Premier Rock Forum

Geez, Mike, I didn't mean for you to get all down about it.

Oh it's too late now. Im never posting again. Ive already puked seven times and Im getting a sex change.

itchy wrote:

Do you think that your musical training gives you some sort of advantageous platform for mucial critique?

to some degree, yes. not to say that untrained opinions are worthless, they just need to be educated. academic musical training is not for the hell of it. it serves a purpose and will give you insight unattainable elsewhere.

Ahh, but the same can be said for the musician who figures things out on their own. Approaching music with no point of reference except the instrument itself and the song in your head can yield results that are just as profound as those derived from music school alumni. To me, a songwriter/band who truly rocks, is someone who stays true to the music in their head, regardless of anything. I'm sure you'll probably disagree, but Radiohead strikes me as a band that tries to "improve" the music they write by making it over-elaborate. I remember back in high school when I first heard the song Creep, I thought it was very cool, and I still do, but after my friend bought the album and we gave it a listen front to back, and it sucked the wind right out of my sail. I got the same impression after I heard OK computer: Decent music with nearly every instant of rock originality buried amidst a contrived or "more intricate" arrangement. At any rate, "Just cause you feel it, doesn't mean its there."

I know a handful of people who have adctually admitted to wishing they never had classical training because it makes it more into a science rather than an art.

yes, ive heard this argument before...and while it is valid, it is only valid to a degree. the same can be said for non-classically trained musicians. without any musical sense, you could put a guitar, a piano, a conducting wand, or a piece of blank staff paper in front of someone and get the same bad results. honestly, everyone thinks that music is completely right-brained, and its not. conversely, many classically trained musicians go into left-brained mode after a certain amount of training. this is just as much of a trap as those who learn a handful of chords by ear, don't know any of their names, and then try to start a band. the problem with music today is that noone knows how to identify a real musician. am i trying to portray myself as that? not at all. but in my 4 years experience teaching guitar i have certainly learned how to spot potential. and that is not just ear potential or technical potential. it is a combination of both. and it is in this combination that your true success, as a band or as a classical musician, will be revealed. this is where i think that radiohead, as well as other bands, excel.

there's no substitute for listening intently, and listening intently is a fine substitute for a minor in music performance

honestly, this is a truly offensive remark, whether you intended it that way or not. my response is this. put that on a resume and see how it works.

EXPERIENCE: I listen intently to stuff.

hmmm....

What does schooling have to do with music?

I went to school for music composition and as I type this, I'm an office administrator and not-entirely-unknown musician. How has analysing Stockhausen helped me to achieve these goals?

if you feel it hasn't that's fine. but my response is that you are suffering from the same lack of connection that i mentioned earlier. but don't say that schooling has nothing to do with music. this mentality is already numbering the days of musicians, classically oriented and not, that have used their schooling in their music. if you don't use your schooling, the only one missing out is you. if you don't care, that fine. but don't say it's worthless.

-eric

Put "I have a minor in music performance" on a resume and see how THAT works. It may or may not, help you become an office administrator.

eric wrote:if you feel it hasn't that's fine. but my response is that you are suffering from the same lack of connection that i mentioned earlier. but don't say that schooling has nothing to do with music. this mentality is already numbering the days of musicians, classically oriented and not, that have used their schooling in their music. if you don't use your schooling, the only one missing out is you. if you don't care, that fine. but don't say it's worthless.

-eric

I get it now - I think you're confusing schooling with an education.

itchy wrote:the problem with music today is that noone knows how to identify a real musician.

No one?? Geez, fellas, what the hell are we doing wasting all this time and effort on this game? Appearantly, our efforts are in vain.


If I had to guess, I'd say you are probably really into jazz.

The classical world has an exponentially higher proportion of people who don't understand music than the "rock" world. The most esteemed performers in the classical world are merely the most robotic.

You did read the "music dork" thread didn't you?

At any rate, "Just cause you feel it, doesn't mean its there."

This is pretty much what I was originally trying to say. If Radiohead took themselves a little less seriously and consequently lightened up on their arrangements, their songs would be a lot more simple, but they would also be a lot more listenable. As it is now, Radiohead songs are pretty simple, but, as that one guy said, they're buried in these layers of faux-complexity, and once I've listened to a Radiohead song a few times and "figured it out," it's over for me. When I say that Radiohead makes "smart music for stupid people," I'm not calling Radiohead fans stupid, I just think that most Radiohead songs are deceptively simple, as if Thom Yorke is trying to get your attention with something that sounds complex but on repeated listenings doesn't hold up. It's the perfect "deep radio" music, really, and as I said, I don't mind hearing Radiohead stuff on the radio, because it's really fantastic music if you're not paying much attention.

And I don't know what Itchy was trying to get at with his "postmodernist" argument. He says that I hate postemodernism, then gives examples on how it's being ingrained in modern culture, and then explains how Radiohead expands on post-modernism... it seems kind of irrelevant. How can someone post in "opinionated blindness" on the Crap/Not Crap forums? Isn't that the point? I listened to Radiohead a lot, and I also listen to a lot of other music. I don't give half a dagnabbit what types of minor harmonic scales Radiohead plays in, because they're boring and pointless and not at all as deep as they seem.

And sorry if I seem like I took offense. I'm naturally a very angry person and ranting and raving at people on message boards is great stress relief for me. Although, to be fair, what I said was really no more rude than what you said, though I admit that I was more sarcastic.

michaeltheangryrussian wrote:Now I feel duped, although it could still be possible that York is total pre-maddona.

heh, in total agreement with you.