General Music Chat

it's dylan thomas.

yeah so i do remember it because it was in the movie back to school with rodney dangerfield he quoted it

isn't it also in the movie "dead poets society"?

yeah but i really like rodney dangerfields interpretation of what it meant.

something tells me we have gone a little bit off topic here...

http://www.livelocals.net

well, ordinarily I'd agree and wouldn't continue to post OT but this is davis's thread and I think he'd be fine with our meanderings (please correct me if I'm wrong) so...
we did try and put the thread to rest but ppul keep comin' in and breathing life into her...

DAVIS... I WAS WATCHING A MOVIE/DOCUMENTARY ABOUT METAL AND ITS' EVOLUTION THROUGH THE 90'S AND THEY WENT SO FAR AS TO SAY PANTERA WAS THE NEXT BIG "CHANGE" IN METAL AFTER METALLICA... PANTERA REALLY DOES BRING SOMETHING NEW TO THE GENRE...
-BUT THEN THE MOVIE WENT ON TO SAY KORN WAS THE NEXT EVOLUTION AFTER THAT... ALL I GOTTA SAY IS... IF EVER THERE WAS A SIGN THAT METAL WAS DEAD IT IS KORN... BUT THEN COME SLIPKNOT - WHOM I WOULD CREDIT WITH THE NEXT ADAPTION TO METAL TOO.

This is still going? I knew this would have more hits than my 'Sgt. Pepper' thread. A social experiment that corroborates something in my mind... But yes, I do not mind if this thread meanders... In fact, I encourage that sort of thing. It allows for more posting.

And since we are yelling at the top of our lungs here I will write in all caps as well.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND/OR LEARNED FROM THAT DOCUMENTARY. HOWEVER, I TEND TO THINK OF GROUPS LIKE METALLICA, PANTERA, KORN, AND SLIPKNOT AS DEGRADATIONS, NOT INNOVATIONS, WHEN IT COMES TO MUSIC IN GENERAL, NOT JUST HEAVY METAL. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK 'METAL' SHOULD HAVE GONE BEYOND LED ZEPPELIN OR POSSIBLY VAN HALEN... I KNOW SOME PEOPLE LIVE AND BREATHE METAL MUSIC BUT I JUST FIND IT TO BE A CHEESY CULTURE. THERE'S ALREADY TOO MANY THINGS SPLITTING UP GROUPS OF PEOPLE INTO SUBCULTURES WITHOUT SOME ANGRY PEOPLE FORMING ONE AROUND AN UNIMPORTANT STYLE OF MUSIC. I GET THERE BEING A CULTURE WITH RAP MUSIC SINCE IT GAVE A VOICE TO PEOPLE NO ONE WOULD LISTEN TO. BUT EVEN THAT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE MAINSTREAM, MOSTLY MIDDLE-CLASS WHITE PEOPLE, WHO EXPLOIT AND PRETEND TO IDENTIFY WITH IT. BUT BACK TO HEAVY METAL... I AGREE THOSE GROUPS ARE TURNING POINTS BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE FOR THE WORSE. I CAN'T THINK OF ONE NEW ARTIST THAT IS GREAT. THERE ARE A FEW TALENTED PEOPLE BUT NO VISION TO PULL THEIR IDEAS TOGETHER. I BLAME OUR GENERATION FOR BEING LAZY, HEDONISTIC, AND UNEDUCATED FOR THE DEATH OF POP MUSIC, OR MUSIC IN GENERAL, OR ART IN GENERAL. I CAN'T EVEN STAND THOSE 'INDIE' GROUPS WHO DRESS 'RETRO' AND FALSELY/UNCONVINCINGLY EMULATE/COPY GROUPS FROM THE '60S. THERE'S NOTHING REAL ABOUT ANY OF IT. THE SHINS SORT OF CAME CLOSE WITH THEIR RECORD 'OH, INVERTED WORLD' BUT THAT'S THE LAST DECENT RECORD ROCK HAS PRODUCED. UNLESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL ARTISTS WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME. FOR INSTANCE THE LAST RECORDS BY THE ROLLING STONES, PAUL MCCARTNEY, AND BOB DYLAN WERE ALL VERY GOOD AND TOWER ABOVE ALL THEIR 20 - 30 SOMETHING COUNTERPARTS WHO STILL CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT WORK WITH THEIR OWN MUSIC.

Ok, I'm finished shouting (for now) haha. Keep posting people!

This is still going? I knew this would have more hits than my 'Sgt. Pepper' thread. A social experiment that corroborates something in my mind... But yes, I do not mind if this thread meanders... In fact, I encourage that sort of thing. It allows for more posting.

And since we are yelling at the top of our lungs here I will write in all caps as well.

I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND/OR LEARNED FROM THAT DOCUMENTARY. HOWEVER, I TEND TO THINK OF GROUPS LIKE METALLICA, PANTERA, KORN, AND SLIPKNOT AS DEGRADATIONS, NOT INNOVATIONS, WHEN IT COMES TO MUSIC IN GENERAL, NOT JUST HEAVY METAL. I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK 'METAL' SHOULD HAVE GONE BEYOND LED ZEPPELIN OR POSSIBLY VAN HALEN... I KNOW SOME PEOPLE LIVE AND BREATHE METAL MUSIC BUT I JUST FIND IT TO BE A CHEESY CULTURE. THERE'S ALREADY TOO MANY THINGS SPLITTING UP GROUPS OF PEOPLE INTO SUBCULTURES WITHOUT SOME ANGRY PEOPLE FORMING ONE AROUND AN UNIMPORTANT STYLE OF MUSIC. I GET THERE BEING A CULTURE WITH RAP MUSIC SINCE IT GAVE A VOICE TO PEOPLE NO ONE WOULD LISTEN TO. BUT EVEN THAT WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE MAINSTREAM, MOSTLY MIDDLE-CLASS WHITE PEOPLE, WHO EXPLOIT AND PRETEND TO IDENTIFY WITH IT. BUT BACK TO HEAVY METAL... I AGREE THOSE GROUPS ARE TURNING POINTS BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE FOR THE WORSE. I CAN'T THINK OF ONE NEW ARTIST THAT IS GREAT. THERE ARE A FEW TALENTED PEOPLE BUT NO VISION TO PULL THEIR IDEAS TOGETHER. I BLAME OUR GENERATION FOR BEING LAZY, HEDONISTIC, AND UNEDUCATED FOR THE DEATH OF POP MUSIC, OR MUSIC IN GENERAL, OR ART IN GENERAL. I CAN'T EVEN STAND THOSE 'INDIE' GROUPS WHO DRESS 'RETRO' AND FALSELY/UNCONVINCINGLY EMULATE/COPY GROUPS FROM THE '60S. THERE'S NOTHING REAL ABOUT ANY OF IT. THE SHINS SORT OF CAME CLOSE WITH THEIR RECORD 'OH, INVERTED WORLD' BUT THAT'S THE LAST DECENT RECORD ROCK HAS PRODUCED. UNLESS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REAL ARTISTS WHO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND HAVE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LONG TIME. FOR INSTANCE THE LAST RECORDS BY THE ROLLING STONES, PAUL MCCARTNEY, AND BOB DYLAN WERE ALL VERY GOOD AND TOWER ABOVE ALL THEIR 20 - 30 SOMETHING COUNTERPARTS WHO STILL CAN'T SEEM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT WORK WITH THEIR OWN MUSIC.

Ok, I'm finished shouting (for now) haha. Keep posting people!

Hmm, Odd how capslock effects the "mood" of your post...
Davis, don't take this the right way, but you sound like the stereotypical "old man who hates change". You should have been born 20 years earlier so you would have had the correctly corresponding viewpoint on music.
I personally believe that all music is good and there is no 'whole genre' that could be bad... just specific examples of particular works that I think brought nothing new to the table or were just plain musically bad.
I would point to boys to men as an example. I am not particularily fond of that 'type' of music (too popy) but I do like the groups ability to harmonize - they are awesome.
In the britany spears arena you have christina agulera(spelling). Not my style, but she's a good writer, and a decent singer(not great).

The one spot where I would call you "outright wrong" is the whole "metal is a degradation" thing. I would base this on the fact that the 'technical ability' required to do most metal would be a lot higher than the technical ability involved in doing anything before it. Especially the neo-classical stuff. If anything the metal people raised the bar back to where it was in the classical age, and jazz is about the only other recent musical endeavor that has held the bar as high.

I think all music 'genres' are meant to eventually die. Your dads rock and roll is not gonna be the same as the grandsons version. Dad is always going to be saying the grandson ruined his perfect music as grandson is listening for something that dad won't like but all his friends will.
Many metal heads probably said that rap killed metal... but it's a long chain going back to the begining of music and as such each piece of the evolution is an instance of innovation based on all that came before it. Each piece after has killed the piece before. You could write more great music like that of the early stones but it won't be good now - it was only good then... before it was killed by whatever came after it.

I think trying to place a genre name on individual sounds is silly and futile as it is getting to the point where there is a one to one correspondence between genre name and one bands - one song. -you might as well replace the genre name with the song name - it's redundant. (I'm only exagerating a little)
how does it serve? it serves much like scientific symbology in that - often it is a means to seperate the users of the symbology from the rest of society -sort of a segregation from thoes who don't understand the symbology itself. This empowers the group to feel special or 'more worthy', and projects a sense of togetherness within the group.
The parallel is that the genre name seperates the little group and tells them that they are the ones who understand the genre -and only they... they are part of an exclusive order who know the meaning of 'trip-hop' or 'fusion metal' or 'pop-rock'. It doesnt' change the music other than it makes some people turn off based on the 'label' that has been ascribed to the song.
genre names may also help describe the music from time to time, admittedly.
I would say you can take any great song and make some changes to fit it to the current 'genre' and it will be a great song... fit it to the genre of yesterday - and it won't. Period. (unless of course yesterdays genre is also the genre of today... but that would be sort of nowtro.

on another note... you are reminding me of bob dylan in some ways... when he hated his audience and would exagerate his singing to spite them. Not sure if your going for that or not but thought you'd like to know that is what is coming across.
mv

Ok, this is going to be a debate; however, I'll promise to stay away from amateurish personal stuff if you do too.

Hmm, Odd how capslock effects the "mood" of your post... Davis, don't take this the right way, but you sound like the stereotypical "old man who hates change". You should have been born 20 years earlier so you would have had the correctly corresponding viewpoint on music.
I personally believe that all music is good and there is no 'whole genre' that could be bad... just specific examples of particular works that I think brought nothing new to the table or were just plain musically bad.
I would point to boys to men as an example. I am not particularily fond of that 'type' of music (too popy) but I do like the groups ability to harmonize - they are awesome.
In the britany spears arena you have christina agulera(spelling). Not my style, but she's a good writer, and a decent singer(not great).

Why wouldn't you want me to take your words the right way? Anyway, I'm all about change. The problem with your analogy of me being the 'stereotypical old man who hates change' is that I'm not old and, as I just stated, am all about change. If I were born 20 years ago that would make me 22 in 1987 which still isn't a very good year, musically, but is still better than today. If we're talking about rock and roll then I should have been born like 40 or 50 years ago, but that's for rock and roll. And if I were born back then would that make my viewpoint of music more 'correct' than it is today at 22? Sure, it's harder to find corroboration in my generation but being older wouldn't suddenly make me correct about it, or wrong simply because I'm young. I agree with you that an entire genre cannot be bad in itself - it depends on the artist. And this is just my opinion, but I don't think Christina Agulera is very good at anything. She has a great producer who can arrange her songs and make her voice and music sound polished and great.

The one spot where I would call you "outright wrong" is the whole "metal is a degradation" thing. I would base this on the fact that the 'technical ability' required to do most metal would be a lot higher than the technical ability involved in doing anything before it. Especially the neo-classical stuff. If anything the metal people raised the bar back to where it was in the classical age, and jazz is about the only other recent musical endeavor that has held the bar as high.

You misinterpreted my original statement, Mike. I said bands like Metallica (post 1989) Pantera, Korn, and Slipknot are degradations to music. Definitely degradations to Heavy metal in particular, but degradations to music in general in that their influence pervaded beyond their sub-genres into other schools of Pop. You're right that many heavy metal groups demonstrate excellent technical ability, but what does that mean? There are talented virtuosos in every style of music out there. If you mean it is more technical then the rock and roll it evolved from then yes, that's true. Heavy metal came as a phase and evolved off into many sub-genres in itself. Technical ability doesn't particularly make a work a successful piece of art. It takes vision and restraint, among other things, to make it work (which our generation of musicians lack). And I wouldn't go as far as to say that heavy metal raised the bar to classical standards of excellence because there's no comparison. Some modern metal groups may write heavy metal symphonies but it's all novelty. If I want classical music I know where to find it - and it's not heavy metal. It does work when the vision's there, as on Metallica's 'Master Of Puppets'. Rock and roll was in part a reaction against music like classical and jazz. It's funny in a way to see symphonies borne from one of rock and rolls sub-genres. But I think it's important to note that though music is always progressing, it is either being innovated of degraded, and there's a difference. Groups like Pantera, Korn, and Slipknot thrive on the dark, aggressive sentiment their music evokes. If you took away the heavy distortion (which I think is passe by now as well) and the screaming/yelling, their songs wouldn't have the same impact on people. They sort of thrive on machismo and aggression and if they're taken away their music won't stand.

I think all music 'genres' are meant to eventually die. Your dads rock and roll is not gonna be the same as the grandsons version. Dad is always going to be saying the grandson ruined his perfect music as grandson is listening for something that dad won't like but all his friends will.
Many metal heads probably said that rap killed metal... but it's a long chain going back to the begining of music and as such each piece of the evolution is an instance of innovation based on all that came before it. Each piece after has killed the piece before. You could write more great music like that of the early stones but it won't be good now - it was only good then... before it was killed by whatever came after it.

I don't think genres are 'meant' to die, they just twist and turn and become something else through the passage of time. It's usually because of a different social climate that things in music change so drastically. I think that our generation's lack of sophistication, not only in music but in other ways as well, is a direct reflection of our morals, values, or whatever else. This can't be said of everybody obviously, but a very large portion - the people who give the proverbial 'image' of us as a group. The problem with your argument is that I would agree with the old man even though I am young and dislike our generation's music. Perhaps I see or hear something that most others wouldn't take the time to contemplate. I'm very much a part of this generation and I'm not alone in this sentiment as I've discussed it with many my age who agree. Music is always progressing, yes, just as time passes (if you believe time exists), but it isn't always being innovated. This brings me back to the difference between innovation and degradation. Allow me to demonstrate this as best I can right now... Hmmm an easy way to do this..... We have three figures: A, B, and C. A is the innovator, B is the second innovator, and C is the degrader... Let's say that A is an indigenous music that influenced rock and roll (R&B, folk, country, blues, any of those...), and B is the Beatles (easy enough). C would be our generation - let's say an indie act who emulates the Beatles and claims them as a major influence. It took the original A to get to B, but C copies B without regard to A... Something imperative that went into making B was lost in Cs shameless copy of B. That's what I consider a degradation. When the next generation simply copies something they like from what they listened to without regard for the past. Being uneducated, basically...

I think trying to place a genre name on individual sounds is silly and futile as it is getting to the point where there is a one to one correspondence between genre name and one bands - one song. -you might as well replace the genre name with the song name - it's redundant. (I'm only exagerating a little)
how does it serve? it serves much like scientific symbology in that - often it is a means to seperate the users of the symbology from the rest of society -sort of a segregation from thoes who don't understand the symbology itself. This empowers the group to feel special or 'more worthy', and projects a sense of togetherness within the group.
The parallel is that the genre name seperates the little group and tells them that they are the ones who understand the genre -and only they... they are part of an exclusive order who know the meaning of 'trip-hop' or 'fusion metal' or 'pop-rock'. It doesnt' change the music other than it makes some people turn off based on the 'label' that has been ascribed to the song.
genre names may also help describe the music from time to time, admittedly.
I would say you can take any great song and make some changes to fit it to the current 'genre' and it will be a great song... fit it to the genre of yesterday - and it won't. Period. (unless of course yesterdays genre is also the genre of today... but that would be sort of nowtro.

While there are individual takes on things there certainly are genres to explain their sound. Though there are groups who evade a definite tag on what their sound is - there's always a basic sound that they're playing. Of course, there are almost as many sub-genres as their are sounds out there. And I didn't fully understand your analogy of 'scientific symbols'... But just like it's hard for teachers to relate their thoughts to everybody - I may need you to re-word that in a different way because it was a little confusing (and I'm certain I'm not alone). By 'scientific symbology' did you mean 'social symbols'? I believe I got the gist of what you meant but correct me if I'm wrong... Were you simply saying that symbols, in this case different kinds of music, separate their listeners into groups who are empowered because they believe they know something that others do not (the understanding)? My thoughts on that are the following: It splits people up who are dumb enough to follow only certain kinds of music that appeals to their ears (without thought of what it is or what went into it or where it came from). I would think these people are regular, everyday listeners who don't know much about music or its history or what went into it. I personally am open to any and all styles of music. I'm 'turned off' when what I'm hearing is an unintelligent rip-off of something else, or musically bad, or arranged terribly. I only disagree that an old great song will still be great if made to be modern only because, a lot of the time, the modern format for arranging music is grossly dumbed-down and simple. And, yeah, it probably wouldn't sound too good if today's music were fitted to an older style. But the last sentence is apparent - even though rock and roll is different today than it used to be, it is still rock and roll nevertheless. I would argue that to be educated on its past, and to strip away its degradations, would bring about a great music again. Rock and roll is still alive as it's still the base for much of anything that's around - it just needs to be repaired, so to speak. I think there's a reason that artists like the Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, and Paul McCartney (and others) are writing better music in their 60s than our generation is in our heyday. In the '60s there were just about as many bad acts as there are today - but they were balanced out by the masterpieces being released on a regular basis. Today there is good, bad, and terrible but no great. Can you list any modern acts that are great and are releasing masterworks on a regular basis? It would be dumb for me to think that something is great simply because it was made in the past. I have a great ear for music and am still waiting for someone to make the next brilliant masterpiece. I haven't heard any great rock and roll since the '90s and even then it was terribly hard to find. The only good songs I've heard lately were by Lucinda Williams and one by Patti Smith...

on another note... you are reminding me of bob dylan in some ways... when he hated his audience and would exagerate his singing to spite them. Not sure if your going for that or not but thought you'd like to know that is what is coming across.
mv

If I'm reminiscent of Bob Dylan, well, I guess I could have done a lot worse haha...

I'm gonna quit coming to this site... I just wrote a page and a half response to you davis and when I hit submit it took me to the logon screen and all was gone.
Hello folks, ever hear of worste case scenario testing?

anywho, I'll have to recopose myself and chime back in...

Yeah, that happened to me too. Just so you know in the future - you could have pressed the back button and highlighted/copied your text, logged in, and pasted it into the message body. I was furious the first time that happened to me... luckily I stumbled upon the above.

+Why wouldn't you want me to take your words the right way?+
-don't read too much into this... I'm being lighthearted.

+The problem with your analogy of me being the 'stereotypical
old man who hates change' is that I'm not old and, as I just
stated, am all about change.+
Wow, it's sounds so much more brutal when you say it...
I meant it in a playfull manor.

+If we're talking about rock and roll then I should have been
born like 40 or 50 years ago+
-right you are. I didn't mean to 'disenfranchise' your general
disposition towards music by pointing out that your position is
displaced by 20 or 40 years... it makes you unique... and it is
one of your more likeable qualities.

+Christina Agulera+
I don't expect you to start likeing her anytime soon... but
comparitively to britany spears she can actually sing and has
someone intelligent writing lyrics for her (at least some of
the time)

+bands like Metallica (post 1989) Pantera, Korn, and Slipknot
are degradations to music +
When you say degradation: it has implications of music being
worse off for having been exposed to metal... I don't think
music is that fragile.

+music is always progressing, it is either being innovated of
degraded+
-I think all music degrades. I think there is a point at which
any genre has run it's course and all that could be done within
the style has been done... at that point some musicians trudge on
and keep creating in the style and this music often brings little
new to the table... and this, I would agree, is degrading...
but all musical style must go through this cycle of being in and
being out... that style of music will always come back -in some
form or another- and all of the sudden those musicians will be the
old faithfull "originals".
disco degraded... metal degraded... jazz degraded...
folk degraded - everyone has heard those years where bob sounds
like an exagerated version of himself -obviously tired of the
movement...

AFA the angry thing... there has always been angry music. Metal
certainly didn't invent that. But is there good poetry there when
you take away the screaming?

###
What's left inside him?
Don't he remember us?
Can't he believe me?
We seemed like bothers
Talked for hours last month
About what we wanna be
I sit now with his hand in mine
But I know he can't feel...

No one knows
What's done is done
It's as if he were dead

I'm close with his mother
And she cries endlessly
Lord how we miss him
At least what's remembered
It's so important to make best friends in life
But it's hard when my friend sits with blank expressions

No one knows
What's done is done
It's as if he were dead

He as hollow as I alone now
He as hollow as I alone
A shell of my friend
Just flesh and bone
There's no soul
He sees no love
I shake my fists at skies above
Mad at God

He as hollow as I converse
I wish he'd waken from this curse
Hear my words before it's through
I want to come in after you
My best friend

He as hollow as I alone



Philip Anselmo : Vocals
Dimebag Darrell Abbott : Guitars
Vinnie Paul : Drums
Rex : Bass
###

I like this lyrical piece. No conventional rhyme...
tells a story, has a message visa vi 'so important to make
best friends in life'. It's not dylan but it would stand
on it's own within another genre I think.


+A is the innovator, B is the second innovator, and C is the
degrader... +
-we aren't going to be covering vin diagrams today are we? JK
I hear where you r going with this but I would say that there
is no harm in cheap immitations. We all start out immitating,
and we all hear things differently. We each take away the
things we hear the best and fashion them into our own version.
Sure there are things missing... but this is a snapshot of how
this person heard it... and I can't believe that it somehow hurts
music in general to keep trying and perhaps fail a lot but at
the end of the day get closer to that pure version we hear in our
heads.
The past music will always be there for those who can't get there
fill from todays top 40... who really cares about the rest of the
morons who don't take advantage of it?
It may take many revisions to get there, but this process has
delivered many great artists.

You are right on with your interpretation of my comment about
symbology... I was trying to relay something one of my professors
pointed out to me... that within the disciplines of mathmatics
we use symbols to describe various things... I don't wan't to go
through the trouble of trying to represent those symbols here so
I'll use words as examples instead. In math you have terms like
a mux, or recursion, or n-complete... in any field there is
terminology that is used largly-exclusively within that field.
Among other purposes... one purpose is that it makes the user of
that specific terminology feel special and unique.
The reason I bring this up is that genre definitions only serve
the definers... and they have limited use otherwise... so I don't
acknowlege their validity by relying on them (I try not to anyway).

+I think there's a reason that artists like the Rolling Stones,
Bob Dylan, and Paul McCartney (and others) are writing better music
in their 60s than our generation is in our heyday+

I think it is much more likely that it is just easier to get people
behind the message of your song when society is in a crisis mode.

+Today there is good, bad, and terrible but no great.+
Give me a minute to get over the fact that A you dont think I'm
great and B you don't think you are great..................ok
What about bright eyes? he's from your generation - he's a good
writer even at his young age, and he's not a horrible singer...
I think there is plenty going on in music today... but as we get older
and more 'out of touch' with what is hip right now - we have to
make leaps ourselves - and redefine what is good to us. You can't
stick to a genre or you will go down with the ship.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I don't think you or I
will know when those masterpieces are right there under our noses...
time will tell. I think there are many signs that point to there
being a relative amount of great musicians for our time...
perhaps you are right and we are in a deficiet of talent... but if so
it won't be long before greatness happens on it's own.

cheers
mv

Thank you for involving me in a very thought provoking discussion.

no, I tried going back and it was all gone: I think my security software wipes out many temp files cause it's protecting me...
I'm so long winded... In the future - I write my response in textpad and then copy cut and paste the dang thing!
anywho

I apologize for not taking a few of your comments as more lighthearted. I think it's because I don't know you and it's easy to misread people's written vernacular.

When you say degradation: it has implications of music being
worse off for having been exposed to metal... I don't think
music is that fragile.

Perhaps not all the time, but it can be with this whole MTV/culture of cool that defines young people and even some people into their 30s (I think of us 20 somethings as young still). Like hearing heavy metal guitars in a girl-pop song or something. And this isn't just about heavy metal (I just don't think metal is important but that's my opinion). Like hearing punk inspired music in a commercial that's selling something to the younger crowd. Or hearing heavy metal or alternative metal when you go to a sports event. It's all become an accepted thing among people and I think that takes a lot away from where the music's coming from. It's as if the music doesn't have anything to say because the majority of people are on the same page. And I know people aren't on the same page so why don't bands have anything to say anymore? I don't know how things were in past generations but I know when I walk down the street I'm not among brothers and sisters. I don't feel a sense of togetherness with my compatriots, though I'm not patriotic. But I see lots of angry people with nothing better to do than clash, wear a support the troops badge, and say god bless America like a certain 'way of life', whatever that means, is worth protecting and worth the lofty air we keep. That went off subject so I guess I'm just venting...

I think all music degrades. I think there is a point at which
any genre has run it's course and all that could be done within
the style has been done... at that point some musicians trudge on
and keep creating in the style and this music often brings little
new to the table... and this, I would agree, is degrading...
but all musical style must go through this cycle of being in and
being out... that style of music will always come back -in some
form or another- and all of the sudden those musicians will be the
old faithfull "originals".
disco degraded... metal degraded... jazz degraded...
folk degraded - everyone has heard those years where bob sounds
like an exagerated version of himself -obviously tired of the
movement...

AFA the angry thing... there has always been angry music. Metal
certainly didn't invent that. But is there good poetry there when
you take away the screaming?

Yeah a genre does get to the point where it seems nothing more can be done with it. It takes a few creative minds to revitalize it in a way that changes peoples minds about what it can achieve. Rock and roll was originally thought to be dead in the late '60s when the folk revival became popular - but we all know it came crashing back with the Beatles and they innovated the hell out of it until 1970. The folk revival was an authentic thing too - people were making records with spare, acoustic accompaniment just like groups did in the '10s, '20s, '30s, etc. I think it can be done again but it would be hard to pull off in modern times. The '60s marked the last era of that revolutionary feeling. The O Brother Where Art Thou soundtrack almost brought about a folk/bluegrass revival. I really enjoyed that while it lasted. And that brilliant trio Nickel Creek were popular for a short while - their music is a bit tainted now with the added sonic experimentations but the first two records are great.

Yeah Bob Dylan was tired of folk by the time The Freewheelin' was popular (Times was already out and Another Side was on its way). But anyone who decides to like folk automatically hold their work up to Dylan's. His songs are like a blueprint for everyone which I think is sad. Not everyone can write poetry or introspect on paper like he can. Also if one plays folk today its usually in the vein of Nick Drake or Dylan or other singer-songwriters who came around in the '70s and beyond. There isn't enough emphasis on traditional material and learning about the music's origins - again, the lack of education.

No metal didn't invent angry music at all. Most classical artists were quite angry and that definitely comes through their work. I only meant that most metal relies on aggression and machismo to get their point, whatever it is, across. Rap does the same thing a lot of the time - especially the new garbage. Like I said, if you took away the screaming and distorted guitars, their music or ideas wouldn't stand. I think metal is one of the most cliched styles around. And people take distorted guitars way too seriously. I would do without them - or if I wanted a distorted sound I'd mess with the amplifier's wires like groups used to do. I think it's more real that way - instead of just turning up the manufactured distortion knob on the amp. But there's a difference between using machismo and aggression in your music and simply using one's anger for inspiration. A wise man said that anger is negative energy. And that's all there is really, energy. Positive and negative. If we utilize the negative energy and use it as a driving force to create art, an nondestructive thing, then we turn the negative into positive energy. I don't think that comes through in a lot of metal. There is poetry left when the music is taken away. It's up to one's taste or preference to decide if it's good poetry or not - because really that would be hard to define, good and bad poetry. Like Pantera's lament (very appropriate to this thread, by the way) - to me it's cliched and typical of the metal-tortured sentiment. But if somebody enjoys it and identifies with it then I suppose it's successful.

we aren't going to be covering vin diagrams today are we? JK
I hear where you r going with this but I would say that there
is no harm in cheap immitations. We all start out immitating,
and we all hear things differently. We each take away the
things we hear the best and fashion them into our own version.
Sure there are things missing... but this is a snapshot of how
this person heard it... and I can't believe that it somehow hurts
music in general to keep trying and perhaps fail a lot but at
the end of the day get closer to that pure version we hear in our
heads.
The past music will always be there for those who can't get there
fill from todays top 40... who really cares about the rest of the
morons who don't take advantage of it?
It may take many revisions to get there, but this process has
delivered many great artists.

Yeah I think imitations can be cool if they're informed and heartfelt. That's true that we all start out imitating. Quincy Jones said that one should start out imitating 10 of his favorite artists - you know, copy them relentlessly. If nothing else you learn to play as well as they do. But it's important for your influences to coalesce into something uniquely your own. Like I keep saying, I think it's important to be educated on what you're doing as well. Like, people keep talking about Primus in this forum. Les Claypool definitely knows what he's doing or they wouldn't have made it so far. I think Primus is just a novelty act (I don't listen to or like them), but Les is an amazing bassist - just like Tiny Tim was amazing in the late '60s; but he was still just a novelty act. I don't know where I was going with that - just personal opinion stuff. Anyway, I know music can be hurt by cheap and uneducated rip-offs because music is so terrible right now. That's all the proof anyone needs - turn on the radio. Styles are watered down, simplified, and interwoven into a giant mess. It's an uneducated, lazy culture of cool and money that prevails over true art and the discipline that goes into making it. But it's only been about a decade that this has been going on. There were still a very small handful of artists, mostly rappers, in the '90s making classic art. There just happened to be more masterpieces made in the '60s when the social, political, and musical climates where more revolutionary. I don't know why things aren't more revolutionary today - society and the world at large are all in major disarray. Maybe it's the lazy next generation keeping it from happening, I don't know...

Give me a minute to get over the fact that A you dont think I'm
great and B you don't think you are great..................ok
What about bright eyes? he's from your generation - he's a good
writer even at his young age, and he's not a horrible singer...
I think there is plenty going on in music today... but as we get older
and more 'out of touch' with what is hip right now - we have to
make leaps ourselves - and redefine what is good to us. You can't
stick to a genre or you will go down with the ship.

I've said it before and I'll say it again... I don't think you or I
will know when those masterpieces are right there under our noses...
time will tell. I think there are many signs that point to there
being a relative amount of great musicians for our time...
perhaps you are right and we are in a deficiet of talent... but if so
it won't be long before greatness happens on it's own.

I'm talking about artists who record for a major label - that doesn't include us. I know that you and I both have the potential to be great, we'll (hopefully) see in the near future. I think everybody has the potential to be great, if their capacity allows it, but it's hard to find artists working at that level (recording artists). If they are working then yes, there is an EXTREME deficit of talent out there currently. Yeah that one guy, I don't know his name (a.k.a. Bright Eyes) is pretty good. I don't think he's anything special in the bigger scope of things, but he writes songs that are ok. He's a part of that indie rock pseudo-art movement that just kind of gets on my nerves. Some of it is ok, but most of it is uninformed like other modern styles of music. I know I sound sullen, but I'm passionate about music and art and it being genuine. I'm constantly searching through new music and I never ever find anything that's worth it (in my mind). I'd be annoyed to find out there was great music right in front of me and I didn't see it - I never get to enjoy a masterwork when it's new... especially since 90% of what I listen to was recorded before I was born. And I won't stand to think that mature, more worldly people like adults, college graduates, and so on should conform to what morons in their teens think is 'cool' or 'hip'. That's part of the problem right there. Kids should conform to what adults are - adults. Kids have way too much confidence, especially if commerce and art is dumbed down to their rudimentary minds. Granted some adults are lame - particularly tight asses. But there are a lot of adults who are still children, so to speak.

+I apologize for not taking a few of your comments as more lighthearted.
I think it's because I don't know you and it's easy to misread people's
written vernacular.+
-I understand.

+I just don't think metal is important but that's my opinion+
I don't want to(nor do I think I could) badger you into likeing metal...
but...(and I don't even really care for it myself)
what music is really important... very few of us earning the nobel peace
prize over here... I know what you mean tho... did it shape music? yes
Is anything metallica wrote as meaningfull lyrically as what bob did? no
Is anything bob did as musically meaningfull as what metallica did? no
I'll stop here... short of comparing those peaches to these apples.


+I don't know how things were in past generations but I know when I walk
down the street I'm not among brothers and sisters. I don't feel a sense
of togetherness with my compatriots, though I'm not patriotic.+
This is a bird of a diff feather... and I agree with you. I once took
a course called "the philosophy of technology" that dealt with this type
of issue. The fact of the matter is... while technology brings us closer
together (airplane) it drives us further apart (internet anonimity).
I think the loss of 'brothers' is mostly a loss of the mind... cause while
you can't meet those 'brothers' in the street... I am one.

+The O Brother Where Art Thou soundtrack almost brought about a
folk/bluegrass revival.+
I really enjoyed this soundtrack too... but any revival would never
be the same anyway...

+There isn't enough emphasis on traditional
material and learning about the music's origins - again, the lack
of education. +
-sounds to me like you've found your calling.
...lack of edu is too strong a term...
for if they are educated by old -then they are educated
by the new just as much... they need someone to introduce them to the
past if anything.

-you are right about panteras lament being in the same vein... but you
can't really sing the lyrics to 'happy days' over distorted guitars and
have it work either. It's not shakespear, but I think it does stand on
it's own as well as most of what's out there.

+I'm talking about artists who record for a major label+
I was totally joking... but I do have hope for both of us.

+I'm constantly searching
through new music and I never ever find anything that's worth it
(in my mind).+
I think you are comparing all to dylan and you are going to be let down
often if you keep doing that.

+Kids should conform to what adults are+
couldn't agree more... and with the inet and inet radio... trust me,
it won't be long b 4 these record company giants are toppled.
There is a cure and it is coming.