hear something good, or at least I think so, since I wasn't alive back then.

Not in rock music, which is probably responsible for the somewhat unsettling idea that rock is dead, but the fact that you think that this means the baby boomers had a larger quantity of iconic music just means that you don't share the preferences of the musical majority nowadays. Plenty of bands have created iconic, popular tunes in our generation that I personally enjoy. Gorillaz, Kylie Minogue, Mr Oizo, Daft Punk and Outkast off the top of my head have all made songs during this decade that are already kind of building up a reputation as the "classics" of our generation, and there is a lot more that I don't enjoy because I, like you, long for a specific point in music that I've missed out on entirely first time around.

KharBevNor · « **Reply #34 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 20:53 »

These are the best 10 songs ever. Alphabetical order. No arguments.

Coil - Loves Secret Domain

Current 93 - A Song For Douglas After He's Dead

Delia Derbyshire - Dr. Who Theme

Inkubus Sukkubus - Vampyre Erotica

Judas Priest - Nightcrawler

Hawkwind - Hassan I Sabha

Simon & Garfunkel - The Boxer

Throbbing Gristle - Discipline

Venom - Bloodlust

X-Ray Spex - Oh Bondage! Up Yours!

KharBevNor · « **Reply #35 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 20:54 »

I can provide an infinite number of ten best songs ever should it be required.

Spluff · « **Reply #36 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 20:55 »

it is

KharBevNor · « **Reply #37 on:** 25 Jul 2009, 21:16 »

ok.

Acid Bath - New Death Sensation

Adam and the Ants - Stand and Deliver

Burzum - Ea, Lord of the Depths

Death in June - Rose Clouds of Holocaust

Electric Wizard - Dunwich

Ian Drury & The Blockheads - Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll

Misfits - Halloween

The Pogues - The Sick Bed of Cuchulainn

Skyclad - Penny Dreadful

White Noise - The Black Mass: An Electric Storm in Hell

Thrillho · « **Reply #38 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 01:55 »

Quote from: Hat on 25 Jul 2009, 11:29

To be fair as a person who enjoys punk music, but also enjoys wanky shit, the attitude of the majority of punks towards technical virtuosity has caused me some serious grief because it is just really hard to explain to a punk how stupidly wanky guitar work can still be creative.

This doesn't mean that punk music is inherently untechnical, but that to someone not deeply involved in the scene, I can see how this attitude could develop pretty easily in a person who is not a dick.

Admittedly, this is one of the reasons I don't play in punk bands, but to me punk is nothing to do with technical virtuosity, it's about the passion, attitude and individuality (all of which are often absent from modern punk bands). I mean bands like Black Flag may not have been technical genius, but they had solos and they certainly knew how to play. If to be punk you have to be shit at your instrument, by that logic it makes me think your lyrics should be stupid too.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #39 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 02:45 »

Quote from: DynamiteKid on 26 Jul 2009, 01:55

...Black Flag...solos...

bad example

Tom · « **Reply #40 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 16:40 »

Quote from: Jeans on 26 Jul 2009, 10:47

If anyone thinks punk music, creativity and technical skill do not merge, they should probably listen to that album and realize just how horrible wrong they were.

It's a shame that there are people working under that umbrella who haven't taken notice of this. I also might add, for any band recording practices really make a difference. For example, lo-fi recording practices may give a down-to-earth feel free from corporate influence but it tends to, more often than not, poorly disguise the simple fact that the musicians aren't yet competent in several aspects.

PS: All the bands that Jens mentioned, listen to them.
PPS: Jens, have you heard the two bonus tracks from Shots, "Crows Commute" and "Different Beginnings"?

MadassAlex · « **Reply #41 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 21:01 »

I guess people think punk music and technical skill don't mix because of some assholes in the 70s who thought that subverting the technical skill and experimental tendencies of bands at the time would be a pretty cool thing to do.

I mean, there's a difference between saying "Rock 'n' roll doesn't have to be technical" and "Rock 'n' roll shouldn't be technical ever" and I keep feeling that the original wave of punk was aiming for the latter.

I dunno guys, maybe being really good at your instrument is a totally positive thing?

Punk, for a movement that claimed to be no bullshit, sure did a lot of bullshitting around.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #42 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 21:16 »

I think you've kind of missed the point there Alex.

The original punk bands weren't secretly totally competent musicians who dumbed themselves down as a reaction against progressive rock, it was more that they were people who had perhaps only basic skill at their instruments who felt that this shouldn't be an obstacle to making writing music and playing shows. It was a reaction to an elitist standard that you had to be *this* skilled to be a musician, which is patently bullshit.

It was also a reaction to what they saw as music that had become so preoccupied with technical skill that it had disappeared up it's own asshole at the expense of writing good songs and actually having something genuine to say about the world. As someone who enjoys quite a bit of the music of that era (Pink Floyd, Gabriel-era Genesis, etc.) I can't say I entirely agree, but that is the argument nonetheless.

Sure, there are some bands who wore their lack of skill as a badge, but there were many others (typically the ones who ended up having longer, more interesting careers in my opinion) that were not opposed to musical competency, per sé, but just the idea that music was a pissing contest about who could play more notes, faster, in the weirdest mode and time sig possible.

As time wore on many bands of the first wave of punk began to get quite good at playing their instruments, simply as a natural result of playing music all of the time. This didn't meant that all of a sudden they weren't punk any more, because it's entirely simplistic and close-minded to characterise punk as at any time to be just about musical simplicity. It of course didn't hurt that music which was very simple provided the best mode of delivery for the lyrics.

michaelicious · « **Reply #43 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 21:29 »

Quote from: Sam on 26 Jul 2009, 13:51

other people listen to the warmers? i only know about them because of one friend. they rule!

I am kind of surprised at how few people listen to them. It is a bit of a shame in my opinion.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #44 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 21:33 »

I think they've picked up a bit of popularity more recently through Amy being in The Evens and formerly in Ted Leo/Rx

Christophe · « **Reply #45 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 21:38 »

The Warmers are pretty amazing. Salut, MacKaye family!

MadassAlex · « **Reply #46 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 22:16 »

Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16

I think you've kind of missed the point there Alex.

It was more ann effort to draw forth a post just like yours, if only for the sake of discussion.

Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16

The original punk bands weren't secretly totally competent musicians who dumbed themselves down as a reaction against progressive rock, it was more that they were people who had perhaps only basic skill at their instruments who felt that this shouldn't be an obstacle to making writing music and playing shows. It was a reaction to an elitist standard that you had to be *this* skilled to be a musician, which is patently bullshit.

On the other hand, if someone is not going to take their instrument seriously, why claim to be a musician in the first place? I think that if someone is not practicing their instrument, they probably do not care very much. I think it is fair enough that there is no definitive level of technical skill where is one a "musician" or "not a musician", I just don't think it's fair enough that someone throwing power chords together should be considered in the same league as Hendrix.

Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16

It was also a reaction to what they saw as music that had become so preoccupied with technical skill that it had disappeared up it's own asshole at the expense of writing good songs and actually having something genuine to say about the world. As someone who enjoys quite a bit of the music of that era (Pink Floyd, Gabriel-era Genesis, etc.) I can't say I entirely agree, but that is the argument nonetheless.

My reaction to this will be encapsulated in a comment at the bottom of this post.

Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16

Sure, there are some bands who wore their lack of skill as a badge, but there were many others (typically the ones who ended up having longer, more interesting careers in my opinion) that were not opposed to musical competency, per sé, but just the idea that music was a pissing contest about who could play more notes, faster, in the weirdest mode and time sig possible.

I can't imagine any musician seriously feeling that music is that kind of pissing contest. Some of my favourite musicians are the likes of Steve Vai, Paul Gilbert and Ynqwie Malmsteen, and from what I gather, it's about enjoying the intensity and phrasing style.

Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16

As time wore on many bands of the first wave of punk began to get quite good at playing their instruments, simply as a natural result of playing music all of the time. This didn't meant that all of a sudden they weren't punk any more, because it's entirely simplistic and close-minded to characterise punk as at any time to be just about musical simplicity. It of course didn't hurt that music which was very simple provided the best mode of delivery for the lyrics.

Fair enough.

Now, let me explain my real confusion with punk:

Firstly, a major part of punk is the irreverence, right? It's just that it's hard to classify worship of what they considered to be true rock irreverence when what they were fighting against was, essentially, experimentation in music.
This, in turn, suggests that the punk idea of rock music was very narrow. Kind of like a reversal of what you mentioned above, it's almost as if a band displayed a certain amount of technical virtuosity or flexibility of phrasing, they were no longer rock.
Listening to 70s punk, there seems to be a certain lack of rock phrasing, too. If what they're trying to do is draw out the essence of rock music, it would make sense to sound somewhat like it.

That is to say that punk worshiped a narrow idea of rock that it didn't even adhere to, while at once condemning a form of musical progression that didn't suit it.

David_Dovey · « **Reply #47 on:** 26 Jul 2009, 22:52 »

Quote from: MadassAlex on 26 Jul 2009, 22:16

On the other hand, if someone is not going to take their instrument seriously, why claim to be a musician in the first place? I think that if someone is not practicing their instrument, they probably do not care very much. I think it is fair enough that there is no definitive level of technical skill where is one a "musician" or "not a musician", I just don't think it's fair enough that someone throwing power chords together should be considered in the same league as Hendrix.

Because being a musician isn't to be solely measured by a metric of instrumental competency. The only thing that makes a person a musician is if they partake in the act of making music. Even if that music is just "throwing power chords together", as you so glibly put it.

The people that comprised the early punk bands may not have cared much for raw ability in playing their instruments, but to suggest that because of that they didn't care about the quality of their art is narrow-minded. They simply had different aims that they were trying to achieve. Where the more technical-minded musician is engaging in a quest to improve their base skill as a musician, the punk is playing music as a way to describe and promote an ideology, to give voice to frustrations, or for simple visceral catharsis. In these aims, instrumental skill is not a factor. But do you honestly think that there is no skill involved in constructing an effective punk rock song?

Quote

I can't imagine any musician seriously feeling that music is that kind of pissing contest. Some of my favourite musicians are the likes of Steve Vai, Paul Gilbert and Ynqwie Malmsteen, and from what I gather, it's about enjoying the intensity and phrasing style.

Perhaps my use of the term "pissing contest" was inflammatory, but do you really think that there is no small amount of competition between musicians of a certain type to see who can play faster and wilder than their predecessors?

Stripping this pursuit of any value judgements as to it's worth, can you honestly tell me that it isn't a concern of some virtuoso musicians? If it wasn't, then how could virtuosic/progressive rock music even be a sustainable genre? The term "progressive" is a giveaway, which implies that when done right, the musician will be doing something which is considered new and different from what came before. From having moved among communities of progressive rock fans for far longer than I've been on this forum, I can say with all certainty that this is usually defined as involving some step-up in instrumental skill or in musical complexity.

Quote

Fair enough.
Now, let me explain my real confusion with punk:
Firstly, a major part of punk is the irreverence, right? It's just that it's hard to classify worship of what they considered to be true rock irreverence when what they were fighting against was, essentially, experimentation in music.

I think you're missing a vital point about punk rock that is a natural result of not being around when it happened the first time, and not being a fan of the music.

Punk music WAS groundbreaking and WAS experimental in 1977. Nothing like it had ever really been heard before by a great deal of the music-listening populace. It's also worth noting that by the time 1977 had rolled around, the genre of progressive rock had become incredible stagnant and formulaic.

Also -and correct me if I am mistaken here- you seem to be discounting the role that lyrics and presentation (not the clothes the band wear, but the manner in which the notes are played, guitar tone, production etc.) play in the formation of a cohesive notion of music and you are judging a band's capacity to innovate purely on the compositional aspects of a song.

IronOxide · « **Reply #48 on:** 27 Jul 2009, 01:45 »

Quote from: MadassAlex on 26 Jul 2009, 22:16

Firstly, a major part of punk is the irreverence, right? It's just that it's hard to classify worship of what they considered to be true rock irreverence when what they were fighting against was, essentially, experimentation in music.
This, in turn, suggests that the punk idea of rock music was very narrow. Kind of like a reversal of what you mentioned above, it's almost as if a band displayed a certain amount of technical virtuosity or flexibility of phrasing, they were no longer rock.
Listening to 70s punk, there seems to be a certain lack of rock phrasing, too. If what they're trying to do is draw out the essence of rock music, it would make sense to sound somewhat like it.

That is to say that punk worshiped a narrow idea of rock that it didn't even adhere to, while at once condemning a form of musical progression that didn't suit it.

On That Note, Some Punk Bands (In No Particular Order):

Fugazi
Shellac
Mission of Burma
Sleater-Kinney
Hüsker Dü
Bad Religion
Joy Division
The Ramones
The Jesus Lizard
Throbbing Gristle (Perhaps somewhat arguably, but were embraced by the 'Punk Scene')
The Pogues
Operation Ivy

Thrillho · « **Reply #49 on:** 27 Jul 2009, 03:12 »

Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16

As someone who enjoys quite a bit of the music of that era (Pink Floyd, Gabriel-era Genesis, etc.) I can't say I entirely agree, but that is the argument nonetheless.

It has ceaselessly amused me that, and I say this as a massive Floyd fan, punks thought Pink Floyd were a technically competent band. They didn't know shit about anything! 90% of Roger Waters' songs are G, C and D. He just plays them for twenty minutes while Gilmour plays a pentatonic over it.

THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Author Topic: So....Music (Read 28331 times)