Fun Stuff > BAND
So....Music
Christophe:
The Warmers are pretty amazing. Salut, MacKaye family!
MadassAlex:
--- Quote from: David_Dovey on 26 Jul 2009, 21:16 ---I think you've kind of missed the point there Alex.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End 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.
--- 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.
--- End 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.
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:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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:
--- 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.
--- End quote ---
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.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version