Premier Rock Forum

i'd like to know what in particular caused those nasty replies. is your world so small that you don't have space for another perspective?

me, john wrote:you don't need to know shit about music
to know about music.

that's the only reason it survives generation after generation. classical music can go fuck itself if you look at the bigger picture.

If you look real hard at the "bigger picture" above you might find the answer to your question.

The true test to end all tests!!!!

Can you look at a copy of The Wire and know more than 2 names on the front cover!

Gramsci wrote:The true test to end all tests!!!!

Can you look at a copy of The Wire and know more than 2 names on the front cover!

And not care about any of them!

Dylan wrote:

Gramsci wrote:The true test to end all tests!!!!

Can you look at a copy of The Wire and know more than 2 names on the front cover!

And not care about any of them!

Well met!

I'm considered by many to be a music snob. I don't argue with that assesment, or those who may express it, since the criteria I apply to music when listening is not that which other listeners may be sensing or evaluating.

I insist that the music I generally listen to be interesting, original (being the historical architype or developmental paradigm for a given style or 'genre'), and has some complexity and depth in either structure or texture.

In defining what music 'is', I generally think of music as a succession of organized sounds or tones that occupy space over time. There are sounds, of varying pitch and/or timbre, that occupy spaces in time and are separated by periods of silence or decay and are usually deliberate on the part of the composer or performer.

That leads to my first 'annoyance' about most 'popular' styles of music. Most people cannot or do not care to listen to music that does not contain singing with lyrics or words. To my way of thinking, music is an expression of intangible emotional, spiritual, or otherwise abstract 'impulses' that transcends what can be expressed through concrete, fixed cognition created by language. When someone adds words to music, the music is no longer an expression of the otherwise inexpressible, but merely an accompiament to someones linguistic statement - at it's most abstract; poetry with backup sounds. The focus becomes the ideas that are expressed in words with the music is merely atmosphere to try and give those words added expression (the sky in an 18th century landscape painting). This approach generally strikes me as anti-musical.

This is one of the reasons that over time I have grown to find rock music (and the various subgenres it encompasses) extremely boring. Not only do the words detract from the transcendence or oblivion sought by music, but the forms that music takes are now dictated by the structures imposed by the very non-abstract meanings of spoken language. Some other things that I find aggravating about rock and 'popular' styles in general:

-Fixed duple beats - usually around 120 bpm
-ABABA, or similar 'song' type structures
-Major/minor modluations and 3,4, & 5 chord progressions in fixed even measure structures that repeat or occurr in predictable patterns
-The idea that by changing an instrument's timbre slightly through some electronic modification, that you are creating something innovative and different; boring musical form/structure/rhythm is the same old shit no matter how many boxes you feed the guitar into - which leads to:
-The predominance of the guitar; an instrument that, when at it's best, has no effects changing its sound and is played by someone with a fair amount of discipline and skill. It is otherwise played by everyone, with true skill and innovation by very few, and can be pulled off with little dedication or discipline (a boon to its universal popularity)

The most ludicrous aspect to 'rock' styles is that the very thing that once made rock exciting - its recklessness and thwarting of convention - have all disappeard. Rock is now the most conventional (and popular) thing out there. Our parents and grandparents listen to it. Its been the predominant popular music style for almost 50 years. It's used to sell laundry detergent, salad dressing, and postage stamps. It must stand, then, on its own musical merit; which in my opinion it has little of. It can only be a matter of time until the banality of two guitars, three chords, and some whiney fuckface in 'cool' cloths and hair becomes obvious to anyone who can read this.

Even through its inception rock was not some cutting edge musical vangaurd, as much as it was a way for creepy or effemme guys in their 20's to get 14-16 year old girls to want to fuck them. Look at most of the early rock pioneers and this theory generally holds true.

That isn't to say that I hate rock music entirely, but that 99.9% of what's been done has already been done - over and over, or wasn't interesting to begin with. It's usually at its best when fun and self-parodying.

I find it amazing that so many self-proclaimed 'music lovers' would write off classical music becuase they find the idea of written structure or pedigree off-putting. Why is there such a consensus that musical ignorance or lack of mastery somehow conveys integrity or honesty? Most composers live or lived in obscurity, fought vigilantly for acceptance without compromise, worked solely for the love of what they did or do, and expect very little recognition or reward. On the other hand most rock musicians' impetus to play are the dreams of recognition, the attention of an audience, getting laid, and the money "when we get big", or "get our break".

Some of the best music, in my opinion, was written for orchestras and ensembles from the latter part of the 19th century through the better part of the 20th. These composers were innovative, uncompromising, and destroyed the 'rules' of form and harmony that had been established and rigidly enforced for the previous 250 years. Some of the most exciting rewarding listening are works by Debussy, Stravinsky, Bartok, Ravel, Satie, Schoenberg, Ligeti, and Penderecki - in addition to many dozens of others. A background in understanding music theory and composition is not so much important as is developing an ability to listen closely and let go of the preconceptions and expectations one generally has regarding form and structure.

Jazz is another wonderful style that has many of the same qualities as classical, but with a less formal, organized approach. It is uniquely American and its development and variations far more interesting and complex than rock and 'pop' styles. These are musicians who, much like their contemporary classical company, are disciplined and skilled musicians with a keen understanding of theory and composition. The demands placed upon its best practicianers are no less than those placed on its classical counterparts - yet there is not the prejudice against it that so many hold to classical.

There are so many sources of musical inspiration in the world. So many ethnic and traditional, classical (not just European, think Japanese, Javanese, Indian), and modern (Jazz, musique concrete, etc). It would be exciting to see aspiring music lovers and performers draw inspiration from deeper sources than the Beatles, Ramones, or Nirvana. I might just start buying new music more. That would certainly curtail my snobbish record collecting and historian's interest in the musical past.

I had a really long point-by-point argument for you, buddy, but the computer timed out before I could send it. Let me just say, briefly, that your snobbery doesn't come off as someone who has honed their listening skills through an extensive trawl through the collected history of music. You just prefer the order and logic of a contemporary classical piece rather than the order and logic of a contemporary rock piece. Classical music has been evolving for quite a lot longer, that's true, but if you lay the histories side by side, I think you'll find them to be roughly analogous. I have to go back to work now - you know, live in obscurity, fight vigilantly for acceptance without compromise, solely for the love of what I do, and expect very little recognition or reward.

First of all, I think you would be surprised by how many people do listen to instrumental and non-conventional (rock) music. You're not that special.

The chord progression you are looking for in paragraph six (to demonstrate the dull, repetitive, and overused structures in music) is:
I - IV - V (- I ). Not 3, 4, 5.

And I would have to really disagree with you on the fact that the guitar is a shite and limited instrument, and is easily played by everyone or anyone. Yeah, I agree, lots of things have been done. Lots of things have been done over and over and over. But there's a catch my friend. The guitar is reinivinted every once in a while. In the right hands, and with the right mind set and ideas... the guitar can take on a whole new persona.

Examples:

*Sonic Youth. Now I know they aren't the first to use alternate tunings, but i'll be damned if these guys didn't take the guitar to a new level and do things that had not been really done (in a sense). Lots of effects too, and at times, unconventional song writing and other approaches musically.

*Don Caballero. Once again, I know they weren't the first, but just a good example that everyone is familiar with. Guitar tapping and other 2-hand guitar techniques are showcased here. Using two hands to tap/play notes on the fret board allows the player to play any interval easily. There are many things you can do with this, that you cannot do with a pick and just one fretting hand. Also, very unconventional approach to song writing.

And these are bands of recent years. I'm not digging up fucking mummies here.

Now you don't have to necessarily like the music that these bands, and their predecessors make. But you should at least recognize what they have accomplished in terms of "musical originality" with the guitar.

So, case in point, I feel that there is progression being made with the guitar. And there is something still sacred about rock music. Something that's on the tip of everyones toungue. Something different, maybe not so necessarily "new" by some folks definition. I know there's a lot of trash music out there. And it's fucking depressing. Butt you can't say that all rock is dead.

XBangyDread wrote

The chord progression you are looking for in paragraph six (to demonstrate the dull, repetitive, and overused structures in music) is:
I - IV - V (- I ). Not 3, 4, 5.

I think the snob meant 'progressions with only 3, 4 or 5 chords'. It was written rather clumsily.

The more I think about this, the angrier I get. Can I just use one example?

The snob wrote:

That isn't to say that I hate rock music entirely, but that 99.9% of what's been done has already been done - over and over, or wasn't interesting to begin with. It's usually at its best when fun and self-parodying.

Fun and self-parodying rock music's a hoot, isn't it? And P.D.Q. Bach isn't a fucking chore to listen to, is it? I mean, Weird Al is the best thing about rock music to you? Or The Rutles? Is not Slayer's _Reign In Blood_ the most fun you can have listening to music? How about _Pet Sounds_?

I'll get back to you in a bit.

>>This is one of the reasons that over time I have grown to find rock music (and the various subgenres it encompasses) extremely boring.

not to lose track of the thread or anything, but does anyone else have a big problem with calling things 'boring?' i can't remember the last time i was bored. i was in a van for 2500mi. last week, and i was never bored. what is there to be bored about? we all have brains, right? can't we just...think? things happen around you and you think about them. how can anything make you bored? i don't get it.

>>Our parents and grandparents listen to it. Its been the predominant popular music style for almost 50 years. It's used to sell laundry detergent, salad dressing, and postage stamps.

one point we can agree on is the hateability of 'rocksurround,' as richard meltzer calls it. meeting something halfway is always more fun than being forcefed.

>>It must stand, then, on its own musical merit; which in my opinion it has little of. It can only be a matter of time until the banality of two guitars, three chords, and some whiney fuckface in 'cool' cloths and hair becomes obvious to anyone who can read this.

mystifying oversimplification

brian eno pointed this fact out many years ago, and it's stuck with me ever since, b/c it's so magnificently true:

there are endless numbers of rock bands whose music can be id'ed by even casual listeners after only a few seconds of exposure. i have a friend who can id the sludgiest crap off FM radio in nanoseconds. he once got 'radar love' off the slightest hint of the wrrrroWWH at the beginning. i often ID bands with whom i'm barely familiar from snippets overheard on college radio, and these aren't even good bands.

hardly anyone on the planet can do this reliably with classical music or jazz

this is not solely b/c rock music is so pervasive that we cannot escape, whether or not that is true. not every band has its music played in the gap and on tv commercials. it is b/c rock music and the electric guitar in particular provide musicians with an INCREDIBLY broad palette of sound, far broader and capable of distinction than that of a typical orchestra or a jazz group of whatever size. by focusing on compositional elements, lyrics, etc. you are missing 90% of the real action. which might explain your disenchantment with the medium.