ironyengine wrote:

Sharkfinnedshitgrenade wrote:The Minutemen covering Dr. Wu. Not Crap.

I would actually really like to hear this.

It's on Double Nickels

vockins wrote:You could take a time machine to 1200 BC, post up next to some Hittites waiting in line to pay tribute to their city's patron god, and you're holding some instruments appropriate to the era, cover "Rikki Don't Lose That Number" and nobody would fucking blink.

ironyengine wrote:I would actually really like to hear this.

I'm a big fan of Steely Dan's music and I always have been.

In my opinion, those '70's lite-rock signifiers -- the Rhodes pianos, the goofy glasses and outfits, the ultra-smooth, inoffensive, nearly Muzak-like delivery -- are all the more incredible because, in this case, they're attached to songwriters of great talent. It boggles my mind how anyone could lump this stuff in with Elton John, or James Taylor, or others of that breed.

Before I heard them, I would never have believed that I could enjoy a band that carries those signifiers. Like, the only stuff from that period I really enjoy are the New York punk bands, Eno's albums, and the Roxy Music stuff. But Steely Dan dropped me on my ass. I was humbled when I realized just how great they were. They were the trailblazers during what was possibly the direst handful of years that rock has ever seen (like '72-'76).

All I can say is that the proof is in the pudding. They understood how to use solos judiciously, how to play weird jazz-chords and place them in utterly apt spots, and how to deliver a vocal melody with charisma.

I've never paid attention to the lyrics, so I don't know whether or not they would detract from my appreciation of the band.

Steely Dan is an aberration. According to all relevant data, I should hate them. But I do not. They are incredible.

steve wrote:The other way, as exemplified by Steely Dan, Brian Wilson, Prince, Talk Talk, My Bloody Valentine and quite a few others, is to start in on a specific instance of the art, say a recording, to be presented publicly as an ambassador/avatar of genius. The conceptual framework may be quite weak at the outset, and the whole work is expected to be developed in the process of making it.

The cliche about this approach is that the artist doesn't know exactly what he's trying to do, but knows it will be great. He then proceeds to do things (or make other people do things), in a kind of monkey typewriting, rejecting them serially until he is pleased with the progress.

This requires many attempts, much revision and direction of other performers in service of the avatar that is at least exploitative, if not abusive. It is also apparent that such work can go on indefinitely.

Steve, are you essentially saying here that something recorded in a studio is always potentially good, yet something created in the studio with the sole purpose of standing alone purely as a recorded work, will be divorced from this potential from the outset? Do you think music can ever be good if there is no intention of it being performed live in public? Personally, I don't really care how something was made so long as what comes out of the speakers is good.

In real time=good. Not in real time=bad? Don't you think it could be just as likely that the recording process may be stretched out due to the artist knowing exactly what results they are after, and not settling for anything less? Or if not, when you have no doubt encountered this yourself, how and when does it become apparent that this persons expectations are exceeding their actual abilities? I do worry that I suffer from this myself, hence my questioning, yet isn't it potentially reductionist to not attempt to exceed your own abilities, to push yourself?

I would never even bother playing a record, let alone handing money over for it, unless I thought it was the work of a perfectionist.

My point is that the effort spent "perfecting" a record by retards is evidence of a substandard foundational idea -- good ideas need much less attention from retards to be palatable.

Since I'm interested in the ideas behind the music at least as much as the mere sound coming out of the speakers, I allow myself to remain unimpressed by the tits and eyebrows of the presentation.

Am I making myself clear? I don't think the presentation of good ideas is that important to the end result. As a corollary, meticulous (retard) perfectionism with respect to the presentation is irrelevant in redeeming substandard ideas.

I have no respect for this kind of delusion, and I think the evidence is there that it makes for shitty, self-obsessed, superficial records.

Itchy McGoo wrote:It's the soundtrack to opening your package from Hair Club for Men commercial.

My ears are burning...

Isabelle Gall wrote:Personally, I don't really care how something was made so long as what comes out of the speakers is good.

Exactly.

If one can appreciate writing as an art form, he should be able to appreciate pieced-together music.

I always enjoyed Steely Dan for their music and lyrics, regardless of the process. Their most sterile (and certainly not best) album, Gaucho, has a bizarre atmosphere that is probably a consequence of the process, however, and in my opinion it helps enhance the experience of listening to that record, or at least gives it a unique character.

There´s always some stereotype you can fit anything you don´t like into, which probably makes for better (or at least more involved) discussions, but will hardly encompass all there is to an artist, and will always miss completely the point of what is there to enjoy about them.

steve wrote:My point is that the effort spent "perfecting" a record by retards is evidence of a substandard foundational idea -- good ideas need much less attention from retards to be palatable.

Since I'm interested in the ideas behind the music at least as much as the mere sound coming out of the speakers, I allow myself to remain unimpressed by the tits and eyebrows of the presentation.

Isn't the sound coming out of the speakers the very representation and fundamental essence of the ideas behind the music, arguably the listeners sole exposure to them? I would certainly hope that this is the case. I honestly don't how/why 'perfectionism' for you equals 'glockenspiel overdub' yet not microphone choice/placement, or why wanting to perfect or realise an aspect of the sound is detrimental to the actual compositional worth.

When you say a recording is a 'specific instance' of the art, what are the potential other instances other than live performance?

Hello.
First of all, I hate Steely Dan. Never saw the point. To me, just the worst of the 70s - this is by a guy who admits to owning a Bells LP & being a big fan of The Poppy Family. Steely Dan seem emotionless, so smooth as to be dull, and stupid. Jeff Baxter had the ultimate bass player facial hair pre-Greg Norton, however. For that, I acknowledge the pioneers.

Steve's argument here on studio perfectionism though...I think have interesting discussion points.

steve wrote:My point is that the effort spent "perfecting" a record by retards is evidence of a substandard foundational idea -- good ideas need much less attention from retards to be palatable.

Is it _always_ evidence, is my first question? Studio perfectionism always equals 'substandard foundational idea'? I'm not arguing that the equation can't be so ever, or even in the case of Steely Dan - but ALWAYS? Just like there are some forms of art that demand passion over precision, isn't there some forms of art that demand precision? For instance, isn't an (easy) example of perfectionism "Everyone hitting the notes at the same time"? My rock combo, for instance...we can hit a bum note once in awhile, and no one will think "This bands sucks because they can't play" - if they like what we're doing, they'll overlook/understand, and if they don't like what we're doing, it'll be long decided before they hear the bum note! But a performance of say, Debussy's "Syrinx" on flute, if the player suddenly hits a terrible note, pauses, and then just jumps right back in ROCK-STYLE, that's surely noticeable and for the sake of the music will rightfully insist they do another take.
And then there's "studio" perfectionism - getting all the right performances in sync with the strictist metronome, sweating over arrangements and mixes for days, months on end...earlier you mentioned specifics, like Prince, Brian Wilson, and MBV. I think each case is a different example, but all 3 I think knew exactly what they wanted their end product to sound like. Kevin Shields and Loveless is probably the prime thought in people's minds, perhaps, and a good example by what I mean by 'end product' - MBV put out 12"s while recording Loveless and I always see those records in particular as sort of 'quickie' methods of his process - it's the same thing, but Loveless achieves that sound at it's ultimate, so (despite how you feel about 'the sound') surely that's what he was working towards? (I actually just read the 33 1/3 book about Loveless, and people always think it was recorded in one studio for years, but it was actually a whole bunch of little studios, when they could afford or have the time to do it, with a lot of time wasted on transferring formats of tracks, calibrating yet another tape machine, etc) Surely it is possible that someone could conceive of something 'out of the air' that would demand new and arduous methods of recording? Reminds me slightly of the James Joyce discussion, where Joyce's stylistics were demanded by the artistic themes he wished to get across - many people think, for instance, he was just being an arty little prick when writing Finnegans Wake but it would be impossible to write that "book of the dark" in plain English. Isn't the idea of a musical analogy at least realistic, even if it's not your cup of tea (just like some people don't want a 'book of the dark'!)

I think it's unfair to think of Prince as a studio perfectionist...just wanted to say that as well. With the loads and loads of stuff he has in the vaults...I bet during his peak years he was probably recording an album's worth of material a month. It wouldn't surprise me. Then he picks and chooses the songs/tracks/whatever he thinks work the best. I also think working in a one-man band format as he did you pretty much have to be really dead on to do it anywhere near the justice that a band would. Stevie Wonder is someone who also had meticulous one-man band records....

Anyway, remember the whole 'song/band' argument? It sounds like Steve is actually arguing for song this time around. Replace 'good idea' with 'song'.

steve wrote:Am I making myself clear? I don't think the presentation of good ideas is that important to the end result. As a corollary, meticulous (retard) perfectionism with respect to the presentation is irrelevant in redeeming substandard ideas.

Of course I really don't want to put words in his mouth. A 'good idea' can be just that...some sort of 'good idea', with the 'songs' just being the way to get them out in the open (Ramones had an 'idea' about rock music and wrote a lot of 'songs' to fit that particular mold - for instance).

steve wrote:I have no respect for this kind of delusion, and I think the evidence is there that it makes for shitty, self-obsessed, superficial records.

There's a lot of things that make for shitty, self-obsessed superficial records. Studio perfectionism does, certainly. But I don't see studio perfectionism ALWAYS causing those kinds of records.

Apologies to Steve, I hope I'm not coming off like an asshole.

Isabelle Gall wrote:Isn't the sound coming out of the speakers the very representation and fundamental essence of the ideas behind the music, arguably the listeners sole exposure to them?

Music is more than the sound used as a vehicle to experience it. Good music is, anyway. The sound matters, but it doesn't matter a lot compared to everything else involved. You love your mother, so you love her voice speaking your name. Even distorted, long distance over the telephone it has this effect on you. There's more in the sound than the sound itself, and the nature of the sound hardly matters compared to what else it conveys.

I would certainly hope that this is the case. I honestly don't how/why 'perfectionism' for you equals 'glockenspiel overdub' yet not microphone choice/placement, or why wanting to perfect or realise an aspect of the sound is detrimental to the actual compositional worth.

Having things sound nice isn't necessarily bad, it just doesn't matter that much to me, unless it is the only thing I'm responsible for, which is often the case. Then I try my damndest. When I see someone obsessed with a particular sound or performance subtlety or production detail, when there are other, more substantial omissions unrepented, I can tell that the train is off the tracks.

Steely Dan seems like the Babe Ruth of this kind of nit-picking, and their music betrays every quality I dislike about it.

When you say a recording is a 'specific instance' of the art, what are the potential other instances other than live performance?

Well, great art is not the artifacts, but the cumulative effect of the arc of a career. Anybody too hung up on one album, one song, one overdub, one chorus, one line, one word, one note... he's mistaking the artifact for the real thing, and he's trying to fool people with it.

It's basically a bluff.

Trot a naked woman into your bedroom, and you'll either be turned on by her or not. There's no chance that if you get out a jeweler's loupe and examine her in microscopic detail, that you will become aroused once you realize she has no moles and is wearing diamond dust as makeup. The moles and makeup are irrelevant, and anybody being a perfectionist over the moles and makeup is ignoring the obvious.