| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Equality 7-2521 
Forum Senior Member
Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
|
 Posted: February 19 2011 at 10:42 |
|
Ayn Rand philosophy alert.
|
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
 |
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 10:57 |
 boo boo wrote:
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
The objective part:
- Skills
- Technical abilities
- Production
- Compositional skills
|
I'm gonna dissect this.
Skills:
Like I said, not all skills are objective. For example, what constitutes a good riff, or good riff maker, is pretty subjective.
Should we judge every musician by how skilled they are at making traditional music? Or how they go about making the music they choose to make? I think the latter makes no sense.
What's the point in criticizing a punk band for not featuring very dynamic instrumentals or drastic time signature changes or flashy solos? What's the point in criticizing a band for sounding atonal and dissonant if that is their intention?
Why criticize a rock n roll band (like many here do) for being sloppy musicians when their chaotic recklessness is part of their appeal? Why criticize hip hop for not being very melodic when it's emphasis is on rhythm? Why criticize minimalistic music...... for being minimal? 
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays.
Technical abillities:
So this one is objective I guess, but it's value or importance definitely isn't.
Production:
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
Compositional skills:
I question this one also. What makes a good composition? Yeah you guessed it, that's subjective too. Weither you think music should be disciplined and precise or wild and free, clean and crisp or raw and dirty, complex or primal. That all goes down to personal preference.
The quality of a song's structure depends on it's intended effect, but music can also leave a positive impression that the musician's DIDN'T intend, so if they failed their intention does that make it bad music even if the listener enjoys it?
I'm not saying music is objectively good IF the band succeeds at what they are trying to do, but there's no way of determining it's objectively bad. Even the goddamn Shaggs have their fans (without any sense of irony) and they were the worst musicians EVER.
Melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, texture, key, pitch, tempo, beat and meter. Those are the prime elements of music composition and the quality of each of those elements from a listener's perspective is purely subjective.
..................................................................................................................................................................................................................
So no, I don't think your objective criteria is really that objective at all. I credit you for at least trying to be fair but nobody can give a completely objective review. Even if it was possible, I wouldn't see the point. Trying to be "fair" doesn't give any interesting insight about the music.
My main problem with many reviewers here is they obsess over technical details rather than describing why this music is pleasing to them, where does it take them, how does it make them feel, etc. And when people DO attempt reviews like that they may come off as incredibly pretentious, often alienating everyone else because nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless. |
Reviews are not completely pointless, nor is music completely subjective nor objective. I had a similar discussion with Paravion in another thread. Yes, you are right that more important than technical skills is how they are utilized but I don't believe in this 100% mean deviation scenario because I haven't seen it happen, ever. People on the other hand move to more than one consensus, which shows that it depends on the nature and extent of your experience and perhaps also the attention you have devoted to the album, but there is a fair amount of convergence on these things and people don't always have diametrically opposite opinions. Something like compositional skill is again a mix of objective and subjective parameters. Ascertaining the techniques being used and how much the composer is able to show an original approach in these is objective but overall control is not because it depends on how well the pieces fit together and what works for some listeners doesn't for others.
By trying to articulate those aspects which are more objective, you can give something for whomsoever is reading the review to go by because, being objective parameters, he would be able to grasp to a large extent what you are trying to say and get some impressions about the album. That is why I like Cert1fied's reviews, he gives a lot of objective information about the album hand in hand with his subjective assessment of it.
I am sorry, but simply stating that whether you like the album or not is fairly pointless because it doesn't mean anything to me, my experience of it may be completely different. But suppose you express some dimensions of the experience that is not alien to me, that gives me a different perspective and maybe that makes me find something to like in an album that I couldn't get into.
Oh, and by the way, compositional skill has nothing to do with whether the listener likes it. He may or may not for his own reasons but that would not affect the assessment of compositional skill. But when you note that the composer is skilled, it is a 'green flag' for others that there may be something of interest here even though you don't like it. Likewise, if you observe that there are some problems in this department, it is a 'red flag' for the listener, something to be aware of and to tread carefully. Same goes for skill. The catch is in breaking it down properly and thoroughly when you analyze the album. The beauty of Red album is not that instrument wise, there is a lot of technical skill going in. The musicians are also dynamic and expressive. And I don't mean expressive in the 'feel' sense, I mean expressive in terms of variations and subtleties. If somebody doesn't like the Red album but observes that the playing is very dynamic and expressive, that is something of potential interest to the listener.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 10:59 |
|
We're getting awfully off topic here chaps.
|
|
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 11:00 |
|
Actually...forget that...it's true, but I do like to see a topic evolve.
|
|
|
|
kglenz
Forum Newbie
Joined: November 28 2010
Location: Mpls, MN, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 39
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 12:26 |
|
So American Idol/Star Search artists are just as valid as the rest? We should just embrace the governmental propaganda of art? Should we sit idol when artists like Miles Davis or Geddy Lee would surely NEVER have succeed in such a venue & say, "well it's all relative anyway, there are no standards & it's all equally absurd", is this where we marginalize those who are seeking more from the airwaves and underestimate seasoned professional masters & years of professional experience to the latest trend? What A LOAD! Being offended by people that have an opinion & are contentious about their tastes is much more absurd. Go to a great restaurant - go to a crap restaurant - there is a HUGE difference in what you will be eating. It is good that art matters to a few & that standards - however pointless to a limited degree - are recognized. Insultingly trivial industry heads are looking for "images" to make quick cash to rule the airwaves so the mega pop marts can sell bland TV & food all on the same shelf. Progressive rockers of the world unite! Cast scorn where it belongs and stamp on the cry babies who get upset by superior - YES SUPERIOR - standards. If you cannot see, how can you teach others to see?
|
|
Catcher10
Forum Senior Member
VIP Member
Joined: December 23 2009
Location: Emerald City
Status: Offline
Points: 18049
|
Posted: February 19 2011 at 14:41 |
Snow Dog wrote:
We're getting awfully off topic here chaps. |
Agree.....may I suggest an application of a 'topical' ointment 2-3x per day on the affected area. This should relieve the ProgRockStaphylococcus infection, getting off topic allows it to spread.
I am not a doctor but I do play one online......
|
|
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 06:01 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
boo boo wrote:
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless. |
That may be true but do you think posting your opinions in the forum carries any more weight than a review?
|
Not really, I just come here out of boredom really, having been banned from the other forums I'm a member of. I know I come off as aggressive and imposing to a lot of people here. But I'm actually pretty restrained, compared to how I usually am on a less strict forum.
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 06:42 |
Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:
Lets see your directions:
boo boo wrote:
I'm gonna dissect this.
Skills:
Like I said, not all skills are objective. For example, what constitutes a good riff, or good riff maker, is pretty subjective.
Should we judge every musician by how skilled they are at making traditional music? Or how they go about making the music they choose to make? I think the latter makes no sense.
What's the point in criticizing a punk band for not featuring very dynamic instrumentals or drastic time signature changes or flashy solos? What's the point in criticizing a band for sounding atonal and dissonant if that is their intention?
Why criticize a rock n roll band (like many here do) for being sloppy musicians when their chaotic recklessness is part of their appeal? Why criticize hip hop for not being very melodic when it's emphasis is on rhythm? Why criticize minimalistic music...... for being minimal?
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays
|
Skills in this case is the ability to lpay an instrument, and that's easy to notice even in a Punk band (Despite the fact I would never listen and much less review a Punk album),
You can perfectly tell if a musician is skilled listening him/her play even a simple tume. |
Well I'm glad you're giving punk a little credit.
There are punk bands who could play more technical stuff when they wanted to, Bad Brains started out as a jazz band, Minutemen actually started out as a prog band.
Even a band as incredibly primal as The Ramones, yeah they were basic, but they weren't sloppy either, they weren't competent at making the music they chose to make.
If you think an artist is attempting to make a certain kind of music and fails at it that's perfectly understandable, crticizing an artist for that reason even if I don't agree with it is ok, I don't object to that kind of criticism.
For one I think Dream Theater fail to capture the spirit of progressive rock, regardless of how incredibly gifted they are technically. That means I believe, without any sense of irony, that The Ramones were more competent. 
boo boo wrote:
Technical abillities:
So this one is objective I guess, but it's value or importance definitely isn't. |
Is not important?
It´s crucial, the technique of each individual of a band allows you to appreciate how well they interplay and how well the band manages to blend different techniques in one song or album. |
Well you're talking about chemestry, another type of skill I believe to be subjective. AC/DC for one had great chemestry IMO even if they weren't exactly elite players. I know a lot of people who don't agree with that at all. Surely because they have their own idea of what makes good chemestry.
boo boo wrote:
Production:
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
|
Like of hate are subjective components, it doesn't matter if you prefer an amateurish production, the point is that you can tell if it's good or bad, if production wasn't important, guys like Spector or Alan Parsons wouldn't be so respected, and popular among musicians in their time. |
Spector and Parsons have their haters too, very passionate ones. Because like I said some people hate their kind of production, I love their production personally so I'm not dissing them.
I already mentioned Steve Albini, who is one of the most prolific and sought out producers in the alternative rock and punk scenes, because of his lo fi sound, however I wouldn't by any means call his production bad, he puts a surprising amount of effort into mic placement to get his desired sound, it's just that other than that he's a non interventionalist, doesn't even like to be called a producer.
Some musicians don't believe in mistakes, in the same way Pollock didn't believe in mistakes. Reducing the "flaws" is considered a form of mutilation by some. I generally prefer slick prediction over lo fi but I don't think people who believe the opposite are objectively wrong. I do enjoy a lot of improvisational art, where the "mistakes" can actually be the most interesting part of a piece.
boo boo wrote:
Compositional skills:
I question this one also. What makes a good composition? Yeah you guessed it, that's subjective too. Weither you think music should be disciplined and precise or wild and free, clean and crisp or raw and dirty, complex or primal. That all goes down to personal preference.
The quality of a song's structure depends on it's intended effect, but music can also leave a positive impression that the musician's DIDN'T intend, so if they failed their intention does that make it bad music even if the listener enjoys it?
I'm not saying music is objectively good IF the band succeeds at what they are trying to do, but there's no way of determining it's objectively bad. Even the goddamn Shaggs have their fans (without any sense of irony) and they were the worst musicians EVER.
Melody, harmony, rhythm, timbre, dynamics, texture, key, pitch, tempo, beat and meter. Those are the prime elements of music composition and the quality of each of those elements from a listener's perspective is purely subjective. |
The highlighted section responds to my point, you make like them or not, but you can tell if a coimposition starts, develops and ends well |
If by "tell" you mean "decide if it's good based on my personal feelings of what makes good composition" then yes.
boo boo wrote:
So no, I don't think your objective criteria is really that objective at all. I credit you for at least trying to be fair but nobody can give a completely objective review. Even if it was possible, I wouldn't see the point. Trying to be "fair" doesn't give any interesting insight about the music.
My main problem with many reviewers here is they obsess over technical details rather than describing why this music is pleasing to them, where does it take them, how does it make them feel, etc. And when people DO attempt reviews like that they may come off as incredibly pretentious, often alienating everyone else because nobody knows what the hell they're talking about.
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless.
|
A good review doesn't stop in objective issues, a good review combines both aspects with the impression that the music creates on the reviewer.
If I know and trust a reviewer, I rely more in the subjective aspect, for example if Sean of Gatot tell me an album is a good, I have confidence, because we have similar tastes, but if I don't know the reviewer, I need to know why did an album caused a great impression on them, and that's only achieved reading their description of how skills, production, technique, etc..
And if the reviews are pointless, this whole site is pointless, because it's created to review albums mainly.
Iván
|
Well, I didn't join this site for the reviews. I consider it a very useful site for getting into new music, not because of recommendations or reviews but because it provides information on so many bands as well as free MP3 streams that I can listen to anytime.
I admit high ratings may increase my interest in checking out a particular album, but that's the thing, I go by ratings on occasion, a review never motivates me to do anything really.
I just don't think music is something that's meant to be described, I don't think people can truly describe WHY they like the music they like and why they dont like other kinds of music. I try my best to describe those things at times but whenever I do people rarely seem to get any understanding or insight from it, it's like I'm speaking gibberish to them.
There are a few people I can connect with, but it's pretty rare. I disagree with most people, it's another reason I don't find critics useful. I know that something can be insightful and motivational even if I don't agree with it, but that requires a specific kind of prose and delivery many people don't have. Too many critics basically say "I don't like it, avoid" and that just makes me want to kick a nun in the throat.
Edited by boo boo - February 21 2011 at 08:20
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11420
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 06:44 |
boo boo wrote:
ExittheLemming wrote:
boo boo wrote:
I think what I'm trying to say is, reviews are completely pointless. |
That may be true but do you think posting your opinions in the forum carries any more weight than a review?
|
Not really, I just come here out of boredom really, having been banned from the other forums I'm a member of. I know I come off as aggressive and imposing to a lot of people here. But I'm actually pretty restrained, compared to how I usually am on a less strict forum. |
That's interesting as I come here because the music covered by the site (mostly) excites me and piques my interest to learn more about genres and bands I may end up enjoying. When I first joined PA I too was pretty full on aggressive (just ask TonyR) but over time you start to realise that those who are bored have only their boredom to share. I sincerely hope you do stick around as beneath your youthful shrill indifference there is clearly an articulate individual struggling to get out. 
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 07:10 |
boo boo wrote:
For one I think Dream Theater fail to capture the spirit of progressive rock, regardless of how incredibly gifted they are technically. That means I believe, without any sense of irony, that The Ramones were more competent. |
The problem here is more you confuse technical and compositional skill rather than Ivan forcing objectivity into the picture. Allying technical skills to coherent goals and ends is compositional skill. Perhaps, the Ramones were more competent in that respect, no comments on that or their technical ability because I am not familiar with their work. But that Dream Theater are technically accomplished is not in doubt. I don't think Ivan is saying anything more than that but you sort of have some quarrel with that, don't know what, given the highlighted portion in your post above.
boo boo wrote:
Well you're talking about chemestry, another type of skill I believe to be subjective. AC/DC for one had great chemestry IMO even if they weren't exactly elite players. I know a lot of people who don't agree with that at all. Surely because they have their own idea of what makes good chemestry.
|
Again, blending influences well is more an aspect of compositional skill and quite different from chemistry, which comes out of the playing (partly anyway, good bands are also adept at utilizing their members' strengths, again more of a compositional aspect). It is no surprise to me that you would pick up fights on the net because you have quite a knack for intentionally interpreting another person's post differently from what they intended and arguing over it.
boo boo wrote:
Production:
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
|
Another example of your confused lines of argument. It is a given that production has to be adapted to the kind of music in question, there's no one size fits all production. People who want Spector production for, say, raw 80s thrash metal are just wrong about it, there's not much subjectivity in the picture. They probably don't like the music, really, but blame the production instead. A fairly common occurrence in music discussions, above being a good example.
So, to that extent, I agree halfway with your last para, which I omitted to quote here. People have a tough time articulating their views on music and I sympathize with that because I am not exempted either. But that doesn't mean someone saying some aspects of music discussion can be objective is dreaming, Ivan's points are quite valid.
Edited by rogerthat - February 20 2011 at 07:14
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 20 2011 at 07:24 |
boo boo wrote:
What's the point in criticizing a punk band for not featuring very dynamic instrumentals or drastic time signature changes or flashy solos? What's the point in criticizing a band for sounding atonal and dissonant if that is their intention? |
I don't think people claim that to be an objective problem, more that they find it boring or disagreeable,as applicable, to their taste. I know that punk or straight up rock songs don't need to be very dynamic or can be played in one time sig throughout but I do admit to finding that kind of music boring after a while. Well, it's my opinion and who gives punkheads the right to call me pretentious for that?  I have higher expectations from music, not so much technically but in terms of emotion/expression and originality. I don't think making straight up 4/4 rock songs not much different from thousands of straight up 4/4 rock songs is highly original. I am entitled to attach a lot of importance to originality, it goes beyond skill which can be learnt and acquired.
boo boo wrote:
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays
|
I humbly submit that that kind of thinking is much more prevalent now, especially in some prog metal bands and was brought in by the 'unpretentious' 80s pop metal bunch, relying on super hot shredding to prop up dull-as-can-be, generic rock/pop songs. I don't think the greats of classical music or jazz or classic prog for that matter fell into this trap because they were able to ally complexity to clear compositional goals. Beethoven's Symphony No.9 in D Minor or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring must be so tough to play but they are wedded to a clear direction and purpose so that if you wouldn't pay attention, you wouldn't notice the technicality of it. Outdated and ignorant? The 'old' set had their heart in the right place, more like.
Edited by rogerthat - February 20 2011 at 07:27
|
|
JS19
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 10 2010
Location: Lancaster, UK
Status: Offline
Points: 1321
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 03:29 |
Roger Waters is the worst singer I have had the displeasure of listening to.
(Don't mind me, just answering the question here)
Edited by JS19 - February 21 2011 at 03:32
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 08:33 |
JS19 wrote:
Roger Waters is the worst singer I have had the displeasure of listening to.
(Don't mind me, just answering the question here) |
Here, have an orange.
|
|
boo boo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 28 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 905
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 08:52 |
rogerthat wrote:
boo boo wrote:
For one I think Dream Theater fail to capture the spirit of progressive rock, regardless of how incredibly gifted they are technically. That means I believe, without any sense of irony, that The Ramones were more competent. |
The problem here is more you confuse technical and compositional skill rather than Ivan forcing objectivity into the picture. Allying technical skills to coherent goals and ends is compositional skill. Perhaps, the Ramones were more competent in that respect, no comments on that or their technical ability because I am not familiar with their work. But that Dream Theater are technically accomplished is not in doubt. I don't think Ivan is saying anything more than that but you sort of have some quarrel with that, don't know what, given the highlighted portion in your post above. |
I can never do something as crazy as deny their technical skill.
My point was, what reason is there to rate the technical skill of a band besides how it effects the music?
How many notes Petrucci can play at a certain speed isn't as important to me as how he can use that skill in a way that benefits the music rather than sounding like a routine exercise.
boo boo wrote:
Well you're talking about chemestry, another type of skill I believe to be subjective. AC/DC for one had great chemestry IMO even if they weren't exactly elite players. I know a lot of people who don't agree with that at all. Surely because they have their own idea of what makes good chemestry.
|
Again, blending influences well is more an aspect of compositional skill and quite different from chemistry, which comes out of the playing (partly anyway, good bands are also adept at utilizing their members' strengths, again more of a compositional aspect). It is no surprise to me that you would pick up fights on the net because you have quite a knack for intentionally interpreting another person's post differently from what they intended and arguing over it. |
How did I misread what he said? He was talking explicitly about the techniques of each musician and the interplay between them. That IS what chemistry means.
boo boo wrote:
Production:
Even production is subjective. Many people hate slick and polished production, some people love low quality production so much even when it's unintentional. And again, different methods of production suits different kinds of music. I agree that lo fi production isn't ideal for progressive rock, but a punk band doesn't need a producer like Phil Spector now does it?
|
Another example of your confused lines of argument. It is a given that production has to be adapted to the kind of music in question, there's no one size fits all production. People who want Spector production for, say, raw 80s thrash metal are just wrong about it, there's not much subjectivity in the picture. They probably don't like the music, really, but blame the production instead. A fairly common occurrence in music discussions, above being a good example.
So, to that extent, I agree halfway with your last para, which I omitted to quote here. People have a tough time articulating their views on music and I sympathize with that because I am not exempted either. But that doesn't mean someone saying some aspects of music discussion can be objective is dreaming, Ivan's points are quite valid.
|
I can accept that technical skill is objectively measurable on it's own, but not neccessarily in how it's applied.
What is technical skill? Is it the application of music theory? What about those amazing musicians who can't even read sheet music? What about people who pretty much make up their own scales and theory instead of following any specific guidlines.
What about the fact that what is challenging to some is easy for others? What about the fact that the size and shape of one's hand affects their playing abillity? What about the fact that every style requires a specific set of skills but not every musician can be shoehorned into one style?
Believe me, I've had experience with other music forums, one where people were always arguing about who is more skilled than who, if it was THAT easy to measure you'd think there wouldn't be so much intense arguing about it. I've had these kinds of arguments myself.
Trying to determine exactly how skilled a musician is requires almost full knowledge of their work, and other tedious methods of analysis that just isn't worth it, what's the point?
rogerthat wrote:
boo boo wrote:
What's the point in criticizing a punk band for not featuring very dynamic instrumentals or drastic time signature changes or flashy solos? What's the point in criticizing a band for sounding atonal and dissonant if that is their intention? |
I don't think people claim that to be an objective problem, more that they find it boring or disagreeable,as applicable, to their taste. I know that punk or straight up rock songs don't need to be very dynamic or can be played in one time sig throughout but I do admit to finding that kind of music boring after a while. Well, it's my opinion and who gives punkheads the right to call me pretentious for that? I have higher expectations from music, not so much technically but in terms of emotion/expression and originality. I don't think making straight up 4/4 rock songs not much different from thousands of straight up 4/4 rock songs is highly original. I am entitled to attach a lot of importance to originality, it goes beyond skill which can be learnt and acquired. |
Well it seems you rate originality more by structure than sound. That's definitely not how I roll. I think a band can make songs entirely in 4/4 and verse/chorus/verse and still be very original just in the way they sound, the tones, the delivery, etc.
I don't think music has to be a race for who is the most original. I'd prefer a band play the music they like to make.
It pisses me off when fans knock a band's work regardless of it's actual quality just because it's not as groundbreaking or out there as what came before it. As if every album they make has to be groundbreaking. Radiohead has severe issues with fans like this.
boo boo wrote:
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays
|
I humbly submit that that kind of thinking is much more prevalent now, especially in some prog metal bands and was brought in by the 'unpretentious' 80s pop metal bunch, relying on super hot shredding to prop up dull-as-can-be, generic rock/pop songs. I don't think the greats of classical music or jazz or classic prog for that matter fell into this trap because they were able to ally complexity to clear compositional goals. Beethoven's Symphony No.9 in D Minor or Stravinsky's Rite of Spring must be so tough to play but they are wedded to a clear direction and purpose so that if you wouldn't pay attention, you wouldn't notice the technicality of it. Outdated and ignorant? The 'old' set had their heart in the right place, more like.
|
I'm not saying musicians who stick to the tradition of making technically sophisticated and complex music are ignorant or outdated no. Don't accuse me of twisting words when you're doing the same.
I was referring to the idea that ALL music has to follow these same ideals and traditions, when the beauty of music is how diverse and limitless it is. Any old guy who is gonna lament about how today's music sucks because it doesn't follow the standards of his generation is gonna be written off as a pompous old grump and rightfully so.
I do not believe in such a thing as "rules" when it comes to music, not a single one, only the ones you the musician make for yourself.
Edited by boo boo - February 21 2011 at 10:59
|
|
rogerthat
Prog Reviewer
Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 10:34 |
boo boo wrote:
I can never do something as crazy as deny their technical skill.
My point was, what reason is there to rate the technical skill of a band besides how it effects the music? |
There's nothing to rate, it is just an objective observation. You are simply objecting to making such objective observations in a review or music discussions but the purpose of this is simply to describe more about the music.
boo boo wrote:
How did I misread what he said? He was talking explicitly about the techniques of each band and the interplay between them. That IS what chemistry means.
|
He said, "how well the BAND blends different techniques in a song or album". It can also mean diverse influences and not only the different techniques of band members. It is also not necessary that the techniques of musicians playing the same genre and same kind of music for years would be all that different. Yes, there would be some differences which they would play off but it's not usually going to be so different that it becomes subjective in that respect. Band chemistry is something entirely different from what he is referring to.
boo boo wrote:
I can accept that technical skill is objectively measurable on it's own, but not neccessarily in how it's applied. |
Who said THAT is objective anyway? You just assumed somebody did or everybody does, whatever, as per usual.
boo boo wrote:
What is technical skill? Is it the application of music theory? |
No. You are clearly quite confused.
boo boo wrote:
What about those amazing musicians who can't even read sheet music? What about people who pretty much make up their own scales and theory instead of following any specific guidlines. |
Well, what about them? Means cannot be confused with ends. Something that is technically difficult remains technically difficult, it is an occurrence, a phenomenon, not an ideology or philosophy to music making. Whether the musician was schooled or not has no bearing on whether what he plays is technically challenging.
boo boo wrote:
What about the fact that what is challenging to some is easy for others? What about the fact that the size and shape of one's hand affects their playing abillity? What about the fact that every style requires a specific set of skills but not every musician can be shoehorned into one style? |
What about these again, how are any of these relevant to the discussion? Do you actually presume that people don't know about these things? Not highly advisable, I should say. Once again, you are flying off into a tangent? Why can't you stick to one point of debate instead of embarking on side-rants?
boo boo wrote:
Believe me, I've had experience with other music forums, one where people were always arguing about who is more skilled than who, if it was THAT easy to measure you'd think there wouldn't be so much intense arguing about it. I've had these kinds of arguments myself. |
It is just an exchange of opinions, no harm comes out of it and usually one's knowledge is enriched by different perspectives. I think you need to be cured out of the disease of confusing fact for opinion, a disease that makes life on the internet tough. But while we are on that, sorry, that someone is more naturally talented and didn't probably have to work as hard to some others to achieve a certain level of accomplishment is not a reason to give him a 'handicap' in rating him. Some people are more talented and play difficult stuff more easily than others, it's a fact of life and people have to live with it. It has no bearing on a discussion on who is more accomplished.
boo boo wrote:
Well it seems you rate originality more by structure than sound. That's definitely not how I roll. I think a band can make songs entirely in 4/4 and verse/chorus/verse and still be very original just in the way they sound, the tones, the delivery, etc. |
Theoretically, it is possible but that considered, a band that can actually write original melodies and devise original structures to suit such would still be more original than a band that has to rely on tone and production to distinguish itself from the crowd. See, I said "not highly original" and not "unoriginal". It is a sliding scale, you may be satisfied enough with a band's only distinguishing stylistic attribute being tones to call it very original, but not me and I have a right to.
boo boo wrote:
I don't think music has to be a race for who is the most original. I'd prefer a band play the music they like to make. |
And why would someone like to imitate well trodden paths? I dabble in writing (fiction), singing and composing in my free time and going by the effort that goes into sustaining what is just a hobby for me, I cannot, for the life of me, see why someone who toils hard to master an art medium would be content to be a me-too. Many do choose that path and it's theirs to make, but as a listener, I don't have to be happy with a me-too. It's very simple, I can simply listen to Bonded by Blood (album) again when I want some crackin' thrash metal, I don't need the band by the same name paying 'tribute' to the thrash Gods or whatever. What is the point of listening to a new (as in, not heard by me before) album if it has nothing new to offer to me? I don't mind listening to an album I have heard before again, no, I don't have THAT problem that some devoted collectors do.
boo boo wrote:
It pisses me off when fans knock a band's work regardless of it's actual quality just because it's not as groundbreaking or out there as what came before it. As if every album they make has to be groundbreaking. Radiohead has severe issues with fans like this. |
Ermmm, what precisely is "actual quality"? Even in a discussion over subjective attributes, we have to define some benchmarks to weigh by? Where does actual quality in music composition come from? That aside, original and groundbreaking aren't interchangeable and no more do I demand every album and every band to be groundbreaking. An illustration: Groundbreaking = Piper at the gates of dawn. Original = Red. Approaching a given musical situation and moment differently is also originality. Evoking a different emotional nuance is also originality. In fact, all that I expect from a band is to express emotions in their own original and distinct way. Instead, most bands want to play it the rock way or the blues way or whatever genre way to a T and don't have the guts to make an unique statement that, whether or not it is good or bad, is at least unmistakable and cannot be taken away from the band. And oh, I have no truck with the out there crowd. Pretending that melody is boring is a boring pursuit in itself.
boo boo wrote:
boo boo wrote:
Making whatever music you intend to make requires some kind of skill, everybody acts like the only skill of any value is the kind needed for making the most complex and technical music. That may have been what a lot of people believed back in the day but it's a very outdated and ignorant way of looking at things nowadays
|
I'm not saying musicians who stick to the tradition of making technically sophisticated and complex music are ignorant or outdated no. Don't accuse me of twisting words when you're doing the same.
I was referring to the idea that ALL music has to follow these same ideals and traditions, when the beauty of music is how diverse and limitless it is. Any old guy who is gonna lament about how today's music sucks because it doesn't follow the standards of his generation is gonna be written off as a pompous old grump and rightfully so.
I do not believe in such a thing as "rules" when it comes to music, not a single one, only the ones you the musician make for yourself. |
I don't have to twist your words, if only you'd read your own before posting.  For your benefit, I have posted what you wrote earlier. Tell me how the bold portions don't contradict each other. First, you demand old fogies to shut up and not make rules for others but in the same breath, you have made rules for what is ignorant and outdated TODAY. And what "same ideals and traditions" are you talking about? What same ideals and traditions binds rock, jazz and classical? They are all evidently different kinds of music with their own set of ideals. I also did not refer to any ideals in my post, I simply referred to the basic principle of allying complexity or technicality to clear compositional goals. I am sorry but music that does not adhere to this principle is usually going to sound either like a confused mess or an annoying burst of self indulgence. Every section of music written must be there for a reason. Whether the mood the composer has in mind is achieved largely from the composition itself or is also heavily dependent on the rendering and production is not relevant here; at the time of conceiving a musical part, the composer should have had some purpose in mind. If such a purpose does not emerge after several careful listening sessions, it is time to write off the song, period.
Edited by rogerthat - February 21 2011 at 10:37
|
|
let prog reign
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 11 2010
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Points: 256
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 11:51 |
JS19 wrote:
Roger Waters is the worst singer I have had the displeasure of listening to.
(Don't mind me, just answering the question here) |
hmm thats interesting, what singers do you like?
|
|
Once upon a time there was some writing on the wall we all ignored, until the time that there was war and feasts of famine at our door
|
|
Steven Brodziak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 24 2010
Location: usa
Status: Offline
Points: 488
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 12:48 |
I have a bootleg by Genesis called "Live from the Mouth of the Monster" "ATTWT" era. Phil tried to sing "Dancing With the Moonlit Knight" He could not keep up nor hit the highs Gabriel mastered. They switched songs in mid stream when his voice started cracking.
It was difinitive proof that Phil couldn't "do it all".
|
|
Well, there it is. (Amadeus)
|
|
topographicbroadways
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 20 2010
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 5575
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 12:50 |
Steven Brodziak wrote:
I have a bootleg by Genesis called "Live from the Mouth of the Monster" "ATTWT" era. Phil tried to sing "Dancing With the Moonlit Knight" He could not keep up nor hit the highs Gabriel mastered. They switched songs in mid stream when his voice started cracking.
It was difinitive proof that Phil couldn't "do it all".
|
I think Phil's voice peaked in 1977 and went slowly downhill from there. After Duke he seemed to really lose it vocally
|
|
|
|
Steven Brodziak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 24 2010
Location: usa
Status: Offline
Points: 488
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 12:55 |
Evolver wrote:
While Neal Morse sometimes sounds too much like Tom Petty to me, I don't find his vocals painful.
Any death metal growls make me cringe.
James LaBrie sometimes gets too shrill.
The vocals on Rick Wakeman's "King Arthur" album always annoy me.
|
Good choice on King Arthur. Just a bland vocalist, however maybe Wakeman wanted him bland so he'd be the highlite!
|
|
Well, there it is. (Amadeus)
|
|
Steven Brodziak
Forum Senior Member
Joined: November 24 2010
Location: usa
Status: Offline
Points: 488
|
Posted: February 21 2011 at 13:02 |
irrelevant wrote:
^ I just like how you used the word "bint". |
But is it a moistened bint?
|
|
Well, there it is. (Amadeus)
|
|
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most Painful Prog Vocals
