FYI: Truth Attack - All Genres Of Music That Have Ever Existed Contain Awesome Music In Them, And If You Write Off A Whole Genre Of Music You Are Being Closeminded And Dumb

DON'T MALIGN TRY TO FIND THE THE AWESOMENESS IT'S OUT THERE PPL! IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT YOU SHOULD TRY HARDER, OR OPEN YOUR MIND AND EARS, OR BOTH

this is OTM.

Completely wrong. There are good genres and there are bad genres. Within bad genres, virtually everything is bad. Within good genres, more or less everything is great.

This is OTM, but people are gonna countersuggest like crazy. ha xpost

For instance, I have never heard a bad McCartney-esque melodic pop song. Ever.

NO THIS IS WRONG AND YOU KNOW IT!!!

Thread ends.

i often joke with people that when i'm old and "done" with all other musical genres, i am going to star getting really into carousels & music boxes.

A bad McCartney-esque emelodic pop song, you ask for?

Susanna by the Art Company.

I thank you.

That one is not McCartney-esque.

i love how geir suggests that there are bad genres but only mentions that ALL mccartney-esque songs are GOOD, which is totally not what the thread is about at all.

Well, I also said that virtually everything is bad within some genres. Now, there is good (that is, melodic) hip-hop, but there has never been any good 12 tone music.

Geir name me a genre that has never produced even ONE good song. I guarantee you cannot do it.

Sure there has, don't be dense. xp

Twelve-tone music? I pick "Rivers of Babylon" by Harry Partch.

OK, next genre?

This is all very reasonable, but I reserve the right to give some genres short shrift in order to concentrate on the ones that interest me more.

Absolutely.

As for the other threads, there is good metal (well, good heavy rock at least) and there is good country.

this is a big no duh, guys

here has never been any good 12 tone music.

oh shut up

See, the thing is, Louis is funny.

This is all very reasonable, but I reserve the right to give some genres short shrift in order to concentrate on the ones that interest me more.

― chap, Monday, October 20, 2008 3:48 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

yeah i mean there's personal taste.

this is a big no duh, guys

― metametadata (n/a), Monday, October 20, 2008 3:51 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink,

yes, one would think....but last week made me think a "stating the obvious" thread was, in fact, necessary.

Ah, I remember it well (page goes swirly)

Piers Morgan: You all laughed when Eddie Izzard said it last week!
Ian Hislop: See, Eddie Izzard is funny.

it can be hard to hear what is good in a genre you don't have many good experiences with. sometimes it's hard to even hear what is happening.

I just don't accept the idea of judging a genre from its own criteria. Some criteria I just cannot accept. A genre that sort of rejects melody and harmony I can never see any value in, and it is not likely to produce any good music.

Completely wrong. There are good genres and there are bad genres.
This thread is indeed a "no-duh" for smart people with ears, so your response does not surprise me. Oh, and "McCartney-esque melodic pop" is not a genre.

xpost

Geir can't figure the
format for hustler criteria
Not chrome, grown rims with stallion insignia

Why are people dealing with Geir as if he is anything other than a didactic gibbering racist lunatic moron psychopath idiot robot troll fuck?

After all these years, I still don't think he's racist. (We're talking 12 years of this exact same conversation.)

I don't think he's racist either.

Arnold Schönberg was black?

he's just a man with a worried mind

uh xp

Actually, yeah, I think I agree with you re; Geir not being racist. I think he walks very close to saying outrageously racist (or what could be perceived as outrageously racist) things with shocking regularity, but I think he doens't give a shit what people look like or where they're from as long as they make melodic McCartney-esque pop with it.

hi geir

you're very sure that you're objectively right about this. not many other people who listen to music have come to the same conclusion, though. regarding many people who have the same opinion about "good" and "bad" genres, i'm sure you would agree are generally uninformed. why do you think this is? do you consider it just a matter of personal opinion, and would equally accept someone who only thinks 1995 georgia rap and booty bass are good genres and melodic pop is 100% bullshit?

That's very brave. Or stupid.

obv i'm not saying that unpopular opinions are necessarily wrong but basically, why do you think your opinions on music are pretty far out of the mainstream of music appreciation? why do you think most fans & critics disagree with you?

Because he's the single most solipsistic man to have ever lived?

Actually, yeah, I think I agree with you re; Geir not being racist. I think he walks very close to saying outrageously racist (or what could be perceived as outrageously racist) things with shocking regularity, but I think he doens't give a shit what people look like or where they're from as long as they make melodic McCartney-esque pop with it.

Staple that to every Geir post from now on...

obv i'm not saying that unpopular opinions are necessarily wrong but basically, why do you think your opinions on music are pretty far out of the mainstream of music appreciation? why do you think most fans & critics disagree with you?

Most fans agreed with me in 1967. And even in 1975, to some extent. They were right then, while they are increasingly wrong now. The baby boomers still understand the essence though. As they did back then.

Goodnight, this thread.

So is anyone other than Geir gonna disagree with the premise or can we just close up shop here?

geir, i'm not saying that there wasn't a time where lots of people were into melodic pop, i was asking you why they don't know - do you think it's a liberal media conspiracy? are people pretending to enjoy avant garde classical and soulja boy while secretly returning to beatles LPs when nobody's looking? you've said james brown was the worst thing to ever happen to music, but his stuff is pretty unanimously loved, even by other corny beatles dudes like you - what do you think those people are getting out of it? why do they bother?

"why they don't know" = "why they don't now"

Geir is, as ever, conflating "music Geir does not like" with "music that is not melodic". The two things aren't the same, at least judging by Geir's assertions on this board.

i think it would take a lot of time and effort for me to get into contemporary country -- i get that it's supposed to be emotional and witty but the sounds in general don't appeal.

i think it takes a lot of time to get "inside" a genre so that the stylistic and personal differences between artists start to appear more prominent to you than the basic stuff of the genre itself, like a photograph developing in front of you.

gff i recommend going to karaoke somewhere rural and watch drunk people singing contemporary country joints, you get to hear it without all the slickness + lyrics are in front of you and you can focus on the storytelling and personal meaning - that's how i got over hating that stuff

geir, i'm not saying that there wasn't a time where lots of people were into melodic pop, i was asking you why they don't know - do you think it's a liberal media conspiracy? are people pretending to enjoy avant garde classical and soulja boy while secretly returning to beatles LPs when nobody's looking?

The answer is punk. Even though I do like some punk, punk did a lot of damage to music. Punk and disco together. They may have seemed like cat and dog at the time, but together they ruined music.

reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit, huh

Which question is that the answer to?

music is a market -- if tons of people were not interested in hearing disco and punk, and buying the records, it would have had no effect at all. why would people be interested in hearing punk or disco, do you think?

a/w it's funny you mentiont that. i went to a vfw this weekend -- it's in the city and they get a young crowd doing drunk karaoke. every now and again a girl would get up and do a country tune (who does "redneck woman?") and they were always much better as singers. those people are pretty serious.

WARNING WARNING CHALLOP AHEAD

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band. The suckiness doesn't come as much from the acts who got famous as it does from the acts they inspired who didn't actually know what they were doing.

So do you actually think that?

I think it's pretty disingenuous to say that the icons of the 60s and 70s were/are only loved for their melodies - I mean the Beatles wouldn't be so revered without their playfulness and textural experimentation, nor the Stones without their huge grooves, nor Bowie without his self-awareness and contextual games. I'm not denying that all three artists' confidence with a tune isn't/wasn't a huge part of their appeal, part there are a number of factors at play.

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.

People got over those ideas. But The Beatles were never the one and only dominant influence on most music like they were until the mid 70s. Maybe except for a brief Britpop boom in the mid 90s.

hi again geir - i'm going to link you to a video, one of my favorite songs ever recorded. i hope you'll listen to it - i'll be happy to listen to a song you recommend to me afterwards

that's big daddy kane performing "raw". i really love this cut, and it's just a dude rapping (not singing) over a straight james brown drum loop (from "hot pants"). i'm not the only person who loves this, its part of the rap canon, for good or bad, and it's revered by lots & lots of people. people aren't enjoying it as a rebellion against 60s pop, and there's not really any extramusical factors at play here - it's not like we're distracting by a flashy video or the clout of listening to a 20 yr old song. i can explain what the appeal is to me, but i feel like there's not much you'd enjoy about it. i don't think you're objectively wrong for that, you just aren't into rap music. so, why am i big deal capital-w wrong for listening to this? what do you think is the error with me & other heads that we enjoy this track?

Piers Morgan: You all laughed when Eddie Izzard said it last week!
Ian Hislop: See, Eddie Izzard is funny.

wasn't it actually "people like him tho"?

that's big daddy kane performing "raw". i really love this cut, and it's just a dude rapping (not singing) over a straight james brown drum loop (from "hot pants"). i'm not the only person who loves this, its part of the rap canon, for good or bad, and it's revered by lots & lots of people. people aren't enjoying it as a rebellion against 60s pop, and there's not really any extramusical factors at play here - it's not like we're distracting by a flashy video or the clout of listening to a 20 yr old song. i can explain what the appeal is to me, but i feel like there's not much you'd enjoy about it. i don't think you're objectively wrong for that, you just aren't into rap music. so, why am i big deal capital-w wrong for listening to this? what do you think is the error with me & other heads that we enjoy this track?

That's where disco comes in. Some people have gotten way too fixated about dancing and rhythm. And disco started it.

http://speakingoffaith.publicradio.org/programs/britishradical/images/qutb.jpg

did you listen to the song, geir? what would you recommend to someone like me who has been brainwashed into music like "raw"?

Some people have gotten way too fixated about dancing and rhythm. And disco started it.
I thought James Brown started it.

it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.

except these things are true

what would you recommend to someone like me who has been brainwashed into music like "raw"?

Well, first of all there must be some stuff that combines rhythm with lots of melody, and that would be better.

I thought James Brown started it.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular. It was disco that really achieved mainstream success.

"Well, first of all there must be some stuff that combines rhythm with lots of melody, and that would be better."

why would it be better than "raw"? why isn't it just "different" from "raw", but "better"?

ethan why are you bothering

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.

i kind of agree with this! as a kneejerk reaction, anyway, i assume there are all sorts of arguments and examples people could use to 'prove' that it doesn't hold up. but i agree with the spirit of it.

metal is my huge blind spot, everything about it is so alien to me...so much so that i'd never even diss it in passing, but i don't think i'm ever going to appreciate a metal track.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular.

lolz

More melodic. There doesn't need to be an opposition between melody and rhythm. As, actually, a lot of 70s disco proved. Not to mention early 80s new pop.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular.
Yeah, neither were the Beatles until Eric Idle came to the rescue.

geir, here's what you're saying sounds like to me -

"paintings that use lots of blue are the only good paintings, and paintings that use orange ruined painting. there are some paintings that use blue and orange, and they're good because of the blue parts. but you should really only enjoy paintings that are blue."

is this an unfair characterization? can you explain how what you're saying is different than this?

anyway the title of this thread should be ILMs motto/credo

geir, here's what you're saying sounds like to me -

"paintings that use lots of blue are the only good paintings, and paintings that use orange ruined painting. there are some paintings that use blue and orange, and they're good because of the blue parts. but you should really only enjoy paintings that are blue."

is this an unfair characterization? can you explain how what you're saying is different than this?

In the past, only paintings that looked like they "photographed" reality were considered worthy paintings. At the same time, only music with melody was considered real music. The people back then were right.

where's that thread where people went into geir's slsk folders and found a load of wu-tang and jay-z?

yes, one would think....but last week made me think a "stating the obvious" thread was, in fact, necessary.

so is this like an ilm reboot?

in...well, not defense of geir, but in defense of him not being quite the freakish monoimaniacal outlier he appears to be here, i know plenty of people who routinely write off whole genres -- not as being not of personal interest, or something they just don't get, but as being somehow objectively valueless. hip-hop and country are the two most common, but dance/disco/techno, jazz and metal aren't unusual targets. so i think this is one of those threads that's painfully well-duh in the ilm universe, but pretty challopsy at the corner bar. but since none of the corner-bar guys are here, except geir, there's only so much mileage we can get out of it.

it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory.

to be more detailed about the problem with this statement specifically, this means you either have to say that "uneducated" (ie not formally trained) musicians like tribal drummers or early blues musicians or appalachian folk musicians are incapable of making "consistently good music," or you just have to admit that everyone has some knowledge of music theory via osmosis (ie just because they have heard music through their lives).

(oops. monoimaniacal = only listens to cockney rejects)

In the past, only paintings that looked like they "photographed" reality were considered worthy paintings. At the same time, only music with melody was considered real music. The people back then were right.
Now you're saying that Picasso, Van Gogh and multitudes of others all suck?

I think you're underestimating the amount of practice and training and learning through watching/participating that even "tribal drummers" go through.

One doesn't need formal training, no. But an understanding of one's instrument and even an intuitive understanding of music as an entity, yes.

The people back then were right.

There's absolutely no reason why the first opinion should be considered the best! Why do you say they were right?! If your answer boils down to "they just were, I believe it's right because it's right," then FUCK YOU YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF MUSIC ASDFJ;LKASJD;FLAKS JD;ASISUREPWQU9[JFMJKA834787034U!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, because he is an IGNORANT RETARD. You guys are getting this, right?

In a way, punk was the reason for boy/girl bands. I am sure the punks of the 70s never intended it that way, but boy/girl bands were pretty unthinkable in a time where you had to be a musical wiz way above average to even get a recording contract.

except these things are true

Yes, they are.

Not every person who knows how to sing sounds like a Celine Dion or a Clay Aiken and you can know very well how to play an instrument but decide to only play three chords on it; you can also "get" the way that music works or learn about it as you go with having any formal study or a degree in it. I submit that if you can't sing on any level, you don't know how to play your instrument at all and you don't know how to put a song together, your band will not be very good, and I defy you to point out ANY moderately successful band that doesn't do all three of these things.

xp: I would, in fact, argue that there is more than one way to study music and that not everything needs to be rooted in Western academia; I am reasonably certain that tribal drummers do not fall out of the womb knowing the drum patterns of their forefathers, for example.

There are some ways that punk ruined music but it wasn't because it killed McCartney-esque pop; it's because it gave people the idea that you could make consistently good music without knowing anything, either via study or osmosis, about music theory. It also gave the impression you didn't need to know how to sing or play an instrument to be in a decent band.,

^^^strongly strongly disagree..that's the problem with these types of discussions, ppl just cherry pick examples to go with what ever thing they want to think....in all honesty, i don't think bands that are "great musicians" are any better on the whole than weirdo amateurs....like for every band, like say, king crimson, who were on the high scale of being super adept musicians and are great...there's a bad phish oriented local jam band that is just horrid....the same...for every bad shitty punk band bashing it out and sucking there's a band like young marble giants or early wire that make rudimentary chops a plus.

n/a I agree (see the David Fair guitar thread e.g.) but I think HI DERE put "consistently" in there to imply that the idea of quality control sometimes goes out the window in those situations, not to mean that nothing of worth comes out of it.

many xposts!

ethan you are very patient and I admire yr geir outreach program

but remember that story about the german jazz fan who ran up front and started banging on the stage at a sonny sharrock concert yelling "THIS IS NOT JAZZ! THIS IS NOT JAZZ!"

discussing this w/ geir is like talking jazz w/ that guy

Now you're saying that Picasso, Van Gogh and multitudes of others all suck?

There are others that are considerably worse. Picasso and Van Gogh do at least give an idea of what they are painting. I also accept painters like Dali and Andy Warhol, because they are figurative, only "hallucinating" the reality rather than "photographing" it. A bit like painting's answer to 1967 psych pop.

McCartney encouraged complacency and stagnation in melodic pop rock by persisting for as long he has, causing more damage to it than any 'opposing' genre.

I want to hear some of his Fireman stuff tho.

basically GENUINELY talented and special people will make special music whether they are dropped off a conservatory at age 8 to study composition, or dropped in a shithole suburban garage with a crappy drum kit and a $150 kramer guitar....

I submit that if you can't sing on any level, you don't know how to play your instrument at all and you don't know how to put a song together

uh i counterdefy you to name a band, unsuccessful or not, that meets these strawman criteria

But it takes years of practice to learn.

The prog musicians of the early 70s started out in the 60s, but they weren't as excellent then.

x-post to HI DERE--But how do you define can't sing, can't play, can't put a song together? That could mean anything to anybody.

M@tt with the realness

Geir's problem is that he ascribes some kind of Platonic ideal authority to his weirdly myopic worldview. There are plenty of people who are casual fans of music that write off entire genres as not being interesting to them, but they don't act like their opinions should be written in stone as scientific fact the way geir does.

but they don't act like their opinions should be written in stone as scientific fact the way geir does.

OTM.

Geir: there is no correlation between the strength and the correctness of your, or anybody's, opinions!

but especially his

Multiple xposts:

1. I agree with M@tt's statement re: talented people with an affinity for music.

2. How many metal acts can you name with frontmen who sing like Kenny Chesney? Someone who sounds like that is not going to be very successful in the metal genre because he's not suited to what people are expecting from it unless he hits some major right-place/right-time karma. Nothing is impossible but COME THE FUCK ON everyone knows what is likely to succeed within a genre and what is likely to fail, and one of the most annoying parts of the way ILM talks about music is this moon-eyed "everything is possible and amazing and magic and unknowable" bullshit when practically everything we talk about here can be broken down to quantifiable criteria within and across genres that can speak to what makes it unique, what makes it derivative and how that sets an aural palette to which you can react based on your personal tastes.

3. This is subjective topic because the appeals are different for every person, I agree.

4. lol at a lot of you

uh i counterdefy you to name a band, unsuccessful or not, that meets these strawman criteria

the problem is that those criteria are subjective to start with. i know people i could play dna for and they would totally say "those guys can't sing, play or write music on any level" -- because if they could, why would they sound like that? me responding that they're actually sort of genius innovators would carry no weight at all.

I can't think of a single gospel song that I like.

There are probably genres of religious music I don't know of that I also don't like.

It's OK to not be "into" some musics, ppls. Open up yr minds!

My position, regardless of my personal subjective opinions on specific performers, is that anyone who is a successful musician has become one because of the three criteria I stated (delete where necessary for people who only sing/rap or people who only play instruments) and that anyone who has a sustained career in music has mastered them.

i love a good Buddhist chantalong

I mean, if you really love everything, aren't you kind of devoid of taste altogether? (xp)

It's like you are afraid of missing some bandwagon so you get on all of them.

I can't think of a single gospel song that I like.

Oh Happy Day
Jesus is on the Mainline
early Staple Singers
?

I said I couldn't think of one that I like, not one that you like, Shakey.

A big (gospel) choir is always potentially incredible.

How many metal acts can you name with frontmen who sing like Kenny Chesney?

^^want to hear this!

There's this universalist tendency here, like everyone wants to be a music critic. Music critics aren't allowed to dis any partic genre, hence thus qed. But music lovers? They can love and hate anything they want! There's nothing unfair at all about it!

Lol, this whole thing here with Geir is like when you make a cat chase after a laser pointer, but we've got one that leaps drastically in the exact same direction no matter where you point the thing.

Yes, the implication I'm making is that music critics aren't music lovers. (xp)

Sure M@tt, but that still plays to my basic point, which is that genres pop up because people like to categorize things and, when you stray too far outside of your category, unless you are extremely lucky no one will know how to react to you.

("no one" being rhetorical overstatement, since I now actually have to say this to keep people from being pedantic dickheads and misunderstanding my point which is actually INCLUSIVE and not EXCLUSIVE)

genre itself is a non-scientific measure

anything beyond the mechanical objective measurement of notes and rhythms is opinion

discuss

My position, regardless of my personal subjective opinions on specific performers, is that anyone who is a successful musician has become one because of the three criteria I stated (delete where necessary for people who only sing/rap or people who only play instruments) and that anyone who has a sustained career in music has mastered them.

― Pipe Wrench Fight (HI DERE), Monday, October 20, 2008 12:09 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

fine. i think maybe we just have very differing ideas of what a successful musician is and what mastery of those criteria means, but i'm not going to argue about it anymore.

But The Beatles were never the one and only dominant influence on most music like they were until the mid 70s.

Some people have gotten way too fixated about dancing and rhythm. And disco started it.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular.

but boy/girl bands were pretty unthinkable in a time where you had to be a musical wiz way above average to even get a recording contract.

I just don't accept the idea of judging a genre from its own criteria. Some criteria I just cannot accept.

I also accept painters like Dali and Andy Warhol, because they are figurative, only "hallucinating" the reality rather than "photographing" it.

if country music fans of the 1930s heard kenny chesney, they might not think he was country music

kenny's "sound" arrives after years of pop and rock cross-pollinated country

can't we imagine a future where country influences metal and southern lord starts living up to its name?

if you played big daddy kane's "raw" for a disco fan of the 70s would they see any relation at all? I know my mother-in-law would beg to differ.

Are you suggesting that critics gerrymander the genre lines?

if country music fans of the 1930s heard kenny chesney, they might not think he was country music

Many country fans today do not consider him country.

I have never heard any Kenny Chesney so I have no idea if there's any metal bands with vocalists like him. Chuck might though.

I'm saying that genre is not based in any objective measurement system, so the definition is up for grabs

every piece of music is an assertion

some pieces reassert what is already known, some (purposefully or not) redefine the parameters of what is known

this makes genre a measuring stick with unknown boundries - i.e. a contradiction in terms

xpost to libcrypt

critics play a part in this, but so do audiences, industry types, musicians, others

i think the crucial distinction here is between "not liking" a genre and thinking that, in fact, the genre has no redeeming value. taking the painting example above, it's like people who think, e.g., that all abstract art is actually worthless, that all appreciation of it is the product of people wanting to seem sophisticated, and that the entire structure of criticism built on it is essentially a conspiratorial and deliberate fraud. there are still people who think that, and there are people who think something similar about hip-hop, or free jazz. which is a different thing than saying "i don't like free jazz". "i don't like" is a statement of personal preference; "free jazz is terrible" is a statement about the actual value of the thing. personal preferences are entirely defensible as personal preferences. statements of absolute value are not defensible, which is why it drives people crazy when geir frames his personal preferences as empirical universal truths. (although truth be told, anyone who writes about art is likely to blur those boundaries sometimes. because part of critical appreciation or derogation is often the assertion that something is great or terrible. that's usually understood to mean "i think this thing is good or terrible," but the "i think" part is often left out.)

My position, regardless of my personal subjective opinions on specific performers, is that anyone who is a successful musician has become one because of the three criteria I stated (delete where necessary for people who only sing/rap or people who only play instruments) and that anyone who has a sustained career in music has mastered them.

― Pipe Wrench Fight (HI DERE), Monday, October 20, 2008 5:09 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

so in that case what damage has punk actually done?

also, this is not to say classification systems are of no worth - they are

just realize their inherent limitations before beginning yr personal pop/rock/jazz jihad

continued xpost to libcrypt

i also think "punks couldn't play for shit" is way overstated usually...i mean...steve jones could play, glen matlock could play...the ramones, in their way, were a whup-ass band...then by 78 or 79 most of the punks were doing post punk or had gotten way more polished...even the US hardcore dudes ended up being chopsy and metal-ish after awhile.

(all this is basically art criticism 101, right? but it's also the eternal insoluble conundrum.)

xpost: hell johnny ramone was a great rhythm guitarist. you can only think he sucked if you don't think rhythm guitar is important or worthwhile.

All threads like this suck.

I like how Geir quietly bowed out of this thread when faced with the irreducible truth that his opinion isn't any more correct than, say, ethan's, and couldn't or wouldn't try to explain why it was.

xpost, yeah...

all this is basically art criticism 101, right?

I dunno, most beginning art criticism is still taught "this is the work of the A movement, they did X, here is the work of the B movement, they did Y" without questioning the fundamental assumptions underlying the concept of "movements"

hopefully you would cover the problem of genre somewhere during yr undergrad career however

lol @ at this being a 2008 (not 2001) thread <3 <3 <3

i also think "punks couldn't play for shit" is way overstated usually...

It is more about ideology than about reality, really.

But what the ideology has caused is it paved the way for boy/girl band acts that could neither play nor sing.

Other than that, everything I say on ILM is of course subjective, and there is no way I am pretending otherwise. But so is everything else here too.

i figured he bowed out of the thread to go buy a copy of
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8f/BigDaddyKane-LongLiveTheKane.jpg

All threads like this suck.

― M.V., Monday, October 20, 2008 1:45 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

All Genres Of Threads That Have Ever Existed Contain Awesome Posts In Them, And If You Write Off A Whole Genre Of Threads You Are Being Closeminded And Dumb

geir, these things you said:

But The Beatles were never the one and only dominant influence on most music like they were until the mid 70s.

Some people have gotten way too fixated about dancing and rhythm. And disco started it.

James Brown originally wasn't all that popular.

but boy/girl bands were pretty unthinkable in a time where you had to be a musical wiz way above average to even get a recording contract.

...aren't "subjective", they're wrong. factually wrong.

Well, if you look at James Brown's performance in the UK singles chart (which in Europe is just as important and influential as the Billboard one), it looks like this:
25 James Brown & The Famous Flames Papa's Got A Brand New Bag Sep 1965 Notes
29 James Brown & The Famous Flames I Got You Feb 1966
13 James Brown & The Famous Flames It's A Man's Man's Man's World Jun 1966
32 James Brown Get Up I Feel Like Being A Sex Machine Oct 1970
22 James Brown Get Up Offa That Thing Sep 1976
36 James Brown Body Heat Jan 1977
39 James Brown Rapp Payback (Where Iz Moses?) Jan 1981
5 James Brown Living In America Jan 1986
12 James Brown The Payback Mix Apr 1988
31 James Brown featuring Full Force I'm Real Jun 1988
40 James Brown Funk On Ah Roll

Thus, no Top 20 hits until 1986, when he hit #5 with a song written by Dan Hartman, which was probably the most melodic thing he ever recorded.

OK, I overlooked that "It's a Man's Man's Man's World" hit #13 (again, one of his more melodic moments)

who cares about the UK

lol @ at this being a 2008 (not 2001) thread <3 <3 <3

― Jordan, Monday, October 20, 2008 5:51 PM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

like i said i knew it was pretty challopsy to begin with, but jesus last week was a "why is X genre so maligned"-a-thon all week

what is the country song I heard in the last year that sounded like a rap song? (at least the vocal delivery)

an american musician had a top forty presence on the UK charts spanning more than two decades? how unpopular he must have been!

You know what, guys? When this never-changing Geir in which we live in makes you give up and cry -- say live and let die.

lol geir talking like james brown was as popular as swamp dogg or some shit

James Brown being hugely popular in America does not count for shit in Geir's universe, evidently

x-post

i also think "punks couldn't play for shit" is way overstated usually...i mean...steve jones could play, glen matlock could play...the ramones, in their way, were a whup-ass band...then by 78 or 79 most of the punks were doing post punk or had gotten way more polished...even the US hardcore dudes ended up being chopsy and metal-ish after awhile.

If you look at what I wrote, I said that punk made people who thought they couldn't play think they were just as good as the guys who were successful at it, who could play. The problem, IMO, wasn't so much the original bands as it was the less talented people imitating them.

so in that case what damage has punk actually done?

I think punk is partially responsible for the ongoing denigration and devaluation of the singer in popular music.

i also think "punks couldn't play for shit" is way overstated usually

Totally agree with this

but hasn't american idol taken the Cult of the Amateur and completely rewritten it the other way?

(aside from all the kids with biz failures under their belts that turn up as contestants...)

xp

OK missed Dan's post there and there's some validity to that but this is true of almost any genre isn't it? Especially ones that have a certain DIY element to the creation of the music... like grime made on Playstations and Ableton laptop DJ types with no skill for beatmatching are two recent developments that spring to mind

I think punk is partially responsible for the ongoing denigration and devaluation of the singer in popular music.

lol this is some serious serious bullshit

Either say how or fuck off.

I think punk is partially responsible for the ongoing denigration and devaluation of the singer in popular music.

I don't think punk took the focus off singing talent. punk just codified and made explicit an attitude that was already there. punk was never popular enough to force a seachange in the mass audience's attitude about singers. it was just another symptom of a preexisting trend in popular music.

let's talk about hank williams, billie holiday, elvis, bob dylan, neil young; artists who technically should not have been popular but due to their force of talent redefined what "a good singer" does. every superstar who changed the game without adhering to the rulebook took a chink out of the "first, you need talent" argument.

how about ASCAP? when they doubled the performance royalties on "popular" music in 1940, radio broadcasters balked, banned ASCAP music, and turned to regional music styles like "race" and "hillbilly" music that ASCAP hadn't bothered to represent. and america found out, hey, that stuff is pretty good! and you don't have to be super-talented to make it work.

american democratization of the form? all music as folk music? that's the larger backdrop here, with punk being one obvious byproduct.

* almost every single punk band was centered around a lead singer who served as the de facto focus and frontperson of the band
* i'm assuming your problem with punk is that it made it ok for singers to not sing pretty, which isn't even true because folk had already done that in the '60s and rock music had already done that in the '50s and jazz had already done that in the '40s etc etc which leads me to:
* you're basically spouting the same historical revisionist bullshit that every generation cites for the music of the generation before it except for some reason you're using against something that happened 30 years ago
* even if it was true that "punk is partially responsible for the ongoing denigration and devaluation of the singer in popular music" (which it isn't), how would this be a bad thing?

let's talk about hank williams, billie holiday, elvis, bob dylan, neil young; artists who technically should not have been popular but due to their force of talent redefined what "a good singer" does. every superstar who changed the game without adhering to the rulebook took a chink out of the "first, you need talent" argument.

racist

"chinese person" is the preferred term

Not totally sure where all this popular music that devalues the singer is at.

if anything, the prog music that came before punk was responsible for the ongoing denigration and devaluation of the singer in popular music, because the emphasis was on long instrumental sections over vocals

yay ilx

poor greg lake

lol xp

punk's easy to blame because "I don't need no fookin' talent!" is built into the confrontational stance

however this statement is poor logic: punk doesn't require talent, ergo, all punks are talentless

I agree with this statement: "punk explicitly devalued singing talent"

not so much this one: "punk caused singing talent to be devalued among the general population"

Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count), James Brown didn't top the Billboard list until "Living In America" either. "Living In America" is actually a song I like, but it is obviously not representative of his style.

maybe agree with this one: "punk caused singing talent to be devalued among rock critics"

why doesn't the R&B chart count, geir

Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)
Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)
Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)
Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)
Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)
Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)
Other than the R&B chart (which doesn't count)

You should all learn to read and infer.

There has been an ongoing devaluation of the role of the singer as a musician in most forms of popular music for the past 50 years; punk is one part of a larger picture. It's not just about "singing pretty" and it's not the only reason; it's about the escalation of image and marketing as primary components of the musical landscape.

You run across people who are massively talented in traditional or non-traditional ways who don't make it all the time, and most of the reason why is because they either didn't catch the right break or they didn't have the right look. Add into this the ongoing culture of instrumentalists who consider themselves to be "real" musicians as opposed to singers, something that is prevalent across genres, and also the entire cult of the songwriter (aka the non-teenpop sections of ILM for a good example), and you'll see strong pattern suggesting that in modern society the singer's main function is to be the figurehead and when you have a band where the singer can't play that part, the band's frontman suddenly becomes someone else entirely (hi dere Fall Out Boy).

why doesn't the R&B chart count, geir

Because it is a specialist chart. No wonder James Brown had no competition from The Beatles on the R&B chart, eh?

so R&B charts do not reflect popularity?

Some good chin-scratching here, but no-one has yet said what awesome music was spawned by the following genres:
* crusty
* grebo
* funk-rock
* that early 90s fad for soulless covers, reasonably faithful to the original but with added drum machine
* McCartney-esque melodic pop

'Living In America' is not 'more melodic' than 'I Got You (I Feel Good)' and it's melodic qualities had no bearing on it's chart success which was more down to it's inclusion on the Rocky IV soundtrack.

so R&B charts do not reflect popularity?

They reflect popularity among a certain select demographic. Motown also had lots of R&B #1s, but also proved able to cross over to the pop charts to a much bigger extent than James Brown, because they managed to appeal to non R&B fans too.

a broader way of putting it would be "all musical aesthetics" rather than "all genres" so we don't have to worry about covering some obscure microgenre

either way it's all just noise u put in your ears - IMO all sounds are awesome and everyone should take the time to listen to all sorts of stuff and learn to appreciate the value of even the things he/she doesn't like personally

when I was growing up in the late 70s / early 80s, you'd have to be deaf to be unfamiliar with james brown's "I got you (I feel good)". who cares how many singles he sold the year it was released? he was an american icon. "living in america" was a comeback - what did he come back from, total obscurity?

* McCartney-esque melodic pop

"Penny Lane" and "Paperback Writer". For starters.....

I'd hardly call those melodic

"McCartney-esque melodic pop" has too many qualifiers to count as a genre

I'm betting every american wedding from the 70s to today has seen the DJ spinning "I got you (I feel good)"

except, you know, the ones with string quartets

I'd hardly call those melodic

you're just being contrarian right?

or the ones that play "sex machine"

those weddings are the best

Does 'most tolerant music lover' = 'biggest dilettante' and if so who is the best example of this on ILM?

Paul Edward Wagemann

Not at all xp. Penny Lane seems melodic, but it's a clever disguise what is actually primarily a rhythmic exercise (try tapping the vocal 'melody' to see what McCartney was up to). Same goes for Paperback Writer, which is less sophisticated rhythmically, but relies to a greater extent on added harmonic qualities in the chorus. Anyone who cites these as an example of good melodic qualities doesn't know what they are talking about.

You run across people who are massively talented in traditional or non-traditional ways who don't make it all the time, and most of the reason why is because they either didn't catch the right break or they didn't have the right look.

This is only true in the last 50 years? Sorry if I'm not reading and inferring hard enough but it seems like what you're describing is a side effect of the invention of the small combo band plus 50 years worth of pop culture. I would argue that virtually every artist that has achieved widespread notoriety and success in that time period has done so because people liked the vocalist.

And Fallout Boy is pretty much an outlier, right?

* crusty - what is this? crusty punks? if so, crass
* grebo - "grebo guru" by pop will eat itself! great song!
* funk-rock - did you make this up? who is funk rock? red hot chili peppers? I don't like 'em but they have some good songs.
* that early 90s fad for soulless covers, reasonably faithful to the original but with added drum machine - wow, that famous genre of music
* McCartney-esque melodic pop - ok you got me here, that shit sucks

does "grebo" really count as a proper genre?

The Wonder Stuff were considered "grebo" weren't they?

They were great. A great McCartney-esque pop band, that is :)

McCartney-esque as a term implies that he innovated somehow.

"a clever disguise what is actually primarily a rhythmic exercise"

^^^^ how does this disqualify it from being melodic? "melodic" = having emphasis on melody, and rhythm is one of the dimensions of melody.

geir, how to you feel about 16th notes? seem dangerous to me, could lead to syncopation....

McCartney-esque as a term implies that he innovated somehow.

He did. A lot of the harmonic and melodic stuff he did had only been done in classical music and Tin Pan Alley before. Never in "rock" music. Thus he helped improve rock with elements from superior and more sophisticated genres.

This is only true in the last 50 years? Sorry if I'm not reading and inferring hard enough but it seems like what you're describing is a side effect of the invention of the small combo band plus 50 years worth of pop culture. I would argue that virtually every artist that has achieved widespread notoriety and success in that time period has done so because people liked the vocalist.

I'd argue that for every person who shot up there because they were a great singer, you can find someone else who shot up there because they looked good behind a microphone (Diana Ross) and, that as the music industry has matured, the image has become much more important than the talent associated with it both with the people producing music and the people consuming it.

xp: Geir, The Beach Boys ruin your argument.

I'd argue that for every person who shot up there because they were a great singer, you can find someone else who shot up there because they looked good behind a microphone (Diana Ross) and, that as the music industry has matured, the image has become much more important than the talent associated with it both with the people producing music and the people consuming it.

you can say this about every type of musician, not just the singer, in addition to almost every single type of entertainment job in the entire world.

I can get with Dan on this count, I think.

x-post

In the case of the Beach Boys, they got the influence second hand, from Four Freshmen who must have been heavily influenced by Tin Pan Alley.

well, not like gaffer or best boy. you know what i mean.

you can find someone else who shot up there because they looked good behind a microphone (Diana Ross)

yo i tried to talk to you like a grown-up but for real fuck you

but n/a also OTM as I think a pretty succinct argument can be made that musicianship overall has declined in the last 50 years.

x-posts

(of course that depends on a fairly "old" definition of musicianship and what constitutes musical chops - these days knowing how to use ProTools is just as "important" in terms of producing music as knowing a bunch of weird scales/chords used to be)

must have been heavily influenced by Tin Pan Alley.

hahahaha what

that was BARBERSHOP motherfucker

you can say this about every type of musician, not just the singer, in addition to almost every single type of entertainment job in the entire world.

Oh my bad, I didn't realize that focusing on a particular topic in the interest of having a discussion about it was intellectually dishonest.

Diana Ross recorded some good songs but the fact remains that she wouldn't have gotten to where she is today had she not fucked Barry Gordy.

i don't even know what we're arguing about anymore ... dan is saying he doesn't like punk music specifically because it contributed to a general trend fed by every aspect of popular culture in the past 50 years?

guys guys let's just agree that geir is wrong about everything

we've gone from "punk ruined music" to "wah wah wah, popular culture is junk and nobody appreciates real music" in like 50 posts

McCartney did not innovate, he just popularised further. Les Paul, Bo Diddley and other American figureheads are innovators in rock music. I don't believe anyone outside the USA can make similar claims.

i like how diana ross sings. why is she a bad singer?

Diana Ross recorded some good songs but the fact remains that she wouldn't have gotten to where she is today had she not fucked Barry Gordy.

This is not unique to the last 50 years!!

is that really true, though? to me it seems that for the musicians who do care about chops, the standard is way higher than it was 50 years ago a lot of ways (which is natural, you gotta build on what came before etc.).

xxxxp

for the musicians who do care about chops

It feels to me like this is a way smaller segment of the overall population of musicians than it used to be.

What I learned from this thread:

Did you ever play that game where someone says; Alex likes A, but doesn't like B? He likes Y, but doesn't like X? And then you had to figure out what he'd feel in other circumstances? So, Geir is a lot like that. Let's play, I'll start.

Geir likes the Beatles, but he doesn't like the Sex Pistols.
Geir likes The Great Gatsby, but he doesn't like The Sound and the Fury (see what I'm doing there? the easy to follow, obvious narrative is compelling. the more dense experimental one he doesn't like).
Geir likes John Singer Sargent, but he doesn't like Claude Monet.
Geir likes Robert Frost, but he doesn't like T.S. Elliot.
Geir likes the Exodus narrative, but he doesn't like the Isaiah narrative.

the trend dan talks about has been around for a lot longer than 50 years, you should read about rudy vallee's heyday (he even admitted later in life that he was kinda bad when he was topping the charts)

He had a rather thin, wavering tenor voice and seemed more at home singing sweet ballads than attempting vocals on jazz numbers. However, his singing, together with his suave manner and handsome boyish looks, attracted great attention, especially from young women

Does 'most tolerant music lover' = 'biggest dilettante' and if so who is the best example of this on ILM?

― Annoying Display Name (blueski), Monday, October 20, 2008 3:15 PM (23 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i bet i could make a run for this title, its hard for me to think of music that i genuinely straight-up hate, and plus i dont really know a lot about any of the music i listen to

I don't think I'm the most tolerant music lover, but I'm probably one of the biggest dilettantes musically.

it's too bad that all discussion of genre we have here turns into people arguing with geir as he sits in his basement and frets about other living people having a good time, which is somehow unfair to him.

because the process of starting to like individual moments out of a big range of music you'd previously written off or actively disliked is really interesting.

xp i think i like sargent more than monet

tho that's kind of a solange over beyonce tynan-style challops to throw around innit

Is there a musical equivalent of prop comedy?

slipknot

Adam Sandler? XP

Goole OTM--I remember individual moments that got me thinking seriously about black metal and hip-hop and shit. And Sargent wrecks Monet.

Track that got you into various genres might actually be a good list thread

yeah i'd been seriously anti-reggae in an ignorant way, like yah puff puff bob marley gtfo with that etc. i don't know exactly when i heard "here i come" but was like holy FUCK

xp

I'd be interested in a Most Musically Diverse Listener thread or something like that. What's the wildest stuff people listen to on ILX?

i like how diana ross sings. why is she a bad singer?

She's not a bad singer; she's a singer I don't like that much. I think her voice is pretty weak, particularly compared to the other Supremes, but she benefited greatly from getting access to great songwriters, musicians and producers. I like a bunch of her songs but learning more about her story and hearing some of the women she sang with made me less impressed with her.

most tolerant music lover = cliche but willing to put money on seward (s)

uh erm but i don't think he's a dilettante

There has been an ongoing devaluation of the role of the singer as a musician in most forms of popular music for the past 50 years; punk is one part of a larger picture. It's not just about "singing pretty" and it's not the only reason; it's about the escalation of image and marketing as primary components of the musical landscape.

I can see what you're getting at with this. talk to the average punk band about getting "voice lessons" and you may get met with mockery and/or astonishment - though their guitarist, bassist, and drummer probably had lessons somewhere along the line.

however, I knew a punk/metal band that was becoming extremely popular in the underground, and the lead singer was pressured to leave because the guitarist was regarded as the stronger singer. they didn't think they could make the leap to a major with him (which they did, without the lead singer - whether they could've done the same with him is anybody's guess).

and I know a noise rock band that had their album recently rejected by a noise rock label because they needed to "work on the vocals" per the label head - even though their singer brings a *lot* to the table in terms of "image" or "energy" and putting her picture on the album cover would probably move units all by itself.

there are plenty of punk/indie bands and industry types that are concerned about the quality of their vocals. image over content? sure, that shit's all over, but hanging it around punk's neck, in whole or in part, seems like blaming the mud for bringing the rain...

^^^^ how does this disqualify it from being melodic? "melodic" = having emphasis on melody, and rhythm is one of the dimensions of melody.

something i've posted before on (shockingly) another geir-centric thread:

According to Sophie, Constanze's sister, the cold poultices that the physician Dr. Closset had placed upon Mozart's burning head had rendered Mozart unconscious right up until the moment of death, and Mozart's last movement was an attempt to express vocally the drum passages in the Requiem he was writing.

mozart died writing drum parts!

for the musicians who do care about chops

It feels to me like this is a way smaller segment of the overall population of musicians than it used to be.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Monday, October 20, 2008 2:41 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i guess this is true if you're talking straight instrumental chops (ie not counting computer/dj/mic skills etc.), although i still wonder. that is one of the things i like about new orleans, is that it has a culture where playing horns and drums commands a lot of respect, so kids end up having these amazing chops by the time they get out of high school.

McCartney did not innovate, he just popularised further. Les Paul, Bo Diddley and other American figureheads are innovators in rock music.

But McCartney was the one who made rock worth listening to. 50s rock is mostly musically worthless because it is just three chords and no climax. Frank Sinatra was way superior to rock music in the 50s.

But McCartney was the one who made rock worth listening to. 50s rock is mostly musically worthless because it is just three chords and no climax. Frank Sinatra was way superior to rock music in the 50s.

I'm starting to understand why I always got the impression that people here were rolling their eyes when addressing you...

Musically punk didn't do anything that rock and roll didn't aspire to do, it just took it to new heights. I don't know who to blame for Fall Out Boy singer sounding like a tool.

I should say "greater extents" rather than "new heights"

I like Patrick Stump's voice.

Punk was often about three chords, but the good thing was, at least it was often three different chords than just I-IV-V

it's what you do with/how you manipulate the I-IV-V structure that matters - ignore the "triteness" of the I-IV-V and what do you hear?

Mozart could do fabulous things a I, a IV, and a V chord. So can Stephin Merritt. They do them in different ways. (W.A.M. is untouchable tho obv)

what's wrong with being 'closeminded' wrt music? assuming you don't make your living in the music business, why should it be seen as a negative trait?

btw the word 'chops' is p funny when u think abt it

Was anyone making a value argument about being open/close minded around music?

see threadtitle, homo

(i didnt read the thread obv)

http://images.buycostumes.com/mgen/merchandiser/17194.jpg

lolz Jordan New Orleans is a pretty unique musical environment!

Lindsay asks: "What about third wave ska?"

what's wrong with being 'closeminded' wrt music?

what's wrong with never leaving the country you live in if you have the means to do so?

nothing, as long as you don't go around calling the other countries a load of shit

OTM

what about nazi skinhead music?

regarding the premise of the thread

they could be aesthetically good but morally reprehensible.

I'm sure there is some good nazi skinhead music - racist assholes can't be good musicians?

*sigh* racist assholes tend to let boring polemics overshadow any interesting aesthetics

^^^could be said of any artist who considers politics more important than their art

like wagner?

I don't think that applies to Wagner

how about that burzum dude?

wagner considered his art the most important thing in the universe, surely.

racist assholes tend to let boring polemics overshadow any interesting aesthetics

"like wagner?" was actually in response to this comment

Please show me the awesomeness contained in new age and acid jazz. Thank you in advance.

new age: lotsa Eno, early Deuter, Manuel Gottsching, Steve Roach, Gabrielle Roth, Robert Rich, O Yuki Conjugate, Liz Story, Harold Budd, Philip Perkins, Jon Hassell (especially Aka Darbari Java), maybe some Andrew Deutsch or Jliat if you wanna cross over into drone.

somebody else is gonna have to do acid jazz.

But you say: surely if this were true, it would be common knowledge. Not sure. There are many thing that are true – the state is a parasite on society, private property would solve most social problems, rock music is tedious and stupid – but are nonetheless not generally known or applied.

xpost

All that counts as new age?

have you ever heard any of it? yes it fucking counts.

you can't just define genres to exclude what you actually like, see upthread.

Well then I guess I loooooooooooove new age now. Thanx for the schooling.

I hope 1970s Miles counts as acid jazz.

C'mon Kevin, some of Eno's stuff could TOTALLY be considered new age by someone who isn't terribly concerned by labels - or at the very least, a lot closer to new age than to other enomusic.

...but of course, this is all about the ultimate uselessness of labels.

can this thread explain why there is no JADE WARRIOR thread?

Ha, I remember one time when I was home from college I was playing a Rachel's album and my parents said it sounded like something on Windham Hill.

some of Eno's stuff could TOTALLY be considered new age by someone who isn't terribly concerned by labels - or at the very least, a lot closer to new age than to other enomusic.

I hear ya, MVB. But I think the key idea in your xpost is less "some Eno = new age" than it is "someone who isn't terribly concerned by labels." Because for me, the interesting aspect of genre is feeling out the contexts in which a genre label signifies and then assessing the value of that labeling gesture. And by "value," I don't mean right or wrong but rather frequency. Have enough people understood and referred to Eno as new age in order to make the term valuable (in relation to Eno)? Who calls Eno new age and when? Should someone who isn't terribly concerned by labels determine a genre label? Should Eno be considered new age because On Land is a lot closer to new age than Here Come the Warm Jets is?

And in the fwiw category:

No results found for "eno is so new age"

Results 1 - 1 of 1 for "eno is new age"

But the latter leads to a piece ripping on that notion. Some nuggets:

"new age" music-- an aesthetic scourge (Eno) unintentionally helped to bring into being.

NEWS FLASH:
!!!!BRIAN ENO IS NOT A NEW AGE MUSICIAN!!!!

WHY?
Good question.
Well, because New Age music is political and spiritual. Eno is neither. Eno is neutral.

There's this idea that if something is mellow, and electronic it is somehow "New Age Music."

OTHER ARTISTS
WHO ARE NOT NEW AGE MUSICIANS
AND YET WILL BE FREQUENTLY FOUND
IN THE NEW AGE SECTION:
John Fahey
Tangerine Dream
Ryuichi Sakamoto
Jean Michel Jarre
Robert Fripp
Pete Namlook
David Van Teighem
Penguin Café Orchestra
Philip Glass
John Hassell

No results found for "eno is new age as fuck"

Results 1 - 10 of about 492,000 for eno "new age". (0.12 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 240,000 for "brian eno" "new age"

HOW CAN THESE AMAZING STATISTICS NOT MATCH

Ok go through all those and tell us what they say.

how about u stfu dipshit

Results 1 - 10 of about 17,000,000 for "miles davis" jazz. (0.29 seconds)

Results 1 - 10 of about 116 for "miles davis is jazz".

AS IF A STRANGE PATTERN EMERGING CANT QUITE PUT FINGER ON IT

No results found for "miles davis is acid jazz"

Am I to conclude that, since I left work, there have been TWO HUNDRED clusterfuck Geirbait posts to this godforesaken thread?

http://k-punk.abstractdynamics.org/archives/kandinsky.jpg

How happy I am that this image, which I love, is from k-punk.

Geir is insane. He is without the ability to reason. He is solipsistic to the extreme. There's no point even treating him like a human being. Has he ever even engaged with anyone on this forum on a personal level? Referred to someone by name during a discussion? Not that I can recall; he just repeats repeats repeats the same things over and over and over again almost completely regardless of context. He's insane. He's an automaton. His opinions seem interesting at first but they're unfounded and didactic and immutable and insane. He makes Carmody look like Jonathan Ross.

I guess we didn't close this thread then...

I guess that as long as he's allowed to derail threads like this such things will continue to happen.

Keep banging your heads against those walls, folks. They might break if you do it enough.

Everyone on this thread has suggest banned Geir, right?

Not me, seems daft to ban him

It would, however, be funny

Not me re the ban either.

Short of setting his posts to automatic Babelfish I'd definitely support a ban. He's a pruick and a creep.

or even a "prick" and a creep.

"Pruick". Like that.

Well there's another word beginning with "p" that comes to mind with Geir but I've been warned about that before...

pineapple?

porcupine?

pinstriped?

premium?

I'm at a loss

priapic

kevin john bozelka is worse than geir

Prog rock fan

"priapic"

cos of his..bald head?

sorry I meant "pathetic"

Mozart could do fabulous things a I, a IV, and a V chord

There is not a single Mozart work (maybe apart from the stuff he composed as a kid) which doesn't at least contain some kind of modulation, at least one chord apart from those three.

Remember, I am talking about the entire work and not a part of it.
One example here is "My Hometown" by Bruce Springsteen. On the surface, it may sound like a three chord song. The chorus and the verses use nothing but I-IV-V. BUT, the middle eight is the key to that song. It opens up everything. BECAUSE it has a minor chord! If that song didn't have the middle eight, I would have hated it. But that middle eight makes sure that everything opens up, that everything climaxes. It is the key chord in the entire song.

Here beith a I chord, here beith a IV, forthcoming also a V chord

Now go engender an orchestra...

Geir, can you refer to people by name? Can you even tell people apart?

from what I understand, new age is a branch of ambient, and eno is responsible at least for the "ambient" term. eno may or may not be new age, but new age is a form of ambient and so is eno.

so I wrote a couple things upthread which I'd like to explore:

anything beyond the mechanical objective measurement of notes and rhythms is opinion; genre is not based in any objective measurement system, so the definition is up for grabs; every piece of music is an assertion; some pieces reassert what is already known, some (purposefully or not) redefine the parameters of what is known; this makes genre a measuring stick with unknown boundries - i.e. a contradiction in terms

so let's talk about whether eno is new age or not. there's this:

NEWS FLASH:
!!!!BRIAN ENO IS NOT A NEW AGE MUSICIAN!!!!

WHY?
Good question.
Well, because New Age music is political and spiritual. Eno is neither. Eno is neutral.

which reads as the desperate protest of an eno fan that his beloved shouldn't be associated with something as icky as new age. how does a form of instrumental music consisting largely of meditative soundscapes somehow contain political/spiritual elements? unless of course you are evaluating things outside the music - the musicians' spiritual beliefs, the company they keep, the record label they're on.

this is the problem with genre - it relies on signifiers that have nothing to do with the music and closes listeners' ears to actual content. "new age" becomes a dismissive pejorative, regardless of whether or not the music is of any real worth. does "new age" really contain any value as a descriptor? who is responsible for the management of who is and who isn't "new age" - the people who don't want that awful albatross hung around their favorite artist's neck?

also, there *is* a spiritual and political subtext to eno's ambient work. he meditates, and he thought that the public would benefit from more meditative surroundings. music for aiports was originally installed in an airport, it was a subtle & provocative criticism of modern ugliness, of the alienation built into the design of public places. eno's a real thinker, so the medium became the messsage in a more satisfying way than others who followed in his footsteps. but eno's aims and that of a thousand hippy-dippy "new age" purveyors were not all that different.

philip glass - new age or no? how about his soundtrack to koyaanisqatsi? it's ambient, spiritual, and political.

Hmm, equally, I'd have thought it was a "New Age" fan who finds Eno shallow and lacking in political undercurrent.

Who knows, eh?

good point - I guess a new age "true believer" could see eno as a decadent dabbler but that's the trouble with fundamentalists isn't it

Is there such a thing as a New Age true believer? Was any music called "New Age" before Eno went ambient?

Defending the Indefensible: Windham Hill

"New Age Music", search and destroy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age_music

New Age music has its basis in the work of 1960s European and American electronic and acoustic musicians exploring music for creating expanded consciousness. In the late 1970s, music began to be recorded specifically for the purposes of meditation and relaxation. During the early 1980s, the term "New Age music" was introduced more widely to the public by radio stations and then by music retailers and some record companies, as a marketing tag applied to a variety of non-mainstream instrumental music styles. Radio stations in major markets (such as "the Wave" in Los Angeles) defined themselves as "New Age", while playing some New Age music and using nature sounds in their station-id's, yet those stations also heavily featured styles musically and philosophically unrelated to New Age music, for example, Smooth Jazz. The first true New Age radio station is the U.S. was KLRS (Colours) in Santa Cruz, CA with a non-stop playlist of New Age music and is considered the first New Age station in the world. Most major cable television networks have channels that play music without visuals, including channels for New Age music, such as for example, the "Soundscapes" channel on Music Choice.

Yes, I thought Windham Hill kind of invented the term

New Age music is defined more by the feeling it produces rather than the devices used in its creation; it may be electronic or acoustic, or a mixture of both. New Age artists range from solo or ensemble performances using Western instruments such as piano, acoustic guitar, flutes, harps and many others, to electronic musical instruments, and Eastern instruments such as sitar, tamboura, tabla; and instruments from all other parts of the world, the human voice singing in languages from all around the world.

Some New Age music artists openly embrace New Age beliefs, while other artists and bands have specifically stated that they do not consider their own music to be New Age, even when their work has been labeled as such by record labels, music retailers, or radio broadcasters.

There is a significant overlap of sectors of New Age music, Ambient music, electronica, World music, Chillout, spacemusic and others. The two definitions typically used for New Age are:

* New age music with an ambient sound that has the explicit purpose of aiding meditation and relaxation, or aiding and enabling various alternative spiritual practices, such as meditative healing, chakra auditing, and so on. The proponents of this definition are almost always musicians who create their music expressly for these purposes.[2] Prominent artists who create New Age music expressly for healing or meditation include Aeoliah, Deuter, Deepak Chopra, and Steven Halpern.

* Music which is found in the New Age section of the record store.[2] This is largely a definition of practicality, given the breadth of music that is classified as "new age" by retailers who are often less interested in finely-grained distinctions between musical styles than are fans of those styles. Music which falls into this definition is usually music which cannot be easily classified into other, more common definitions, but often includes well-defined music such as Worldbeat and Flamenco guitar. Musicians as varied as George Winston, Dean Evenson, Will Ackerman, Ray Lynch, Suzanne Ciani, Jim Brickman, Enya, B-Tribe, GregZ, Deep Forest, Jean Michel Jarre, Enigma, Kitaro, Yanni, Oscar Lopez, Mike Oldfield and Steve Roach are typically classified as New Age despite their wildly divergent musical styles. It also includes expressly spiritual New Age music as a subset.

Liked it from day 1. Love it still today:

Enya - Orinoco Flow (Sail Away)

New Age music is defined more by the feeling it produces rather than the devices used in its creation;

this is an excellent way to classify something!

don't they know new age music makes some people want to kill things?

Disney World's Tomorrowland used a New Age and Contemporary Jazz sdtk for years, which has made me a fan of:

Andreas Vollenweider - Night Fire Dance
David Lanz - Behind The Waterfall
Suzanne Ciani - Summer's Day
Vangelis - Elsewhere
Larry Carlton - Bubble Shuffle

I get nostalgic every time.

I was looking at wikipedia's acid jazz entry and the only one I could thumbs up was kruder & dorfmeister. but I also haven't heard 90% of the bands on that list.

90's Acid Jazz: Classic or Deathly Dud!

David Hykes (b. 2 March 1953) is a composer, singer, musician, author, and meditation teacher. He was one of the earliest modern western pioneers of so-called overtone singing, and has developed since 1975 a comprehensive approach to contemplative music which he calls Harmonic Chant (harmonic singing). After early research and trips studying Mongolian, Tibetan, and Middle Eastern singing forms, Hykes began a long series of collaborations with traditions and teachers of wisdom and sacred art, including His Holiness the Dalai Lama, and the Gyuto and Gyume monks.

that sounds like new age, and david hykes' the harmonic choir is awesome

so I am mostly a lurker here, but really, I gotta pipe up and say that nothing said to the contrary on this thread has successfully refuted the original premise. You can stick with whatcha know, or you can listen to a wide variety, whatever; that's your business. But to preemptively decide that if/when that one (and there may only be one, and it may be hard to find, but it's there) piece of great 12-tone or new age or CCM or black metal or rap or polka or opera or anything that doesn't fit my idea of the perfect melody or whatever sneaks up and bites you on the ass, you're not going let yourself say "holy crap!" or "wow!" or at least "huh. I'd never've guessed that" or "not my bag, but I see what the big deal is", then that's your loss.

What you have to remember is that Geir isn't actually a person.

he's a genre

and they love him

breaks a new heart

every day....

What you have to remember is that Geir isn't actually a person.

Yeah, I realize that. I have this image of him hearing music that doesn't fit his parameters, and saying "does not compute! does not compute!" while smoke trails out his ears.

Still, ya can't blame a gal for trying.

The new age artist Brian Eno drinks his urine on a regular basis. It is healthiest if you do not do drugs and do not eat meat. If you do drugs, especially prescription drugs, it is best to not drink your urine until you are sure there are no drugs in your system. I have been on so many prescriptions for such a long time it has been years since I drank my pee.

Contrary to your imagined ideas, if you are on a vegetarian diet and you do not do legal or illegal drugs (this means pharmaceutical products of any kind for my friends down under) you will likely discover your pee is quite tasty, You may even like it on the rocks. But for health reasons only drink your own and if friends come over and want some persuade them their own will be better for them than yours or anyone elses.

[1 point] 210 days ago by United States Chipmonk Reply Edited 210 days ago by Chipmonk

^^^thread finally delivers

hahhahahaa

it was all worth it

if friends come over and want some persuade them their own will be better for them than yours or anyone elses.

It's easy to say this but those guys just will not take no for an answer

I have been on so many prescriptions for such a long time it has been years since I drank my pee.

And I can imagine just what those prescriptions might be

miss manners of the golden showers set

I'm still not hearing much compelling evidence for new age (and none for acid jazz). My library has some CDs from this David Hykes fella. Which should I go for: Harmonic Meetings (hmmm), Hearing Solar Winds (um...), (shuffles feet) Earth to the Unknown Power, or (voice lowers, face reddens, should be written in 8 point font but don't know how) Windhorse Riders?

And more for the fwiw category:

Results 1 - 10 of about 885,000 English pages for disco "neil diamond"

Popol Vuh dude.

hearing solar winds

blast this into yr front yard on halloween and fire up a strobe light in your living room, I guarantee you get 0 trick or treaters

i was gonna read this thread but then

lol @ at this being a 2008 (not 2001) thread <3 <3 <3

― Jordan, Monday, October 20, 2008 12:51 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

and i was like oh yeah

o_O at ethan being so patient w/Geir, tho. dude, you guys have hashed this shit out for fucking years at this point

lol, what a worthless thread.

yeah, give us hell!

"Hearing Solar Winds"

such an amazing album. the harmonic choir are no joke. the stuff is powerful. especially the earlier records.

listen to "rainbow voice" on his myspace:

http://www.myspace.com/65805799

this is a good new age thread, but it needs more stuff on it:

"New Age Music", search and destroy.

Vollenweider is awesome!

at my college radio station somebody had taken one of those old PSA tape cartridges and made an endless loop of 60 seconds from hearing solar winds. whenever a dj didn't show up for their next shift the departing dj would throw that on and blanket south jersey in hours of the harmonic choir...

I think John Fahey was considered a New Age pioneer at one point. Don't know how much he's considered to be part of the current canon. (oh, I see that being mentioned in the other thread.)

Dunno how many threads of "everybody talks at Geir" I'll have to read through before I know that it's going to be an enormous waste of time from the first post. But I think there's something about apparently very complete and coherent worldviews that are nevertheless completely baffling that appeals to me.

http://www.september11news.com/LeadersBinLaden1998.jpg

Wait, Jonathan Ross?! And you think Geir is insane?

Really, Gordon Burn or David Peace ought to write a book about Geir.

I love how ILX is full of people stating opinion as fact, hundreds of times a day, thousands of times every year, and as soon as Geir does it everyone gets all 'THIS IS JUST YOUR OPINION!' level of tossy.

Geir is an incredibly irritating person to argue with but to intimate that he's a potential mass murderer, racist or Austrian cellar dude because he says the same thing about Paul McCartney again and again is kind of off. Especially coming from people who are all 'when I listen to Fleet Foxes on Radio Two I know how Michael Ryan felt'.

Seriously, is there any evidence anywhere on ILM of Geir making a useful or valid point about anything? He constantly disrupts and ruins potentially interesting threads on ILM and not even from a declared anti-commonsensical point of view.

I would suggest dealing with Geir is a far better use of moderators' time than pointlessly changing thread titles or yellow carding LJ because of "daddy daddy thith man inthulted me" whingers.

people, geir is so easy to ignore, precisely cuz he never actually interacts with anyone specifically. i never understand why people get so het up by him.

Why not have an ILM killfile? Mods, can this be done?

Lex OTM, Geir is only a problem because people can't help themselves.

ADMIN: Killfiles?

Sorry, I mean KILLFILE 2.0

the killfile is completely incomprehensible

He constantly disrupts and ruins potentially interesting threads on ILM

This is hilarious coming from the guy who got banned from the Popular comments box for turning every thread into a huge fight.

i mean wtf is a "script" in this context?

I would have thought that Matt would have had far better things to do with his life than stalk me around the internet.

Still I'm quite flattered that he obviously spends 95% of his time thinking of me - it just goes to show how important I am.

Perhaps Matt might like to install the KILLFILE option where my posts are concerned.

Why KILLFILE time when you can oh, please yourselves....

Nah I never killfile anything - as a mod it helps to pay attention to what abusive trolls are up to.

You're giving a pretty good impression of an abusive troll at the moment, Matt. You seem to have done nothing but troll abusively over the last month or so. Maybe you should sort yourself out first, otherwise you're coming across as Graham 2 at the moment, just saying like.

(but then I guess mods still have free passes to treat posters like cunts as and when it suits them)

Oh for god's sake calm down Marcello. I don't actually have a serious problem with you and I think you know that. Fair enough, I've had more than the usual number of pops at you over the last few weeks but that's mostly because of the way you've been behaving - the Elbow thread being a case in point. Pointing and taking the piss is infinitely preferable to getting into a long and tedious flamewar or, indeed, actually getting into nasty and personal vendetta territory.

I'm happy to back off for a bit if you agree to tone down the grandstanding and unwarranted abuse. If nothing else both sides are boring for everyone reading.

No they're not. These are the best bits.

Great thread

yeah, fair enough, Matt, agreed (xxp).

People argue with Geir because as much as they say that it's boring, they actually don't think that it is.

Truth bomb.

ILM would be much better if people treated Geir as the DJ Martian-esque national treasure he actually is rather than trying to argue with him or convince him that he is wrong.

I think I argue with him for the vague, vain hope that one day he'll just go "fuck me, I was denying myself pleasure from all this amazing music; what an idiot I was".

so not gonna happen

lol norwegian national treasure

ILM would be much better if people treated Geir as the DJ Martian-esque national treasure he actually is rather than trying to argue with him or convince him that he is wrong.

for this he would have to be funny tho

nick it's not as if you listen to much of the music that geir is most vocally against!

12 tone?

Twelve-tone technique
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Arnold Schoenberg, the inventor of Twelve-tone techniqueTwelve-tone technique (also dodecaphony, especially in British usage, twelve-note composition) is a method of musical composition devised by Arnold Schoenberg. The technique is a means of ensuring that all 12 notes of the chromatic scale are sounded as often as one another in a piece of music while preventing the emphasis of any.[1] All 12 notes are thus given more or less equal importance, and the music avoids being in a key. The technique was tremendously influential on composers in the mid-twentieth century.

Apart from jazz and soul and funk and techno and postrock, you mean, Lex? Just because I like The Beatles doesn't mean I only like hyper melodic McCartney-esque guitar pop.

12 Tone, does he mean the extended mix of "Ghost Town"?

no i mea hip-hop and r&b. i don't recall geir ever specifically dissing postrock or techno, though i dare say he would if you asked

Geir's not really anti-hip hop though.

I mean, dude put together is "20 favourite rap albums" list once, I doubt he'd do the same for, y'know, punk or whatever

He was bitching about latter day Talk Talk the other day. Hip hop and rnb are far from the only things he disses.

Gear also spent a good chunk of the mid-to-late 90s championing Orbital, The Orb and The Prodigy.

Less keen on Sabres Of Paradise, at a guess. I knew he liked Orbital. Plenty of melodies!

ok lol at my typo, oops

oh ok you all have greater in-depth knowledge of geir's tastes than i - i think this still means i win

haha ouch

Actually, can someone find Geir's rap album list again? I seem to remember it had PM Dawn and "All Eyez On Me" on it, but that's about it.

yeah he loves him some 2pac

geir's clearly-defined musical standards >>> lex's wilful ignorance

you people are sick

Sick with flows, morelike

http://www.discogs.com/image/L-150-45001-1136016721.jpeg

geir hating the carpenters is something i'll never comprehend

talking amonst selves about Geir's tastes <<<<<<<<<<<<<< telling Geir to FUCK OFF YOU CLOWN

I actually like most of the music Geir tirelessly pimps for — and largely for the same reasons he likes it. It's just not the ONLY music I care for.

He was bitching about latter day Talk Talk the other day.

<GASP!!>

Seriously, I've actually grown so weary of your pimping for Talk Talk, Nick. In 1997, the argument that those records were forward thinking resonated — today virtually everyone agrees. Enough already.

But Geir's bitching about SoE and Laughing Stock made me realize what he's missing, exactly: that they're pop records that fuck with the idea of time. By stretching them out the way Hollis and Friese-Green do, you can see cracks you otherwise couldn't in three minute pop songs. If Geir spent some time with them, rather than being put off by the fact that "the bridge with the minor chord" or whatever appeals to him about pop songs doesn't show up for 5 minutes, he'd realize that those records say something meaningful about the pop constructs he so cherishes (McCartney-esque ones, even).

I like to hear what Geir has to say.

OK, here is Geir making a "positive" hip-hop post :-)

1. All Eyez On Me - Tupac Shakur
2. Speakerboxx/The Love Below - Outkast
3. Doggystyle - Snoop Doggy Dogg
4. The Chronic - Dr. Dre
5. 3 Years, 5 Months And 2 Days In The Life Of... - Arrested Development
6. Hipocrisy Is The Greatest Luxury - The Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy
7. Regulate..The G-Funk Era - Warren G
8. The Marshall Mathers LP - Eninem
9. Miss E...So Addictive - Missy Elliott
10.Stankonia - Outkast

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Thursday, February 12, 2004 5:36 AM (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Even I would be able to pick 10 hip-hop-albums (even discounting trip-hop) that are decent enough to mention, I think:

1. 2 Pac: All Eyez On Me
2. Outkast: Speakerboxx/The Love Below
3. Snoop Dogg: Doggystyle
4. 2 Pac: Me Against The World
5. Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy: Hypocricy Is The Greatest Luxury
6. Eminem: The Marshall Mathers LP
7. Dr. Dre: The Chronic
8. Arrested Development: Three Years, Five Months And Two Days....
9. Outkast: Stankonia
10.De La Soul: 3 Feet High And Rising

― Geir Hongro (GeirHong), Friday, September 22, 2006 5:37 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

how did this become the geir discussion thread?

It's ILM

geir's clearly-defined musical standards >>> lex's wilful ignorance

― 100 tons of hardrofl beyond zings (Just got offed), Wednesday, October 22, 2008 12:12 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

u crazy

I actually like most of the music Geir tirelessly pimps for — and largely for the same reasons he likes it. It's just not the ONLY music I care for.

He was bitching about latter day Talk Talk the other day.

<GASP!!>

Seriously, I've actually grown so weary of your pimping for Talk Talk, Nick. In 1997, the argument that those records were forward thinking resonated — today virtually everyone agrees. Enough already.

But Geir's bitching about SoE and Laughing Stock made me realize what he's missing, exactly: that they're pop records that fuck with the idea of time. By stretching them out the way Hollis and Friese-Green do, you can see cracks you otherwise couldn't in three minute pop songs. If Geir spent some time with them, rather than being put off by the fact that "the bridge with the minor chord" or whatever appeals to him about pop songs doesn't show up for 5 minutes, he'd realize that those records say something meaningful about the pop constructs he so cherishes (McCartney-esque ones, even).

That's more than I've written about Talk Talk in a looooooong time, Matt; I only mentioned that Geir had mentioned them as an example of a; him bitching about stuff other than r&b and hip hop, and b; him bitching about something I like. How you've "grown so weary" of me tirelessly not talking about something very often, I don't know.

Nick, you saying you haven't been posting about Talk Talk recently is like the Pillsbury Dough Boy not laughing much of late.

similies: FAIL

http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/This-Thread-Delivers/1/thread_delivers-yon.jpg

I mean, dude put together is "20 favourite rap albums" list once, I doubt he'd do the same for, y'know, punk or whatever

I definitely could. Lots of great punk: Clash, Generation X, early Jam, Ramones, Buzzcocks etc. I don't like Sex Pistols, and I don't like some of what the punk movement resulted in. But there are a lot of pop qualities in a lot of punk.

I guess the one genre (discounting non-"pop" music) I would really struggle to put together a list of would be a Top 10 or 20 metal albums. At least if I am not allowed to include "softer" hard rock acts such as Van Halen, Def Leppard, Bon Jovi, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Black Sabbath or AC/DC.

And "Spirit Of Eden" is OK. I think it would have worked better with an electronic sound though. Plus they were sophisticated enough by "It's My Life" and didn't benefit from getting more "out there". But it's not that I hate any of their stuff. Not even "Laughing Stock" which I am struggling to get much out of at all.

geir talking melodies here have you ever heard cardiacs

coz i think you'd sort of explode or something

Trying to put together a list of my all time Top 20 soul/R&B albums, it would probably look something like this (not including reggae by Bob Marley or jazz by Herbie Hancock):

1. Fulfillingness First Finale - Stevie Wonder
2. Bad Girls - Donna Summer
3. Songs In The Key Of Life - Stevie Wonder
4. Talking Book - Stevie Wonder
5. Purple Rain - Prince
6. Can't Slow Down - Lionel Richie
7. Thriller - Michael Jackson
8. Sign "O" The Times - Prince
9. I Am - Earth Wind & Fire
10.Parade - Prince
11.The Dude - Quincy Jones
12.Once Upon a Time - Donna Summer
13.Tropical Gangsters - Kid Creole & The Coconuts
14.Control - Janet Jackson
15.Lionel Richie - Lionel Richie
16.Around The World In a Day - Prince
17.1999 - Prince
18.Rhythm Nation 1814 - Janet Jackson
19.Innervisions - Stevie Wonder
20.Hearsay - Alexander O'Neal

These are all really marvellous albums that I really love. And in addition there are great albums by the likes of Bob Marley, Herbie Hancock and 2 Pac which would have gotten into the list if I had not chosen to define them as non soul/R&B in this case.

geir talking melodies here have you ever heard cardiacs

Not sure. If they are big on melodies, I will probably like them if they are not extremely low-fi or extremely "left of middle" in other ways of approaching music. Like, for instance, I hear great melodies in Pixies and The Replacements, but I do have a serious problem with the way they are approaching them.

Regarding my soul/R&B list, the lack of anything pre-1970 or post-1990 is not a coincidence!

Geir, they're as big on melodies as it actually gets. No jokes.

DON'T listen to "Eat It Up Worms Hero", you will hate. Otherwise, go wild: http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=2600990

A bit post punk-ish, maybe. It's OK, but a bit too weird it seems.

Hmm. There isn't anything from "On Land And In The Sea" or "Guns", which might be their most Geir-friendly records. But all I can advise you do is listen to some of their stuff on Youtube or something. I think they'll win you round. Well, I like to think.

They seem pretty experimental to say the least. A bit too "out there" for my taste, really.

Ah well. I tried. Maybe think of them as a souped-up XTC with even better melodies but a lot more weirdness? Nah. Ok, fair enough.

Early XTC is too weird already.

Ya but I prefer the later stuff too, by and large. IIRC you're one of about 3 other ppl on ILM who really bats for Nonsuch.

Cardiacs, to me, sounded way weirder than the strangest stuff on "English Settlement" tho. And I don't like "English Settlement" much with the exception of a few tracks.

And "Spirit Of Eden" is OK. I think it would have worked better with an electronic sound though. Plus they were sophisticated enough by "It's My Life" and didn't benefit from getting more "out there". But it's not that I hate any of their stuff. Not even "Laughing Stock" which I am struggling to get much out of at all.

Geir, I hear what you're saying. But those records weren't about "getting more 'out there'" for weird's sake or trying to make more perfect pop music. They were about exploring pop structures by breaking them down temporally. And by doing so with guitars, drums and the odd arrangement touch, you could also really zoom in on rock dynamics.

I just don't think the goal of these records was to make great pop songs -- but rather to explore what made pop songs great.

Even Nick would agree with that -- or might've many years ago. ;-)

that cardiacs myspace is a perfect reminder of how bands using Mr. Bungle or Sleepytime Gorilla Museum or Henry Cow as touchstones to state "look at us we're quirky" pisses me off.

they're fine and all, but fuck those comparisons. "dear weird music listeners look at us we are weird too lol, just a much more easygoing version of weird" is just such a fucking copout for actually describing what you sound like.

anyway, carry on

XP: What sticks with me is the arrangements, which are at times really beautiful. But I don't feel like they are growing on me. The first time I listened properly to it I thought that "OK, there is some interesting stuff that goes on here that I may really like once I get to know it better and gets it more into my head". But then, the next times I listened to it, nothing happened. I didn't comprehend any more, and I found it boring after a while because nothing stuck. Thus, I decided that it wasn't quite as interesting, because there was never anything to hang anything on.

Fair enough.

that cardiacs myspace is a perfect reminder of how bands using Mr. Bungle or Sleepytime Gorilla Museum or Henry Cow as touchstones to state "look at us we're quirky" pisses me off.

they're fine and all, but fuck those comparisons. "dear weird music listeners look at us we are weird too lol, just a much more easygoing version of weird" is just such a fucking copout for actually describing what you sound like.

anyway, carry on

oh DEAR.

a) they have been around since early 80's.
b) those are some of their easiest songs, ever. put up there doubtless because much else wd fry newcomers' minds. honestly. gentle intro then explore if you like what u hear.
c) mike patton is a huge fan of theirs, as i'd imagine are SGM.
d) that blurb wasn't written by them. it was written by some enthusiastic fans, at 'the organ' magazine.
e) you have just mortally offended my favourite band ever.

If you want to know what sorts of thing bandleader Tim Smith actually says, he has in fact some words highly relevant to the thread-title, words which mark him out as one of the true heroes of popular music: http://www.cardiacs.com/interviews/harmonie-magazine-france-may-2000/

A bit post punk-ish, maybe. It's OK, but a bit too weird it seems.

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:35 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Early XTC is too weird already.

― Geir Hongro, Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:48 AM (7 hours ago) Bookmark

what does 'too weird' mean, exactly? seems to just mean 'new and unfamiliar'. cardiacs seemed 'weird' to me at first, but now they just sound like a really great, clever, raging prog-pop band.

point being, the use of 'too weird' as a note of criticism signifies little more than an unwillingness to embrace the new on the part of the critic.

Not so. In terms of most broadsheets and magazines it's shorthand for "don't bother with this new music that is so difficult to listen to; stick with what you know and buy/download it again and again in all new formats forever." It's about placating and flattering the ignorance of their solvent readers and advertisers so that they can stay in business.

Geir what are your top 20 gabba tapes off UK market stalls?

i'm shocked control made geir's r&b list! i mean it's a classic obv but it does seem to particularly prioritise rhythm and club atmosphere over melody and harmony.

Maybe he enjoys Janet on other levels.

Wow, Geir actually came through with some genuine human interaction towards the end of this thread. Prog Rock - Bringing People Together Since 1969!

Next we will be having The Lex's Top 20 Indie albums!

1. The Ting Tings - We Started Nothing

2. Mansun - Six

3. Girls Aloud - Out Of Control

4. New Fast Automatic Daffodils - The Peel Sessions

5. Blonde Redhead - 23

Hooray! I finally read this thread, after its having sat atop my browser as an unread bookmark for 11 months. It looked like a good start! And then it devolved into Geir. By the way, is this the closest Marcello has gotten to admitting he's Geir? I've suspected that since I started reading ILM. Their writing styles are very similar. I think Geir is just an experiment of his to try out a particular theory of pop works, and since Geir gets such a "good" response here means the Geir character has stuck around. It's good fun, anyway.

Geir was, is and will always be his own person. Those of us who first encountered him online back in 1994 or so know this.

I want to believe.

But have Marcello and Geir ever been in the same room at the same time? ;)

Marcello had a Geir-imitating sockpuppet a few years ago, I can't remember what it was called though. If he was Geir right from the beginning, why create a sockpuppet to ape Geir?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1238/1268566093_3612244f45.jpg?v=1188415465

Ah yeah, Marcello's sockpuppet was called "Comstock Carabinieri". Maybe it was a self-parody though, with Geir being the "serious" sockpuppet?

Truth is always stranger than fiction.