THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: 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.
-
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 ...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Yeah, 1994! is a pretty great band.
-
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.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVttLgDj5F8&fmt=18
There you go.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"technical virtuosity"
Then what are you doing listening to The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Aerosmith, and Guns N' Roses?
-
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.
-
"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.
-
If we're talking punk, I'd check out the Dead Milkmen.
-
Listened to Punk Rock Girl by them just now.
Loved the accordion. And hey, there was a guitar solo in there!
-
I'd start here:
http://www.mediaf!re.com/?6b4wcy9zb9z
-
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.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=mvo5xbfh
-
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!
-
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).
-
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.
-
Pop music is just short for "popular music."
I reccomend the Stooges' Funhouse.
it's like a bizarre mirror into the past
-
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
-
I've been wondering, what is the consensus round these parts on The White Stripes?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
These are the best 10 songs ever. Alphabetical order. No arguments.
Coil - Loves Secret Domain (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZhpIDs_VQ4)
Current 93 - A Song For Douglas After He's Dead (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br5UIiOr2-w)
Delia Derbyshire - Dr. Who Theme (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hI_CHOFY3Y)
Inkubus Sukkubus - Vampyre Erotica (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dte-u_lsmdc)
Judas Priest - Nightcrawler (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z2wzpfPFBlw)
Hawkwind - Hassan I Sabha (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEmnqqFO1Gs)
Simon & Garfunkel - The Boxer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnTa4t-Ssjc&feature=related)
Throbbing Gristle - Discipline (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8klW9trVTQ)
Venom - Bloodlust (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udBKbqeSgOg)
X-Ray Spex - Oh Bondage! Up Yours! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AS4bBEMT44)
-
I can provide an infinite number of ten best songs ever should it be required.
-
it is
-
ok.
Acid Bath - New Death Sensation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7HepvnVLhQ)
Adam and the Ants - Stand and Deliver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPgHbt0ODr4)
Burzum - Ea, Lord of the Depths (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ar624HUZOs)
Death in June - Rose Clouds of Holocaust (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhNJqWSgi8g)
Electric Wizard - Dunwich (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdW8lt6u4RY)
Ian Drury & The Blockheads - Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBLeVcP_JQg)
Misfits - Halloween (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Qt2zuMLi44)
The Pogues - The Sick Bed of Cuchulainn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcPIA6_zKX4)
Skyclad - Penny Dreadful (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOGvNLH47Q8&feature=related)
White Noise - The Black Mass: An Electric Storm in Hell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acGNlANCK-s&feature=related)
-
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.
-
...Black Flag...solos...
bad example
-
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"?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
I think they've picked up a bit of popularity more recently through Amy being in The Evens and formerly in Ted Leo/Rx
-
The Warmers are pretty amazing. Salut, MacKaye family!
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
-
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?
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
This thread is really starting to reinforce my criticism of music theory.
-
all you need to know about punk rock (http://www.myspace.com/6scum6sluts6)
-
No, this is all you need to know about Punk Rock. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOJRSpi0GOQ)
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.
-
You really can't go wrong with Flight of the Conchords.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
what if the vocals are screamed/shouted/not any paticular note (not out of tune)?
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJOZp2ZftCw).
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
...Um. Okay. Thanks for that relevant, worthwhile contribution?
-
No kidding.
-
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).
-
Barrett era Floyd>>>Waters era Floyd
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
Agreed.
Gotta love Wayne's World.
-
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.
-
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.