i think the error that a lot of these studies make is that they compare serious music before 1955 to folk music after 1955. there's certainly been a merging of the ideas starting with zappa and the beatles and pink floyd. but, i really don't think these differences come out if you do like comparisons: debussy to stockhausen or nirvana to ledbetter or bjork to billie holiday or one direction to traditional nursery rhymes.
the only thing i'd pull out as probably being substantially different is that you previously wouldn't expect people in their 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s to experience the kind of arrested development they experience today. they would have grown out of the nursery rhymes, not latch on to successive ones until they're grandparents. so, the real issue is the juvenilization of society.
www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/science-proves-pop-music-has-actually-gotten-worse-8173368/?no-ist
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
thoughts on the latest spencer krug recording
i've listened to a few tracks off this record, and i'll admit that i grasp why a pop audience would react positively to it - it sounds fancy. i'm not being an ass on purpose (although i probably couldn't prevent myself), but it's the basic idea. it gives you the opportunity to put down the garbage you normally listen to and feel sophisticated and upper class for an hour. and, maybe it might act as somewhat of a gateway.
but, it's just so terribly contrived. the cadences. the crescendos. it's blatant cliche, and clearly consciously designed to maximize itself as such. and, on top of that, he plays the instrument like a blunt poke in the eye - most of the record sounds like a player piano. not a sequencer. you can program dynamics into a sequencer. this is just straight artillery fire.
the guy has demonstrated potential. and his refusal to do what he's expected is definitely refreshing. but, i'm sorry to say that this is some of the deadest piano music that i've heard.
but, it's just so terribly contrived. the cadences. the crescendos. it's blatant cliche, and clearly consciously designed to maximize itself as such. and, on top of that, he plays the instrument like a blunt poke in the eye - most of the record sounds like a player piano. not a sequencer. you can program dynamics into a sequencer. this is just straight artillery fire.
the guy has demonstrated potential. and his refusal to do what he's expected is definitely refreshing. but, i'm sorry to say that this is some of the deadest piano music that i've heard.
thoughts on the new pinkish black single
the last one took a bit to click, but it eventually did, and this is likewise a bit disorienting. you have to give this band full marks for a subtle evolution. but it comes with the caveat that they're getting harder to follow because they seem to be getting poppier and poppier.
this is moving slowly into something like spencer krug territory.
(that one record he did, organ music - not vibraphone music like i hoped, is actually uncharacteristically interesting. it's a saturated space, with a lot of mediocrity, but nothing hits you in the gut like a good, dark, smart synth pop song.)
this is moving slowly into something like spencer krug territory.
(that one record he did, organ music - not vibraphone music like i hoped, is actually uncharacteristically interesting. it's a saturated space, with a lot of mediocrity, but nothing hits you in the gut like a good, dark, smart synth pop song.)
Saturday, August 15, 2015
deathtokoalas
never did get into the beach boys. more of a beatles fan. but this song really hit me just the right way when i was about ten or so.
their bassist was actually a rather substantial musical influence on me and, along with mccartney, still really forms the crux of how i approach the bass guitar, underneath however many other influences.
jim m
+deathtokoalas beetles? stones
deathtokoalas
+jim m the rolling stones created almost nothing of any lasting value. their legacy will die with their fan base.
the beatles-stones debate is an anachronism. people will follow their parents. bloody wankers. but anybody under 40 (if not 50, nowadays) can clearly here that the stones were not in the same league as the beatles. it's the same thing with the beach boys, really.
we can have beatles-floyd debates - and i may side with floyd, depending on the context. or maybe beatles-byrds debates, if you're so inclined. but a beatles-stones debate is pointless. it's like arguing the relative merits of thomas pynchon v. dr. seuss.
Anonymous User
+deathtokoalas Nothing of lasting value? The Beatles are undeniably a major influence to many artists, but to act like the Rolling Stones made nothing of lasting value is hilariously wrong. I'm not even a Rolling Stones fan, I would also rather listen to The Beatles, but let's not kid ourselves.
Jake Britt
+deathtokoalas Brian Wilson is the guy The Beatles went to for their inspiration...
deathtokoalas
+Anonymous User they never even released a mediocre record. their one attempt at doing something interesting - satanic majesties request - is just laughably bad.
they were talentless hacks. they were always absolute followers - there's not an original idea in their discography. they may have some place in the history of fashion. but, they will be lucky to get a footnote in the musical history of the period. the beatles, on the other hand, will be remembered for quite some time.
it's all ** or * records - out of ten stars.
they'll have a better chance in a paragraph on the mahavishnu orchestra.
"john spent his early days loosely attached to a clownish group of bohemian village idiots called 'the rolling stones' before he began his career in earnest. remaining information about this group is scarce, but it is known that they were of great popularity in their day amongst the uneducated, rural underclass."
deathtokoalas
+Jake Britt that's a poor way to express the relationship between brian wilson and paul mccartney. there was a kind of a rivalry. brian wilson was very impressed by revolver, and made pet sounds in response to it. mccartney was impressed by pet sounds, and countered with sgt. peppers. his inability to top sgt. peppers is the actual reason that brian wilson never released another record. it drove him insane.
fwiw, mccartney has since acknowledged the importance of the session musicians on pet sounds. he was not initially aware that the bass parts were mostly written and performed by carol kaye, for instance. and, he seemed to be a little taken aback by that, as though a fraud had been exposed to him.
never did get into the beach boys. more of a beatles fan. but this song really hit me just the right way when i was about ten or so.
their bassist was actually a rather substantial musical influence on me and, along with mccartney, still really forms the crux of how i approach the bass guitar, underneath however many other influences.
jim m
+deathtokoalas beetles? stones
deathtokoalas
+jim m the rolling stones created almost nothing of any lasting value. their legacy will die with their fan base.
the beatles-stones debate is an anachronism. people will follow their parents. bloody wankers. but anybody under 40 (if not 50, nowadays) can clearly here that the stones were not in the same league as the beatles. it's the same thing with the beach boys, really.
we can have beatles-floyd debates - and i may side with floyd, depending on the context. or maybe beatles-byrds debates, if you're so inclined. but a beatles-stones debate is pointless. it's like arguing the relative merits of thomas pynchon v. dr. seuss.
Anonymous User
+deathtokoalas Nothing of lasting value? The Beatles are undeniably a major influence to many artists, but to act like the Rolling Stones made nothing of lasting value is hilariously wrong. I'm not even a Rolling Stones fan, I would also rather listen to The Beatles, but let's not kid ourselves.
Jake Britt
+deathtokoalas Brian Wilson is the guy The Beatles went to for their inspiration...
deathtokoalas
+Anonymous User they never even released a mediocre record. their one attempt at doing something interesting - satanic majesties request - is just laughably bad.
they were talentless hacks. they were always absolute followers - there's not an original idea in their discography. they may have some place in the history of fashion. but, they will be lucky to get a footnote in the musical history of the period. the beatles, on the other hand, will be remembered for quite some time.
it's all ** or * records - out of ten stars.
they'll have a better chance in a paragraph on the mahavishnu orchestra.
"john spent his early days loosely attached to a clownish group of bohemian village idiots called 'the rolling stones' before he began his career in earnest. remaining information about this group is scarce, but it is known that they were of great popularity in their day amongst the uneducated, rural underclass."
deathtokoalas
+Jake Britt that's a poor way to express the relationship between brian wilson and paul mccartney. there was a kind of a rivalry. brian wilson was very impressed by revolver, and made pet sounds in response to it. mccartney was impressed by pet sounds, and countered with sgt. peppers. his inability to top sgt. peppers is the actual reason that brian wilson never released another record. it drove him insane.
fwiw, mccartney has since acknowledged the importance of the session musicians on pet sounds. he was not initially aware that the bass parts were mostly written and performed by carol kaye, for instance. and, he seemed to be a little taken aback by that, as though a fraud had been exposed to him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)