Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[KharBevNor]

This thread is really starting to reinforce my criticism of music theory.

[Scandanavian War Machine]

all you need to know about punk rock

[nurgles_herald]

No, this is all you need to know about Punk Rock.

Yeah.

I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything once, but bands I regularly listen to include, but are not limited to: Queens of the Stone Age, Meshuggah, Mogwai, Mastodon, The Kills, The Dead Weather, Lords of Acid, Jimi Hendrix, Cream, Juno Reactor, Flight of the Conchords, and Rush.  I refuse to associate with anyone who listens to Bad Company for any reason, save for the lulz.

Also, Philip Glass is the boss.

[JD]

You really can't go wrong with Flight of the Conchords.

[MadassAlex]

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?

The issue here is that you assume a technically conscious musician doesn't aim to express themselves. Political, social and philosophical commentary isn't exactly unique to punk rock.

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?

I think that there is absolutely no competition whatsoever. I can't imagine how there could be. There are reasons to want to be faster, but I don't think ego is one of them. To produce more intense music, or to be able to play with more general comfort would be the real reasons to increase speed.

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.

My interpretation of "progressive" references song structure more than anything. I could explain my point of view for ages with numerous examples, but in short, the term "progressive" has far too many contextual hooks and traps in reference to technical skill and complexity, not to mention the way standards change over time. Taking "progressive" in the context of song structure, however, allows for definitive comparison. If we're basing this off technical skill and musical complexity, you may as well go ahead and say Led Zeppelin were progressive (although, to be fair, they were in the strictest sense of the term "progressive"), or that Deep Purple were progressive.

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.

I suppose I did claim it wasn't experimental through implication, but that wasn't really my point.

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.

The voice is an instrument, and the melodies it expresses are a part of the compositional aspects. Expressing language doesn't separate it from other instruments. All the same rules and limitations apply.

I'd like to note here that I don't have significant emotional investment in this discussion. If I sound like I'm getting riled up, please understand that I'm not, and I want to continue this in the most sincere and comfortable way possible. I'm mostly playing the Devil's advocate here, as I understand the purpose of punk rock and its place, but I've never discussed it from the point of view of it being potentially regressive rather than progressive.

[BeoPuppy]

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?

I think that there is absolutely no competition whatsoever. I can't imagine how there could be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Kat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malmsteen

... just to name two.

Mind you, it doesn't make for great music.

[MadassAlex]

Uh, what are you talking about? Malmsteen has written some great music. Check out his performances with the Japan Philharmonic on YouTube.

Not to mention that he extensively explored a style of phrasing that no-one else was at the time, with the exception of a very few, most notably Ritchie Blackmore. His contributions to heavy metal and shred guitar are incredible. His influence even extends into technical death metal.

I think it's absolutely fine if you don't like someone's music, but that level of technical skill, especially in an area of phrasing not often explored by guitarists at the time, can only be the result of passion for music.

[BeoPuppy]

Fine, I'll specify. The need for speed as a THING all on its own leads to people forgetting to write songs. So, when guitarists just shred all the time I grow bored. And I think Malmsteen can be accused of doing just that on several occassions.

[David_Dovey]

The issue here is that you assume a technically conscious musician doesn't aim to express themselves. Political, social and philosophical commentary isn't exactly unique to punk rock.

My post was a gross oversimplification to be sure, but I stand by my assertion that the examples I gave are still the primary motivators for the genres in question.

I think that there is absolutely no competition whatsoever. I can't imagine how there could be. There are reasons to want to be faster, but I don't think ego is one of them. To produce more intense music, or to be able to play with more general comfort would be the real reasons to increase speed.

The competition doesn't necessarily have to be overt or even entirely conscious. I'm not necessarily suggesting that musicians are sitting in rehearsal rooms listening to other bands' records and saying to each other "we need to be 'x' amount more technical".

The voice is an instrument, and the melodies it expresses are a part of the compositional aspects. Expressing language doesn't separate it from other instruments. All the same rules and limitations apply.

Incorrect. Expressing language does separate vocals from the rest of the instruments, particularly when said language is responsible for forming/conveying the aesthetic of the band. Remember that in the vast majority of popular music forms- with the notable exceptions of metal and prog- the rest of the instruments more or less exist to provide support for the vocalist.

I'd like to note here that I don't have significant emotional investment in this discussion. If I sound like I'm getting riled up, please understand that I'm not, and I want to continue this in the most sincere and comfortable way possible. I'm mostly playing the Devil's advocate here, as I understand the purpose of punk rock and its place, but I've never discussed it from the point of view of it being potentially regressive rather than progressive.

Hey, me too!

I'm not entirely sure how I ended up being the guy arguing this point seeing as there are at least a dozen people on this forum I could think of off the top of my head who could argue it far more credibly than I. I guess, like you, I enjoy playing Devil's Advocate. I'm finding this discussion particularly fun because about two years ago I would've been saying exactly what you are right now.

[MadassAlex]

Incorrect. Expressing language does separate vocals from the rest of the instruments, particularly when said language is responsible for forming/conveying the aesthetic of the band. Remember that in the vast majority of popular music forms- with the notable exceptions of metal and prog- the rest of the instruments more or less exist to provide support for the vocalist.

I think we should note that it is indeed in most modern popular music where this is primarily true. Classical music is a fantastic example of a genre that doesn't have a vocal emphasis (although it certainly includes those elements) and was wildly popular for its time. This suggests to me that the ability to apply language is not a necessity for musical expression, but a tool that happens to be more prominent today. Plenty of kinds of folk music don't actually feature vocals more prominently than vocal elements, either, so I'd hardly say that vocals are a breed apart from instruments by definition - just by current popular musical values.

Consider also the enjoyment one can receive from vocals in a different language. Latin, German and Italian are prominent in vocal-inclusive classical music, and there are certainly a multitude of people who enjoy such music without understanding a word of the languages.

The point stands, however, that vocals are not compositionally different from other instruments, as the same rules of harmony and rhythm apply.

[Joseph]

But language interacts with the brain in an entirely different way than the other pieces of the music do, and do discount it entirely seems pretty foolish.

[MadassAlex]

Vocals don't need to call upon language to still be vocals.

Plus, no matter how vocals interact with the brain, the articulation is still musical and still follows the laws of physics that govern harmony.

An A note is an A note, coming from someone's mouth or a piano. They have different tonal characteristics, but are essentially the same insofar as harmony and melody are concerned.

Saying that vocals interact with the brain in an entirely different way to other parts of the music is also false. Firstly, both are audio stimulus, and thus are primarily "digested", as such, through the temporal lobes. Funnily enough, Wernicke's area of the brain is located in the left temporal lobe, which allows us to interpret language and mentally formulate our own. Indeed, for the most part, both go through the same channels. It's only our familiarity with our language that alters anything.

What if, for instance, you and some others learned to express definite concepts through the use of microtones rather than vocal language? I'd hypothesise that you'd also get activation in Wernicke's area.

[sean]

what if the vocals are screamed/shouted/not any paticular note (not out of tune)?

[MadassAlex]

That's equivalent to a distorted note on guitar, or scraping muted strings.

In musical genres where vocalists apply natural effects to the voice (such as hardcore and various kinds of metal), what you get is still a discernible note.

[KvP]

Language and rhythm are demonstrably related. A few species of bird that have relatively complex vocal abilities have also been shown to exhibit an ability to dance. Like this one.

[Hat]

Doesn't necessarily mean anything about how the brain differentiates between music and vocals (if at all), it's plausible this correlation exists because the empty spaces around the glottis and other speech organs allows specific resonances that trigger physical responses from certain low end sounds (note how the bird is mostly getting down to the bass, although to be fair that is how you DO IT AW YEAH), and also there are many more examples of rhythm in animals with no advanced vocal ability whatsoever than there are of dancing, talking birds.

Although I may be biased against talking birds that also dance for personal reasons

[Eris]

Also, if you watch the episode where the bird is on Late Show you can see that the owner "dances" along with him, and he might be reacting to her movements more than the actual music.

[est]

Yeah, that is more likely than the bird dancing on it's own accord.  My nan used to have two cockatoos, one would react to very small movements.  Like, you could bob your finger and it would bob its head. You poke at it even slightly and it would hang from the cage using its beak.  You make any kind of movement waving your hands and it would start waving its wings.  It's more likely that the lady dances to the music and the bird dances with the lady, reacting to her movements rather than inventing its own movements to accompany the music.

[Dennisdread]

Pink Floyd is hackneyed and overrated. I could easily go the rest of my life without hearing another note of that crap and never once miss any of it.

Fock Pink Floyd. Seriously.

[Thrillho]

...Um. Okay. Thanks for that relevant, worthwhile contribution?

[The Joker]

No kidding.

[supersheep]

Best way to piss off a Pink Floyd fan: say that you like that Scissor Sisters song "Comfortably Numb."

Bonus points if you actually think it is a better version (it is).

[Touch Me Im Sick]

Barrett era Floyd>>>Waters era Floyd

[billiumbean]

I've always thought of The Wall as their best album, and I've met many a Pink Floyd fan who's agreed, but for the record, what would be their most important* Barrett-era album?

*That can mean whatever you want;  Best, significant, essential, prominent, etc.

[Thrillho]

Uh, there is only one Barrett-era album, and that is Piper At The Gates Of Dawn. Saucerful Of Secrets has him on between one and three songs, only one of which he wrote, and his solo albums are scarcely even worth mentioning.

[scarred]

I am a big fan of The Piper At The Gates Of Dawn but that is not really the general consensus, I think?

Nah that's their best.

[The Joker]

As cliche as it may be, I am a big fan of Dark Side of the Moon (and yes, I have heard their other albums).

[billiumbean]

I think the reason that it would be cliche to consider DSOTM to be your favorite is because the album is so well-embedded into people's souls.  Like how "everyone in the world has Frampton Comes Alive.  If you lived in the suburbs you were issued it."  People who go a step further and actually check out the rest of their discography are usually able to absorb those albums from an even perspective, as opposed to their this-is-my-dad's-music predispositions towards DSOTM.  At least, that's the impression I get from my own generation.

I'd like to think that by now people know better than to pretend they're big fans of Pink Floyd for the sake of earning street/indie cred.

[The Joker]

Agreed.

Gotta love Wayne's World.

[Thrillho]

See, I was a big fan of Dark Side at this point, but rather than some hipster reaction to it being everyone's favourite I just got sick of listening to it. It's so obvious that they made it for mass consumption, too. I like The Wall because it's so relentlessly obtuse an album that still sold like 30 million copies or something.

[billiumbean]

See, I was a big fan of Dark Side at this point, but rather than some hipster reaction to it being everyone's favourite I just got sick of listening to it. It's so obvious that they made it for mass consumption, too. I like The Wall because it's so relentlessly obtuse an album that still sold like 30 million copies or something.

"Another Brick In The Wall Pt. 2" is infested with executive meddling.  Luckily, it's the only case of "Hey, that song's good for radio but it sucks so change it" on the album.

If Pink Floyd had gone the way of Wilco at that point, there would be no war.  Guaranteed.