Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: May 18 2009 at 13:36 |
That post reminds me: I've read about a book called Kill Your Idols where various music critics each criticize an album that's seen as a classic but they don't like, and one of them criticizes Led Zeppelin's fourth album... apparently his main point is that he pretended to like that album to get close to a girl back in the seventies!
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
el dingo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 08 2008
Location: Norwich UK
Status: Offline
Points: 7053
|
Posted: May 17 2009 at 07:17 |
I've read this thread in detail from start to finish this morning (okay the Mrs is threatening to leave me again and this time I guess she means it so I wanted something to take my mind off things). What stands out to me is that with what is essentially a speculative topic nobody can be right or wrong. 90 per cent of these posts here just prove that all of us CARE enough to have an opinion.
Music/culture call it what you will - there will always be such an element of flock-joining influenced by peer pressure that the true individual is nearly always subjugated from the start .
As Dean and a couple of others have heavily hinted at already - in the 70s you could love your prog as much as you liked but it would never help you pull a girl at a disco. If you met a girl at one and she liked prog too the two of you would never go to a disco again - until you broke up and wanted to go on the hunt individually again of course. And that ain't changed much.
CALL ME SIMPLISTIC BUT THE LINK BETWEEN MUSIC AND "HAVING A GOOD TIME" has always been fundamental. I KNOW that those who like pop music alone have no care for who made it, the lyrics, the motivation, the integrity - all the things us proggers regale - they just wanna bump 'n' grind.
HAS NO-ONE ELSE HERE EVER PRETENDED TO LIKE A BAND A BOOK OR A FILM THEY ACTUALLY HATE TO PULL A GIRL? I know i have.
What the future is I don't know but you can guarantee that the axis at the hub of it will be the moneymen selling to youth culture. Profit, music, exploitation and culture are inseperable.
Mind you, I thought my musical life was over when The Clash split
We'll never anticipate what will happen musically in the future merely by considering the music. Life ain't like that, regrettably.
|
It's not that I can't find worth in anything, it's just that I can't find worth in enough.
|
|
weetabix
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 20 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 170
|
Posted: May 16 2009 at 07:58 |
I can't help but feel that Rock Music has all but died and to quote Little Stevie Van Zant, "all we have now are 2nd hand riffs, 2nd hand culture, hand me down emotions of today".The past renaissance of rock started w/ Rocket 88 Ike Turner in 1951, Then possibly ended w/ Exile on Main Street, The came Rocks Swan Song in the form of the Ramones, all that new music the innovation of the past, the fun, the fun, the last generation to have an identity of it's own was the Grunge movement of the early 90's.All of that will never be equaled I am so fortunate to have been in the centre of it all. But this is just my opinion.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: May 15 2009 at 08:38 |
spookytooth wrote:
Rock music will become much more niche market. Artists we listen to, mainstream or not, have much more varied influences in their music nowadays than compared to the past. There are a plethora of more music genres nowadays and musically, everyone in every field is much more open to experimentation than in the past. Music is becoming more and more varied. Rock music is evolving into a different stage, much like how classical music has gone through different stages (Baroque, Romantic, Neo-Classical), Rock music as a whole is old enough and mature enough to be evolving into a different stage...
...When I say rock music, I mean pretty much all popular music, because it's been influenced by, one way or another, the rock music and musicians of the past.
|
Do you honestly believe that modern artists are more adventurous than they were in the past ? This beggars belief surely ? We live in the most conservative and conformist age that music has ever gone through since the 50's ! They didn't come up the name 'underground' by accident as the greatest progress that has been made in popular music happened when the so-called niche esoteric markets became mainstream i.e. progs golden years from 69 to 75 and post punk from 78 to circa 81. (When the money men were convinced their investment would bring a return).
|
|
SmithRoxy
Forum Newbie
Joined: April 27 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3
|
Posted: May 04 2009 at 03:52 |
I love music.As for the ingegrity of the music itself...well, it is the listener's interaction with the music....
/admin edit - spam removed
Edited by Dean - May 04 2009 at 04:02
|
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: May 03 2009 at 11:05 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
And how does using it in a different context compromise the integrity of the music itself? The game is still music for music's sake. I would like to know if you like Guitar Hero, if you don't kudos to you; you play a hell of a Devil's advocate.
As for the ingegrity of the music itself...well, it is the listener's interaction with the music- its not as if someone is reading sheet music and producing the sound from one's instrument; the intended sound already exists and whether one hits the right combination of 5 buttons determines whether the song comes out in carbon copy or not. It is essentially one playing along to a CD and determining what the CD produces. Now is when you may throw the gauntlet down and ask 'what is the difference between that and listening to a CD' and break my spirit.
It is just a game, yes, and a nice way to expose people to new music, but I just never was attracted to it (and I played one of them through). I just feel it leads people to not understanding and appreciating the music fully; thus, when they hear a song from the game in a different context, they aren't thinking 'Wow what incredible depth and texture, or this makes me feel depressed" but rather "Yeah this is on Guitar Hero."
And before music was recorded, only rich people could afford to go hear the orchestras play Beethoven's new composition, which made it even more of a luxury than it is today. I accept your point about overexposure, but you are vastly overstating its impact. More people love music now that they can listen to it whenever they want and get gigs of it for free from the internet. Although this is tangential to both luxury and Guitar Hero, unless you are operating on a very different definition of the word...
I probably didn't word something properly
I was looking at it more as a luxury one takes for granted. I do agree with the statement about the aristocrats having the luxury of getting sole exposure to the music (was thinking about that myself). But even lower classes had similar exposure to music, albeit in a much different way. I would think this is the origin of folk music and the like.
I'm as serious as cancer. Me too...
|
Edited by mr.cub - May 03 2009 at 11:05
|
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: May 03 2009 at 02:12 |
And how does using it in a different context compromise the integrity of the music itself? The game is still music for music's sake.
And before music was recorded, only rich people could afford to go hear the orchestras play Beethoven's new composition, which made it even more of a luxury than it is today. I accept your point about overexposure, but you are vastly overstating its impact. More people love music now that they can listen to it whenever they want and get gigs of it for free from the internet. Although this is tangential to both luxury and Guitar Hero, unless you are operating on a very different definition of the word...
I'm as serious as cancer.
fuxi wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Music has always been a luxury, when was it otherwise? | Music has not always been a commodity. It HAS always been intimately connected with rituals which express the deepest desires of mankind. |
That is true, but I think ritual music has a completely different purpose and so is removed from the discussion. He is talking about sitting down and listening to music, which is inherently a luxury. Only the relatively wealthy have the means to devote a significant amount of time to music soley for relaxation.
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: May 02 2009 at 18:28 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
So what if the music was created for a different purpose? I doubt the Rolling Stones are upset that their music is being enjoyed in a different manner--isn't the enjoyment what's important? I doubt they care if they are making money; but doesn't that seem like an issue when looking at the original context of making music for music's sake: not for money.
Music has always been a luxury, when was it otherwise?Anytime before music could be recorded. Today, music is at anyones fingertips and they are exposed to it more than ever. Would you enjoy something like say the stars to a much higher degree if they only came out once a month? Certainly. The fact that they come out every night certainly lessens the effect on an apathetic individual. The same thing with music; there was a time when people sat down and listened to music. Today, its simply background noise for the majority people as they go about their daily routine.
Dodging the point with a joke won't help you. Oh well, it wasn't like the question was serious...apparently I was killing you with my naivety
Good for you, but the fact remains that music magazines exist, and they shape the readers' opinions in a much more direct way that Guitar Hero setlist choices, so don't act as if people being sheep (or people like us perceiving others as sheep) is anything new. |
Edited by mr.cub - May 02 2009 at 18:29
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: May 02 2009 at 03:53 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Music has always been a luxury, when was it otherwise? |
Music has not always been a commodity. It HAS always been intimately connected with rituals which express the deepest desires of mankind.
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: May 02 2009 at 01:06 |
mr.cub wrote:
Henry Plainview wrote:
Hahahahaha, I wish I could express to you how ridiculous you are, but words fail me. IT IS JUST A GAME! It is not a big deal! Well, I do feel quite ridiculous right now.
The music was originally created for a different purpose, however vague and intangible. To say music has become a luxury in this day and age is not far from the truth. Sorry, but I prefer Tiger Woods' 05 when it comes to games...
You're killing me, man, haven't you ever heard of singles before? And music magazines? Are we taking about singles on E-Harmony or Match.com?
As for music magazines, I've bought one in my entire life...I'd rather not read another |
|
So what if the music was created for a different purpose? I doubt the Rolling Stones are upset that their music is being enjoyed in a different manner--isn't the enjoyment what's important?
Music has always been a luxury, when was it otherwise?
Dodging the point with a joke won't help you.
Good for you, but the fact remains that music magazines exist, and they shape the readers' opinions in a much more direct way that Guitar Hero setlist choices, so don't act as if people being sheep (or people like us perceiving others as sheep) is anything new.
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: May 01 2009 at 14:37 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Hahahahaha, I wish I could express to you how ridiculous you are, but words fail me. IT IS JUST A GAME! It is not a big deal! Well, I do feel quite ridiculous right now.
The music was originally created for a different purpose, however vague and intangible. To say music has become a luxury in this day and age is not far from the truth. Sorry, but I prefer Tiger Woods' 05 when it comes to games...
You're killing me, man, haven't you ever heard of singles before? And music magazines? Are we taking about singles on E-Harmony or Match.com?
As for music magazines, I've bought one in my entire life...I'd rather not read another |
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: May 01 2009 at 02:13 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
Hahahahaha, I wish I could express to you how ridiculous you are, but words fail me. |
Aren't you being a little harsh? Guy's just expressing a reasonable view...
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 21:39 |
It's guitar hero. Not classic rock guitar hero. It's good that they have something to please everybody. I don't think the designers expect anyone to like EVERY song on the setlist. I never expressed the desire to want it to be classic rock guitar hero. Personally, if I want to listen to a song that pleases me I am not going to go play it on Rock Band or Guitar Hero; I'm going to listen to it on my own time. The entire philosophy of the game pollutes the experience that is truly listening to music; sadly in this day and age, true appreciation for music is rare. |
Hahahahaha, I wish I could express to you how ridiculous you are, but words fail me. IT IS JUST A GAME! It is not a big deal!
ITunes had a song from Guitar Hero like 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' on album only; buyers didn't care about the rest of Sticky Fingers- inarguarable one of the Stones' best recordings. They just wanted that one song, completely ignorant to the fact that the rest of the album is equally good. The game seems to narrow people's focus and seems to spoon-feed people into what is good in the rock genre. |
You're killing me, man, haven't you ever heard of singles before? And music magazines?
Edited by Henry Plainview - April 30 2009 at 21:43
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 16:33 |
boo boo wrote:
So you frown upon guitar hero because it has a diverse setlist? When that setlist is mediocre at times: yes
It's guitar hero. Not classic rock guitar hero. It's good that they have something to please everybody. I don't think the designers expect anyone to like EVERY song on the setlist. I never expressed the desire to want it to be classic rock guitar hero. Personally, if I want to listen to a song that pleases me I am not going to go play it on Rock Band or Guitar Hero; I'm going to listen to it on my own time. The entire philosophy of the game pollutes the experience that is truly listening to music; sadly in this day and age, true appreciation for music is rare.
ITunes had a song from Guitar Hero like 'Can't You Hear Me Knocking' on album only; buyers didn't care about the rest of Sticky Fingers- inarguarable one of the Stones' best recordings. They just wanted that one song, completely ignorant to the fact that the rest of the album is equally good. The game seems to narrow people's focus and seems to spoon-feed people into what is good in the rock genre. Many times, this is far from the case, and other times they do a fine job. That and its balls to the wall 'rock has to be hard' attitude are my problems with Guitar Hero
Plus, I find the setlists on the guitar hero games to actually be pretty solid, save the crappy hair metal and metalcore that's thrown in. I can't stand those either
Any setlist that includes The Dead Kennedys or Butthole Surfers is alright by me. |
|
|
|
fuxi
Prog Reviewer
Joined: March 08 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Points: 2459
|
Posted: April 30 2009 at 02:39 |
lazland wrote:
Rock, or rock n roll, will never die. |
A funny idea, really, when you consider that ALL OTHER musical genres have died. There's no one around composing new and exciting music in the styles of JS Bach, Ludwig Van, Gustav Mahler, Louis Armstrong or Duke Ellington. You might say that "modern jazz" (the sort of thing that started with Miles Davis and Charlie Parker) lives on (after all, even Bill Bruford has released excellent albums in that tradition) but it's a bit like rock, really: it's carried on by academicians, people who don't really have revolutionary ideas.
Personally, I can't wait for rock to die, since I'm very curious to see what'll happen when electric guitars, basses and drums are finally ditched. But I don't expect to see that kind of change within my lifetime. After all, look at the old baroque style (in music): it gradually evolved, yes, but it was vibrantly alive for more than 100 years. And even when it disappeared, it morphed more or less naturally into the styles of Haydn, Gluck and Mozart. Sometimes I think nothing short of a TREMENDOUS CATACLYSM will rid us of rock 'n' roll.
Funny situation, that. Whenever I go out on the street, I hear the Beatles, the Bee Gees, ELO, Abba, Blondie etc. etc. Tunes that are half a century old, yet no-one seems to mind. My kids (all three of them teenagers) listen to present-day bands, but they also have Elvis, the Beach Boys and the Bangles in their MP3s. It's pick-and-mix culture. When I grew up, in the 1970s, all the bands we listened to were brand-new (or the great bands from the mid-1960s onwards). Elvis and Buddy Holly just seemed frightfully OLD HAT and it wouldn't have OCCURRED to us to play music that was 4 decades old... (Count Basie? Frank Sinatra? Caruso??? )
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 21:58 |
So you frown upon guitar hero because it has a diverse setlist?
It's guitar hero. Not classic rock guitar hero. It's good that they have something to please everybody. I don't think the designers expect anyone to like EVERY song on the setlist.
Plus, I find the setlists on the guitar hero games to actually be pretty solid, save the crappy hair metal and metalcore that's thrown in.
Any setlist that includes The Dead Kennedys or Butthole Surfers is alright by me.
Edited by boo boo - April 29 2009 at 22:05
|
|
mr.cub
Forum Senior Member
Joined: March 06 2009
Location: Lexington, VA
Status: Offline
Points: 971
|
Posted: April 29 2009 at 14:36 |
Henry Plainview wrote:
trotskyite wrote:
Guitar hero seems to have produced a small classic rock revival, at least at some universities in the UK. While not progressive, there is always the hope it might develop in that direction. |
There have always been a lot of teenagers and other people into "classic rock". Guitar Hero has nothing to do with it. |
I'm sorry but Guitar Hero disgusts me...it never ceases to include amazing songs amongst a pile of filth
|
|
|
Henry Plainview
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
|
Posted: April 28 2009 at 21:26 |
trotskyite wrote:
Guitar hero seems to have produced a small classic rock revival, at least at some universities in the UK. While not progressive, there is always the hope it might develop in that direction. |
There have always been a lot of teenagers and other people into "classic rock". Guitar Hero has nothing to do with it.
|
if you own a sodastream i hate you
|
|
trotskyite
Forum Newbie
Joined: April 28 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2
|
Posted: April 28 2009 at 17:16 |
There's definatly contradictory trends going on.
Guitar hero seems to have produced a small classic rock revival, at least at some universities in the UK. While not progressive, there is always the hope it might develop in that direction.
From what limited exposure I have it seems that indie (and by that I refer to smaller bands) music songs are becoming slightly more about telling little stories. No sure if this is positive or negative. But equally the music is becoming softer and less guitar or even keyboard based (they are present, but just background). Sadly there seems to be similar tendencies within modern prog - bands, that despite redeeming factors, also seem to be following this route in the prog scene include The Tangent and Beardfish. Sadly even the re-incarnation of what was the best semi-mainstream prog band, Van Der Graaf Generator, had a boring album of modern lifes problems (call me orthodox but cell phones do not belong in prog rock lyrics).
Within the prog scene there is some interesting developments though. Phideaux seems to me the best 'new' band in years, they have a quite original concept, the music is dark and symphonic and the lyrics are a metaphor rather than directly about the real world.
Sadly I think we are a long way away from seeing anything like the 70s scene, at least not the more interesting things that came out of it, such as Island.
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: April 28 2009 at 08:23 |
King Crimson776 wrote:
boo boo wrote:
Rather, Indie for a lot of people is a musical philosophy, one that's not all that different from prog's main philosophy. Making music that doesn't conform to the mainstream, traditional music structures or methods, music that challenges the listener and blends various styles to create something unique. Indie just takes that philosophy in a completely different direction. |
What direction exactly? I'm asking because I'm curious... you're saying they both have the philosophy of challenging the listener, blending styles, etc. but what is the distinction? Is it really that indie is more minimalist and lyric oriented and prog is more complex and music oriented? That might be it... but I don't really find indie to be challenging in any way, just bad for the most part, but whatever. |
The distinction is the approach. Like you said, indie tends to be miminalistic in nature, it draws a bit more towards pop structure, but without being pop itself. And most indie bands draw influence from avant garde, punk, new wave, electronica, free jazz and American folk music as opposed to the more sophisticated classical, jazz, european folk and psychedelic influences of prog.
Toaster Mantis wrote:
boo boo wrote:
Rather, Indie for a lot of people is a musical philosophy, one that's not all that different from prog's main philosophy. Making music that doesn't conform to the mainstream, traditional music structures or methods, music that challenges the listener and blends various styles to create something unique. Indie just takes that philosophy in a completely different direction. |
That makes it kinda funny that you mentioned Flaming Lips as an example of indie because I think they belong here based on the one album of theirs I've heard, Clouds Taste Metallic. It reminded me a lot of Syd Barrett-era Pink Floyd except more amateurish and lo-fi.
Didn't submit them, though, I figure they're well known enough to have been submitted and rejected, possibly because of the whole "more amateurish" issue.
|
That's a fantastic album. Flaming Lips do embrace psychedelic and prog influences (including Pink Floyd and Yes) and Yoshimi is especially proggy. But they started out as a very punk influenced indie band and associated themselves more with Sonic Youth and Dinosaur Jr than say Spocks Beard or The Flower Kings.
They didn't really show their proggy side until Clouds, and they had already been around for a good while and with a loyal following at that point.
Edited by boo boo - April 28 2009 at 08:30
|
|