Rubby Checkers wrote:Why should the bass do what you say it should do? Could you explain why it sounds wrong, please?

Interpol's aesthetic is refined, determined and ruly. Wrong and right do exist within their bland tonal paradigm. Their music is utterly and proudly and shamelessly devoid of the dissonance that is essential to good music. Have you heard the note I am describing? The song abides by a simple theoretical structure. The bass's role is to play the root, then go up to the third then down to the fifth when the song modulates then up to the fifth's fifth. When he goes up to the fifth's fifth he does a little chromatic dance between E and D#. This failure of the G# to go up to A and similarly dance around with it is a MISTAKE!

Anyway I have so many other things to say in this thread but I must do some supplicating at the moment...I'll be back.

oh, and I meant to say: those Interpol bastards should be constitutionally forbidden to even think about playing augmented fourths. Although there's an interview with them on the matador website in which the bass player comes across as appealingly anachronistic--and his bandmates have to inforce a no depeche mode rule on him.

I think that there is a total difference in what is being talked about here. To me a mistake is an anomaly, a clam that occurs during the process of recording that can either augment or detract from the melody/harmony/beats being presented.

If the clam augments, then it is probably something that someone not intimate with the band would ever notice. These are the types of things that when sunk neck-deep in the midst of recording, you can beat yourself up about, even though it could be totally innocuous to the finished product

If the clam detracts, or to be clearer, is a negative, then it is up to the player and group at large (and perhaps producer etc) to decide if it needs punching, individual re-tracking, or group re-tracking.

If the clam isn't terribly bad, or out of context, then maybe it incorporates into the song, and perhaps the song gets played that way going forward.

I know all of this is terribly rudimentary, but I just want to distinguish this theme from that of the Interpol one.

Wrong and right do exist within their bland tonal paradigm. Their music is utterly and proudly and shamelessly devoid of the dissonance that is essential to good music.

The Interpol theme going on seems to claim that because a particular musical/tonal/rhythmic choice was made in the construction or execution of a song, and that choice is disagreeable to a listener, then it is a "mistake."

I'm hoping that I got it incorrectly, and the above quote from compatriot alex is entirely tongue in cheek.

Because if it is not then I'm going to have to have a good old rant about the definitions of "good" music.

Mr. Chimp wrote:I'm hoping that I got it incorrectly, and the above quote from compatriot alex is entirely tongue in cheek.

I'm reasonably sure that you are, in fact, correct. It is time for the debate to begin.

To say that Interpol made a mistake, because they played a song differently than their overall style has translated to you, is like saying that a film director made a mistake by not casting XXXX for the lead role in his new picture. Maybe it sucks, but the reasons why people don't like something always vary to a degree. Maybe the director feels like the actor he cast as his lead was the only thing he liked about the film. Anology aside, the members in a band are the only people who can point out a "mistake" in their musical arrangement. We are only allowed the crap/not crap judgement as listeners.

Only rhythmic mistakes can be called mistakes by someone other than a band member, but this is the reason why we book more than a take-per-song's time in the studio. A solid rhythmic structure is also the most discernable and relative characteristic of music that reaches the public pallet. This is the unfortunate reason that a shitty band like Interpol is popular.

We can talk more in depth on this next thread....

Okay, while:

1. the G# not going to A is wrong precisely because of its profound anomalousness in the context of Interpol's narrow, Western- music -theory- abiding aesthetic thereby violating criteria number 3 of allowable clams put forth in your clam - justification discussion.

2. There are very important distinctions that haven't yet been made here about what characterizes an out and out mistake versus what characterizes the "surprise" aspect of good music that was bandied about over there on the music dork thread.

3. An explication of the nature and appeal of this "surprise" aspect of music might unify our points of view.

4. I must give these issues the due deliberation that has been lacking in my spontaneous posts on this thread.

Nonetheless:

Mr. Chimp, Don Scimpanze, old friend, shirker of all Velvet Underground thread - responding duties, proselytizer of all Mike Nesmith solo 70's oeuvres: my tongue was nowhere near my cheek when I said that all good music contains dissonance and even if the above points cast doubt on the Interpol issue being a good example of the precise nature of our dischord it is equally possible that we have unintentionally stumbled upon a very crucial aspect or even the crux of our taste differences! Bring on the "good music" rant!

ahhh! Pre- empted by Jupiter again! How does he do that.

[correction, pre - empted again by someone whose name begins Ju]

Okay, there's good reason to split this thread but I don't think this one should die either...

What the fuck is an augmented 4th?

This type of talk loses me faster than a Timberwolves game.

Ike

an augmented 4th is a note, in relation to the root note, is technically out of key, but a lot of people do it on purpose.

Chris

Ike wrote:What the fuck is an augmented 4th?

This type of talk loses me faster than a Timberwolves game.

Ike

It is why you like music, my friend. Prepare to be convinced...

Try Yona - Kit's "Slice of Life" at maximum volume.

an augmented 4th isn't really outta key, it just sounds more appropriate in some sequences than in others

bass players do half-step things as passing tones all the time. i do it all the time and probably picked it up from peter hook of joy division and new order, unless it was jah wobble, unless it was james jamerson, unless it was wherever kim gordon picked it up. i think it's partly to create a pervasive and dramatic sense of unease in the music and partly to stave off boredom. if it's the latter, it's bound to be inappropriate at times.