tocharian wrote:As for rock is kitsch, I amend my statement. Most rock I care about is kitschy/campy (which is really what I meant). The rest is just math rock.

Ok, that's petulant and stupid.

I just re-read the whole thread (save for where the discussion turns to banning Rick) and it's really not that bad. Actually, the vast majority of it is pretty great—a lot of extremely thoughtful people taking a lot of care to explain their thinking about music.

In all honesty, rock is kitsch… an argument cooked up on the fly to fight back against what I perceived to be a granite-hard ideology about how music should be made. Now I'm thinkin it’s probably not a very good idea to generalize from one’s own responses to music a set of rules for what is and isn’t permissible in terms of composition and instrumentation. At least that’s the lesson I’ve learned.

Sorry if this doesn’t matter to anyone much but me at this point, but this was a fairly upsetting experience that’s kinda stayed with me. And sorry Nina for the cataclysmic reaction to some rather minor picking-on.

Shake on it?

tocharian wrote:rock is kitsch… an argument cooked up on the fly to fight back against what I perceived to be a granite-hard ideology about how music should be made.

You have yet to admit that this part is bullshit and a figment of your imagination. It would go a long way toward establishing that you are capable of complex thought if you would admit that nobody has this granite hard ideology you invented so you could fight back against it.

as someone who makes electronic music, and also as someone who hates the vast majority of it (just like any genre), these are my thoughts:

1. the record is not as good as the critics and yea-sayers make it out to be. its a definite not crap, but beyond that...meh.

2. burial is extremely self referential. its ABOUT relatively obscure forms of dance music, and thus without knowledge of those sub-genres it can easily be seen as yet more pointless drivel.

3. but, with knowledge of its references (uk garage, two step, drum and bass), the record definitely is something more than just a casual listen. to me garage was always club music at its worst: bad synth 'leads', stupid lyrics about "feeling the music", but i always wanted to like it because i thought it was rhythmically interesting. the genre got its much needed funeral, and burial dug it up five years later to see what was left. imo, all the shitty parts rotted away and left the good stuff.

4. after listening to it for a while, i noticed that it really invoked a certain atmospheric presence...gritty, urban, late night, desolate city streets. later i read an interview where he said something to the effect that untrue is the sound of late night london after everyone's gone to bed. so as far as artist's intent matches the output, he hit the nail on the head.

5. its 75% about rhythm. for people who prefer their music to be melody-centric then its a futile exercise. like a wagner fan trying to get into a hippie drum circle. which leads to...

6. its repetitive as hell. so if you don't like one song, you're bound to hate it all.

so umm yeah. not crap for me...but i 100% understand its crap-ability for most folks.

Didn't he do that by throwing the word "perceived" in there?

givemenoughrope wrote:Didn't he do that by throwing the word "perceived" in there?

Well, she. But yeah, that's how I read it.

Edit: I'd have been curious to see a response to this post of mine, but there wasn't one.

Maurice wrote:

givemenoughrope wrote:Didn't he do that by throwing the word "perceived" in there?

Well, she. But yeah, that's how I read it.

Edit: I'd have been curious to see a response to this post of mine, but there wasn't one.

I don't think you're point was vague enough.

tocharian wrote:In all honesty, rock is kitsch… an argument cooked up on the fly to fight back against what I perceived to be a granite-hard ideology about how music should be made.

With just a little tweaking, this could be "Rock is an argument cooked up on the fly," which I kind of like.

Brinkman wrote:

Maurice wrote:

givemenoughrope wrote:Didn't he do that by throwing the word "perceived" in there?

Well, she. But yeah, that's how I read it.

Edit: I'd have been curious to see a response to this post of mine, but there wasn't one.

I don't think you're point was vague enough.

Yeah, that'd be a problem, I guess. How about this: "What about the...you know, the thing? What about that, huh?"

edit.

Aha!

This is like meeting a very fat, thickly bearded, and garrulous old friend that I haven't seen in a while.

Hello, friend!