eclecticism - c/d s/d

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

in an artist's music, not a record collection that is. this was kind of inspired by the discussion about the flaming lips on the guardian thread, although i suppose it's not that strongly linked. what are the pitfalls of eclecticism on record? Are there examples of it working well? Does genre-hopping usually equal showy, watered down versions of various music styles?

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Saturday, 25 October 2003 20:08 (twenty-two years ago)

john zorn to thread.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 25 October 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

no thank you!

― hstencil, Saturday, 25 October 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

you know you want to ;)

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 25 October 2003 20:25 (twenty-two years ago)

no way, Julio, absolutely not!

― hstencil, Saturday, 25 October 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

S: magnetic fields, "69 love songs"
D: the last two decades or so of elvis costello's career

― fact checking cuz, Saturday, 25 October 2003 20:58 (twenty-two years ago)

steve beresford: c/d, s/d

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Sunday, 26 October 2003 22:11 (twenty-two years ago)

Search; Screamadelica, XTRMNTR
Destroy; Primal Scream

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Sunday, 26 October 2003 22:30 (twenty-two years ago)

eclectism overrated, scourge of the 90s

― charltonlido (gareth), Sunday, 26 October 2003 22:56 (twenty-two years ago)

All the 69 love songs are so similar. It isn't all that eclectic.

― A Nairn (moretap), Sunday, 26 October 2003 23:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Tentative suggestion: the larger part of the evil of eclecticism is the over-veneration of genre as signified (rather than signifier), which results in the artist's own personality (subjectivity) fading in the face of that which it venerates. The genre exercise becomes an empty exercise, because it expresses nothing except its own existence. ie. punk for punk's sake; classical for classical's sake.

69 Love Songs treats all genres as signifiers. Hence its eclecticism is a false (and productive) one.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Sunday, 26 October 2003 23:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I like eclecticism in an album. It makes it more interesting than hearing 14 songs that all sound the same.

― dog latin, Monday, 27 October 2003 01:12 (twenty-two years ago)

uhhhhh, Ween?

― adaml (adaml), Monday, 27 October 2003 01:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Sometimes being eclectic in music works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes writing songs about love works, sometimes it doesn't.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 27 October 2003 01:41 (twenty-two years ago)

S: Yo La Tengo, I Can Hear the Heart Beating as One, although it sometimes feels overlong. But they're quite good at jumping from drone-rock to noisy Beach Boys covers to bossanova.

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 27 October 2003 01:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Beck seems to be an interesting case w/r/t Tim's point about genre-as-signifier. I think the reason Odelay is so vaunted is that it's eclectic in a very integrated and innovative way, mixing hip-hop beats with slide guitars and goofy samples to create a new style. In 1996, this and DJ Shadow represented the future of music -- you take all these different kinds of music you love and create something unique (and thus personal) with them. But the more focused Mutations and Midnite Vultures were seen, I think, more as empty genre exercises -- Beck tries out country and space-funk, and the critics suddenly want to know what's real or honest about simply aping old styles; where's the personal element?

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 27 October 2003 02:20 (twenty-two years ago)

(And so critics' eagerness to find Beck's "true" personality = overrating Sea Change)

― jaymc (jaymc), Monday, 27 October 2003 02:23 (twenty-two years ago)

dleone otm

― oops (Oops), Monday, 27 October 2003 02:26 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm certain there is actually a (probably fairly complex) explanation for why some eclecticism works and some doesn't. I just haven't quite hit upon it yet.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 27 October 2003 04:16 (twenty-two years ago)

i thought the point of 69 love songs was to make each song different? i guess he failed.
surely yo la tengo are one trick ponies? ok, maybe two, to account for moments when they allegedly rock.

― keith (keithmcl), Monday, 27 October 2003 04:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim is OTM

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 27 October 2003 04:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I think it might have to do with some underlying factor that is similar between all the songs the rope hold together all the different colored charms. In 69 love Songs there are many underlying factors (e.g. about love, focus on melodies, short in length, even the ways the songs vary are similar)

― A Nairn (moretap), Monday, 27 October 2003 04:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah I was thinking something similar wrt 69 Love Songs - the differences between the songs actually reinforce their similarities by bringing them into sharper focus (in a manner that doesn't really happen on the more monostylistic releases like Holiday)

The first Future Bible Heroes Memories of Love is actually more eclectic than 69 Love Songs in terms of how flexible and varied the songwriting is, but it's hidden by a more consistent arrangement approach.

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 27 October 2003 05:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the thing that makes some eclecticism work and not others is the same thing that--to return to deleone's statement-- makes some love songs work and not others, ie the mysterious thing called 'quality'.

― oops (Oops), Monday, 27 October 2003 06:54 (twenty-two years ago)

inasmuch as they're all twee-ish indie-pop-ish songs informed by one songwriter's love with classic american pop song form, yeah of course 69 love songs has a unifying vibe.

but, come on, there's an irish jig, there's a girl-group homage (or two, or three), there's country, there's electronic pop, there's indie-rock, etc etc. there's four or five lead singers with quite different styles. if that's not eclectic (american heritage definition: "employing individual elements from a variety of sources"), what is?

the "underlying factors" that A Nairn hears, or the way the differences reinforce the similarities (which i confess i don't exactly understand), doesn't mean it's any less eclectic. it just means the artist has found a coherent way to present it. which to me is a good thing.

― fact checking cuz, Monday, 27 October 2003 21:54 (twenty-two years ago)

>>I'm certain there is actually a (probably fairly complex) explanation for why some eclecticism works and some doesn't<<

Not to blow my own horn or anything, but the "Everything Rock vs. Collage Rock" chapter of *The Accidental Evolution of Rock 'n'Roll* might have a few clues in it in regard to this question. Or maybe not.

― chuck, Monday, 27 October 2003 22:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Eclecticism for the sake of eclecticism = dud.
Eclecticism cuz that's the way that artist thinks about shit = classic.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 27 October 2003 22:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Plus, I think Beck's style of eclecticism is more approachable than others (like Mr. Bungle, fr'instance) because, though he serves up a variety of sonic styles, his songs are all structurally Western pop music.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Monday, 27 October 2003 22:13 (twenty-two years ago)

"I think the thing that makes some eclecticism work and not others is the same thing that--to return to deleone's statement-- makes some love songs work and not others, ie the mysterious thing called 'quality'."

Why is some music good and some music bad? Oh yeah, quality. Obviously that pretty much ends the discussion right there.

"the "underlying factors" that A Nairn hears, or the way the differences reinforce the similarities (which i confess i don't exactly understand), doesn't mean it's any less eclectic. it just means the artist has found a coherent way to present it. which to me is a good thing."

Er yeah that was sorta my point. I think 69 Love Songs is great, and it's great *because* of the way it manages to present an overall consistency in the face of diversity (like, c'mon, you gotta admit that the album isn't nearly as jarring as if it were just a compilation of girl-group hits mingled with irish jigs and disco and country - because there's a core sensibility to Merritt's songcraft that is all the more noticeable due to the endless costume changes)

― Tim Finney (Tim Finney), Monday, 27 October 2003 23:27 (twenty-two years ago)

three months pass...

based on the answers here it seems most people would like to play in an eclectic band!

― mullygrubber (gaz), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 01:24 (twenty-two years ago)

C'mon - you can have a solid, reasonably consistent sound even if you list an eclectic mix of influences.

― etta, Tuesday, 24 February 2004 01:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I try and keep my music making as eclectic as possible when making electronica. I've had a dab at Digital Hardcore, Ambient, cheeky Electro, Trancey stuff, D'n'B, Happy Hardcore, IDM - all sorts. But really I'd like to do an album with all of these and lots more. I'd like to stick guitar ballads next to percussive noodling and then a touch of Terrorcore. The problem here is that any albums I've tried to make have been a little hard to focus upon. It's hard to get a single vibe from an album that strives to be eclectic. I guess that's why 69 Love Songs works as it is conceptually stringent but aesthetically eclectic.

I guess the first time I encountered eclecticism was the Boo Radleys' "Giant Steps", which is probably my most favey ravey album to date. It's got 60s pop, dub, ambient, dronerock, psychedelia and everything in between and manages to mix it very well. But the first time eclecticism really blew me away was, strangely enough, on the Beastie Boys' "Ill Communication". There I am listening to "Sure Shot", a classic Hip-Hop track that everyone recognises and then suddenly this burst of hardcore punk just kicks in and my impression of the Beasties was flipped over entirely! From then I had to hear everything by them.

To me, eclecticism just means having a lot of ideas and if it's done well then it means a lot to me. Looking at bands and albums that have managed to gain a lot of ground by using different styles (in one way or another) happen to be some of my favourites - Aphex Twin, Boo Radleys, Two Lone Swordsmen, Sigh, Air, The Beasties etc. And if it's done within the space of an album, that's even cooler in my eyes. Then again it can be done badly. Much as I enjoy Radiohead and each of their albums merits something in my eyes, they've never been too hot when trying to keep their style varied. It was only till Hail To The Thief that it got solidified into one style of music that the rock/electronica thing started taking off for them and by that time it had gone from eclecticism to fusion.

― dog latin (dog latin), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 01:51 (twenty-two years ago)

check: V/Vm - Eclectic Is Another Word For Shit

― donny dorko (searchanddelete), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 01:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Search: Cornelius, an undoubted eclecticism master.
Destroy: um, Daniel Bedingfield, a fat twat.

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 12:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Wrong way round Barima! Dilettante bore is beaten by scarily gauche bedroom pop kid every time!

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 12:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Cornelius is far from a dilettante bore, Tom.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:20 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/review.php?ID=215

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah! Now I understand what NS means! I understand from that article that Cornelius is an intuitive, naive bore.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

ehehehehe... Cloth-ears!

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

I saw Cornelius play live once.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

And?

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Dull as fuck, I'd imagine, unless there were half-a-dozen of him.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

It didn't get that good.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

... but I can understand what you see in it, Nick, knowing what little I do about your taste.

― Tim (Tim), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 13:36 (twenty-two years ago)

haha, tim, my girl and i left a cornelius show half way through because it was dull as anything. it was like watching reality television - the outtakes but not as fun.

― robotman, Tuesday, 24 February 2004 14:20 (twenty-two years ago)

But I really enjoyed the Cornelius show at the RFH almost 2 years ago. I even put up with the motherfucking Siren Suite, the execrable Gentle People and the merely average Looper (who make a dud for this too - let NERD add Neptunes beats to indide pop, pretenders step off!). The 45th best bit was when I overheard a guy asking his girl what she thought and she replied: "Frightening".

Wrong way round Barima! Dilettante bore is beaten by scarily gauche bedroom pop kid every time!

You kiss your mother with that mouth? You've gone mental! I'm getting out of here, DAMIEN!

Cornelius' brand of pop far outstrips anything associated with Bedinglfield's name. In fact, only Todd Edwards has made me actually buy anything with said name on the cover.

Besides which, the 'dilettante' accusation has always mystified me - the last 3 Cornelius albums have a clear grounding in pop, rock and indie-pop. WTF, ur all gay mentalists etc etc etc. And he's a sickeningly gifted producer to boot.

Haha, I'm suprised it's taken this long for my Cornelius fandom to get called out!

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the sound of 'very intuitive and effective naif' tho'.

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 16:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Destroy - Mr Bungle

― Stupid (Stupid), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

NTS: Must hear Mr Bungle so as not to be mystified by all ILM references (hi strongo!).

― Barima (Barima), Tuesday, 24 February 2004 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

two months pass...

It was only till Hail To The Thief that it got solidified into one style of music that the rock/electronica thing started taking off for them and by that time it had gone from eclecticism to fusion.

In some ways, I wonder if this is why Hail to the Thief feels lifeless to me sometimes.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:42 (twenty-one years ago)

This topic is especially interesting to me right now because my band wants to record a full-length probably by the end of the year, and we're realizing that the songs we've written so far are all fairly eclectic, and do we want to just throw them all on a CD, where they might not really flow? Or do we only salvage the ones with a particular tone we like, and write more songs focused on that tone?

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:45 (twenty-one years ago)

I'd say pick your best songs no matter how eclectic, and in the process of recording them try and maintain a sense of stylistic unity in the production and performance.

― Sick Nouthall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 14:54 (twenty-one years ago)

That's worth considering, too.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 27 April 2004 15:43 (twenty-one years ago)

five years pass...

The pied piper siren song of eclecticism.

― _Rudipherous_, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 04:23 (sixteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.