Fun Stuff > BAND
What Makes a Classic?
saturnine1979:
what what what?
"Let's be honest here...50% of all music on albums are filler"
I don't know what kind of shit music you listen to, but most of the albums I own are not 50% filler, and I'm pretty darn sure most bands "give a damn" about the songs they put on an album. Hell, even the B-sides are important to some bands. One of Billy Corgan's favorite songs by the Pumpkins was a B-side.
"No music is "new" anymore.."
That's bullshit. It's been repeated so many times that everyone thinks it's true, and everyone thinks it makes them sound intelligent about music. It's bullshit. There IS such a thing as new music. There's instruments and recording techniques that have developed with both technology and experimentation and they aren't just rehashing old tricks. It's out there. Just look.
On a final note, just because other bands claim they were influenced by another band doesn't make that other band great by any means. I'm sure there's tons of shitty, developing nu-metal bands who claim Nickelback or Three Doors Down as influence. I'm sure there's tons of little girls who claim Britney as their influence. It doesn't really matter.
As for the Mars Volta vs. Modest Mouse (or not even versus): that's a matter of your own tastes. It's easy to claim the Mars Volta are influential because you like them, but your personal tastes are just a fraction of the thoughts that go into deeming an album "classic".
sp2:
--- Quote from: Merkava ---Dark Side of the Moon had major filler. Let's point out the beginning of Time and that twiddly instrumental track that has that same rythm throughout, etc.
--- End quote ---
Only if you consider anything outside of "verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus" to be filler. By filler I'm talking about entire songs which are obviously poorly written and the musicians don't care because they were just trying to fill up an album.
As for Saturnine....
On no album will you find that the musicians put equal effort into every song. There will be some songs they put noticeably less effort into and others they put noticeably more effort into. There are songs where they obviously cared a lot about it and really polished it. There are others that they clearly didn't. This doesn't mean they don't like the songs. It means they did not place the same level of dedication into some of their songs that they put into others. If the level of effort put into a song is exceedingly minimal compared to others, it is probably filler. Doesn't mean it can't have emotional significance, but it's still below par comppared to the rest of a band's output.
50% of the music out there is probably filler. Including indie music. Perhaps even especially indie music.
As for there being new things....sorry, but there really isn't. So yeah, let's say I start writing punk with the lead guitarist playing an electric ukelele instead of a guitar. Yeah, that must be new, right? No, not really. Jazz, that was new. The chords and chord progressions Beethoven used, that was new. Tchaikovsky's cannonfire in the 1812 overture, that was new. Guitar distortion as sound in the Velvet Underground, that was new. Punk, that was new. Beat poetry, that was new. But accordion metal? No, that's cynical recombination of existing musical themes to create the impression of appearing new.
/postmodernist
I never said influence was a part of being a good album. I said influence was a part of being a CLASSIC album. You are wrong to equate the two. The Downward Spiral, by NIN, is pretty much commercialized shit. Yes, it is, get over it. Doesn't mean it's not a classic album. Is Korn's Issues a good album? No, not really. Is it classic? Yes. Is Trail of Dead's Source Tags and Codes a good album? Hell fucking yeah. Is it classic? No. Did Madonna put out any classic albums? Yes, but that doesn't mean she doesn't suck Satan's pecker.
Or maybe I should spell it out more clearly. U2 sucks. Joshua Tree is a classic album. The Pixies, although I enjoy them immensely, are subpar musicians (ohshit heresy flame flame flame), but Doolittle and Surfer Rosa are classic albums. The Beach Boys suck, but their stuff is classic.
Quality does not equate to classic. Classic does not mean quality. Period.
I am claiming that the Mars Volta are highly influential because that's the way it is. Modest Mouse is influential within the portion of the indie community which is too pretentious to like mainstream but not pretentious enough to realize they ARE mainstream. Outside the indie community, the only Modest Mouse anyone's ever heard is "Float On" which was a subpar single at best.As for the Mars Volta, every drummer I know has an opinion on them. Many musicians I know from various schools of music, from straight jazz to indie to punk to metal to prog to alt rock to hip-hop all have an opinion on them. I know many bands from MANY genres which consider them an influence. Everyone has an opinion on their live show (either they love it or hate it, but they have an opinion).
Do I like Mars Volta better than Modest Mouse? Yes. For sure. But there are plenty of bands I like a lot less that I'd still consider more influential (Weezer, for example....god, I hate that band) and who've put out more classic albums than Deloused. But in twenty years, people will still be dropping acid and listening to Deloused and people will remember Modest Mouse as a one-hit wonder.
ColdSteelRain:
A classic has to influence a lot of people. A classic has to have more or less universal appeal. And there is no such thing as an instant classic. Classics have to continue to be accessable to people after time has passed.
In my opinion something can be a classic with in its own genre or a more wide spread classic. Also when I say it has to have more or less universal appeal I don't expect every one to like but the majority of people have to either like or at least respect it.
Johnny C:
So, sp2, you're saying that being a classic neccessitates idiot stoners sitting around in a dark basement declaring that whatever they're listening to is good shit, man?
Kai:
--- Quote from: sp2 ---
On no album will you find that the musicians put equal effort into every song. There will be some songs they put noticeably less effort into and others they put noticeably more effort into. There are songs where they obviously cared a lot about it and really polished it. There are others that they clearly didn't. This doesn't mean they don't like the songs. It means they did not place the same level of dedication into some of their songs that they put into others. If the level of effort put into a song is exceedingly minimal compared to others, it is probably filler. Doesn't mean it can't have emotional significance, but it's still below par comppared to the rest of a band's output.
--- End quote ---
I direct you towards every single thing that Zappa has ever done ever. He took a shitload of time writing each and every song, composing it, if you will. Sure, some songs took less time to produce, but does that automatically make them filler? Some songs are shorter, and therefore would possibly take less time to write than longer ones. But this does not make them filler material. Also, the guy wrote music just for the sake of writing music. It's what he did. And I can bet you that there are a plethora of other artists that do this as well.
Also, Modest Mouse does suck. Kudos to SP2.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version