middlebrow rock

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

What is it? What isn't it? Who likes it? Do you like it? Should you? Etc?

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh and let's open the floor to all other potentially middlebrow pop-related genres too (hip-hop, country, whatnot).

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Please don't.

― Colin Beckett (Colin Beckett), Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:32 (twenty-two years ago)

this guy to thread to "brow"-beat us (har har) with the obvious

― ethereal cereal (Jody Beth Rosen), Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I always thought Rush (particularly Neil Peart) epitomized "middlebrow" what with all the kinda silly Ayn Rand pseudo-intelligent philosophizing + the proto-math rock guitar/drum magazine pandering "We are very serious, skilled musicians" schtick. Good god, look at The Trees, a wierd anti-affirmative action rant disguised in a fantasy story about warring tribes of trees. Like, when I was thirteen, I felt so smart because I "got" it and now I realize how painfully on the nose the whole thing is. Also, they probably had the worst pun-cover ever with Moving Pictures (there are workmen in the photo moving paintings - MOVING PICTURES -geddit??)

Despite all this, I love Rush sooo much - all they're dorkiness, po-faced Canadian vibe, convoluted epics, bad lyrics, machine-tooled rhythm section....I love every bit of it to death, and I'm not even sure why. Although, I will say that they generally had a lot more pop hooks than your average 70s sludge rockers, and also did a great job of becoming kind of a wierd heavy metal/new wave/Police tribute band hybrid in the 80s.

― Matt Helgeson (Matt Helgeson), Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Ugh, Seabrook.

Although glancing back at that essay, this reference to Martha Stewart (from '99) made me giggle: "Having access to Stewart's taste is like having insider information."

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Middlebrow as in Elvis's Sun sessions, Little Richard, George Jones, The Beatles.... I think Bob Dylan is the only highbrow 'rock' i know that works - and he's unique. Rock really should be middle or lowbrow, because it's all about feeling. Lowbrow focuses exclusively on the period between 12 and 19 without analysis. Middlebrow either does the same but with a more subtle and insightful analysis or actually goes on to cover mature emotions and experiences e.g George Jones' 'A Good Year for the Roses'.
I don't really know how one categorises it all, though... I think good music shoud strive to be quality middlebrow

― Pete S, Sunday, 16 November 2003 22:59 (twenty-two years ago)

steely dan and richard thompson come to mind. just heard richard thompson on the radio today doing his version of oops, i did it again. it's the kind of thing that will give richard thompson fans giggle fits. elvis costello too. oh ya know, doesn't ilm call it dadrock.or maybe that is something different.wilco. ho hum.paul simon. i could go on and on. steve earle would be middlebrow country. anything kinda boring and halfway literate. the more i think about it though the less i care. not a knock on you, keith. i think i got it all out of my system the other day when i kept going on and on about rolling stone championing the del fuegos in my youth.(i love steely dan and richard thompson by the way-or at least their glory days)

― scott seward, Sunday, 16 November 2003 23:09 (twenty-two years ago)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a song being "middlebrow". "Middlebrow" is a sign of quality.

― Geirvald Hongfjeld jr., Sunday, 16 November 2003 23:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Class, Indie, Materialism, and Intelligence might be of interest here.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Sunday, 16 November 2003 23:16 (twenty-two years ago)

David Bowie

― dave q, Monday, 17 November 2003 10:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha, perfect. Bowie wants so deeply to be something either more or less than he is it's kinda touching. He's heard that politics are serious business but he can't help turning Orwell into b-grade horror shlock, grooves to soul but turns almost everything he sings into a show tune, knows disco is meant to move your body yet "Let's Dance" is more of a challenge than an invitation. And as a result "Lodger" is a more honest snapshot of a middling fellow lost amidst by global and existential flux than David Byrne'll ever come up with.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 16:46 (twenty-two years ago)

Keith - you've written all the things i thought about Bowie but couldn't express. His only genius album is Station to Station - because it's unexplainable.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Rock is middlebrow.

― nestmanso (nestmanso), Monday, 17 November 2003 19:00 (twenty-two years ago)

if mark s catches you talking about The Lodger like that he'll pull your card

― J0hn Darn1elle (J0hn Darn1elle), Monday, 17 November 2003 19:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I l-u-v Lodger though!

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 19:26 (twenty-two years ago)

What about Monobrow rock? Oasis are obviously the kings of this

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 20:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Ethan Buckler

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I think David Bowie as middlebrow rock only works if you consider that rock, inherently, is lowbrow. How many people were as artistically ambitious as Bowie in his prime? I'm not even the world's biggest Bowie fan, but I think in this case, he's penalized merely for being popular.

As I see it, Dave Matthews is middlebrow. Basically, if NPR will hype you, you are probably middlebrow: not so base that yuppie listeners need to fear the freaks they will encounter buying the stuff, but not so stuffy and "artistic" that NPR has to feel they are flaunting their elitism.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I'll second Bowie and Richard Thompson--Scott, I like that "Oops" cover a lot but you're totally right about how his fans will take it, how he takes it, which is problematic for me--I just want to hear it as a smart guy knowing a good song when he hears one and instead he keeps apologizing for it, ugh. and yes, I think rock is inherently lowbrow; its base materials were pretty antihighbrow at the very least. that's not a criticism at all.

I can't be the only one to whom the word was introduced via some critic or other--ok, Marsh or Marcus or Christgau, one of the three--calling Paul Simon "middlebrow."

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:43 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't necessarily think lowbrow is a criticism either, just wondering if Bowie is middlebrow, who is highbrow? I mean, at least Dylan was playing "folk" music at first.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:46 (twenty-two years ago)

High-brow is all those pompous prog bands of the 70s.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 20:48 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't buy that. I think the "brow" of music is one thing that *has* to factor in the artistic intentions of the artist, and I think most prog bands (like a lot of other rock bands) just wanted to play something that sounded cool to them, without necessarily approaching the kind of conceptual complexities of, say, the Berlin period Bowie records - or hey, Kid A.

I'm not really a radiohead fan either, so I deserve any hate I get on this thread. ;)

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:51 (twenty-two years ago)

but maybe no rock is highbrow--that doesn't seem illogical in this context. like rock was reaching for high and only came up w/middle. (I'm not saying that's necessarily true, just an option)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I disagree dleone. I think most of those bands set out to be "Artistically Signifigant", like classical composers. And they laughably don't come within a candle.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't see how we're penalizing Bowie here, unless middlebrow is inherently an insult to you.

But there are ways in which low and high culture can be mixed in ways that are not middlebrow--in ways that complicate the ideas of low and high culture, in fact. So I think a lot of the the best rock/pop/etc is neither low nor middle nor high (not nobrow, though, a concept which oversimplifies things). But gah! I'm at work now and can't take the time to figure out what I'm talking about.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

(or rather that it COULD be true, but isn't necessarily)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:57 (twenty-two years ago)

I always think of late 70s Bowie with a little disco devil on one shoulder and a little Eno angel on the other (or maybe vice versa).

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 20:59 (twenty-two years ago)

trust me, it's vice versa

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Steely Dan are highbrow but they're another exception that proves the rule for me.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Re: Matos' post a few up,

That seems really depressing to me - it also seems like discrimination. What this means is that rock is, by design, not a place for revolutionary, visionary ideas. I don't believe that.

Keith, you have a point, in that I'm not sure I can think of "middlebrow" in a nice way. Really, "middle" anything (in art), strikes me as kind of strange.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Wait, Matos, I missed something -- what "Oops" cover? (I'm assuming this means Thompson covering Britney? Which I never knew he did.) And where did Scott talk about it? On another thread, or where? (Either way, I bet Travis's bleh Britney cover was AT LEAST as middlebrow.)

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Fuck's Britney cover has to be better than both.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:02 (twenty-two years ago)

"revolutionary, visionary ideas" aren't necessarily highbrow though

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:03 (twenty-two years ago)

What about James Brown? Revolutionary and visionary, but not highbrow.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Sure, execution makes a big difference - again, this is why I was arguing Bowie before. (Obv, whether or not you give a damn about what they're saying/playing matters too!)

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not trying to depress you! sorry about that. I was, just for that moment, defining "highbrow" differently than you seem to be. of course revolutionary and visionary ideas exist in rock, or can. it's just hard to come up with a working definition of "revolutionary" or "visionary" that applies across the board. context is everything. if you ask me, I have the very boring rockist idea that the Beatles and Dylan were and are both those things, so of course I think there's a highbrow in there. but I also know pop isn't a fixed thing, so I'm not entirely comfortable putting that down. (probably ILx has made me more self-conscious about this than anything else, so hey.)

major xpost. was gonna mention JB too, thanks for reminding me

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Re: Pete S, well I guess we could redefine these terms here and now. I for one have no problem believing that James Brown will be seen along similar lines as Mozart in 200 years.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Chuck, if I may be so self-promotional: http://slate.msn.com/id/2089459/

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

And is Dleone saying only "highbrow" ideas can be "revolutionary" or "visionary"? That's completely bizarre, if so, but I feel I'm Rohrschaching all over the place on here today (started with Keith's thread about bands who you respect more 'cause their solo stuff is bad or something). Maybe I should just sit this one out.

Still" in what ways are Pavement less middlebrow than Richard Thompson or Bowie? Or aren't they? Not being argumentative; just want to see what answers I'll get. To me, they seem more or less the same thing (albeit with a worse sense of rhythm, maybe. And other stuff.)

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:06 (twenty-two years ago)

There are other energies that a human being can access inside himself, not just mental energy. Good rock of whatever kind comes from somewhere else (the gut, or something).

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Chuck, I think I honestly believe middlebow can not be revolutionary/visionary. High and low are always up for debate - as are who actually falls into what category.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry, i love James Brown but Mozart is spirituality.
James Brown is pure sex.
(I'm gonna get killed for this one)

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

you sure as fuck are

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Can't it be revolutionary or visionary BY ACCIDENT, though? (Assuming "it" even exists, that is.) (Unless Not Being Revolutionary or Visionary is part of the DEFINITION of middlebrow.) (And assuming being "revoltionary or visionary" even matters. Assuming IT exists.) (And why should I care about revolutionary vision anyway, if the music sounds good?)

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Images
by Tyrone Green

Dark and lonely on a summer's night.
Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.
Watchdog barking. Do he bite?
Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.
Slip in his window. Break his neck.
Then his house I start to wreck.
Got no reason. What the heck?
Kill my landlord. Kill my landlord.
C-I-L my land lord!

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Isn't the duality of sex and spirituality, like the whole story of...everything? Isn't this the practical application of high vs lowbrow and their secret bedfellowship?

now see, that's middlebrow

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:15 (twenty-two years ago)

[wipes blood off hands]

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos I heart you.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Aren't Sonic Youth the ultimate middlebrow rock band? Striving for highbrow but failing left, right and center? (Note: Goodbye 20th Century is my favorite SY album.)

― Phil Freeman (Phil Freeman), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Definite middlebrow elements to Pavement, Chuck, no argument here. Shame about Pete S, huh, he was an all right guy.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

You're right dleone. But see all my posts above - I think good rock should not strive to BE highbrow because, on the whole, it doesn't work.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Explain, Keith.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Explain which Pete?

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Hmm, I think ideas are never total accidents - that is, we can't voluntarily be revolutionary or whatever, but I think if artists thought their ideas were just flukes, and didn't have any particular meaning (it feels good to me, I think can = "meaning" here, though if it's truly something "Revolutionary", more concrete definitions will very quickly be formed, if not by the author, than by anyone who sees what they are accomplishing), then they wouldn't follow through with them. The "high" in highbrow to me, does not come in someone stating that they wish to be revolutionary, but that some quality in what they are doing is recognized by others as being distinctly "beyond" (in a good or bad way) what is currently considered the norm (ie, a big part of middlebrow).

(scared that I'm going home soon, and will have to enter this thread sometime after it has long since burned out)

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, I've noticed in previous discussions (and in the world in general, though not so much here) that the line's often blurred between middlebrow and genteel. I think there's a distinction to be made there.

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Walker Brothers:lowbrow
Scott Walker doing Brel:middlebrow
Scott Walker's Tilt:highbrow

― scott seward, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

so if it's over my head does that make it highbrow or just genteel?

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

(correct answer: "yes")

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:30 (twenty-two years ago)

If it's ALMOST over your head, that makes it Eyebrow.

>>>I think ideas are never total accidents - that is, we can't voluntarily be revolutionary or whatever,<<

So only ideas INTENDED to be revolutionary can actually be revolutionary? That seems silly to me. Was Elvis revolutionary on purpose? Or not at all? Again, I'm just asking. Seems to me you're confusing intentions with results, a fairly huge logical fallacy.

But then, I don't really care about revolutions in the first place.

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Except for the 33 1/3 or 45 or 78 per minute kind, maybe.

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:33 (twenty-two years ago)

And as Frank Kogan explains here, Electric Six are RAISED eyebrow:

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0331/kogan.php

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Simon R is working on a blog entry about browbeat

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:36 (twenty-two years ago)

haha browbeat is so six months ago! we've moved onto monobrowbeat now.

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:40 (twenty-two years ago)

(coming soon: microbrowbeat)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:42 (twenty-two years ago)

(and let us not overlook that rarest of subgenre birds, eyelashbeat. blink and you'll miss it.)

(rock critics drive like this)

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:43 (twenty-two years ago)

So only ideas INTENDED to be revolutionary can actually be revolutionary

No, hence I just said that we can never really be volunatarily revolutionary "or whatever". I think people (not just artists) generally follow their muses in whatever guises they hold them - the "brows" are usually things applied to their ideas/actions after the fact. They have to be - but that doesn't mean people can't consciously try things that they don't believe have been tried before. This is what I was referring to above when I brought up "intent" - I also mentioned execution, which is IMO a major factor in whether or not people actually listen.

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Seattle is famous for its microbrows, right Matos?

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:45 (twenty-two years ago)

yes, we reign o'er everyone in that dept.

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:46 (twenty-two years ago)

dleone, your fears of thread burnout are being confirmed

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:47 (twenty-two years ago)

or should I say Rainier?

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:47 (twenty-two years ago)

haha "fears"--"prayers" is probably more like it

― M Matos (M Matos), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:48 (twenty-two years ago)

will yoko leave paul?

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:50 (twenty-two years ago)

i admire burt reynolds a lot

― Keith Harris (kharris1128), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:51 (twenty-two years ago)

aw man - well go Mavs (the jailblazers are decidedly lowbrow)

― dleone (dleone), Monday, 17 November 2003 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

>>So only ideas INTENDED to be revolutionary can actually be revolutionary?<<
>>>No, hence I just said that we can never really be volunatarily revolutionary "or whatever".<<

Doh! See, I TOLD you I was Rohrschaching all over the place today.

― chuck, Monday, 17 November 2003 22:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd even go as far as to say that Burt Reynolds is pure sex, but he's no 'Rock me Amadeus'.
I suppose you'd say that if you ever met Wolfgang and wanted a jolly up with him.

― Pete S, Monday, 17 November 2003 22:28 (twenty-two years ago)

KISS, "The Elder"

― nonthings (nonthings), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 00:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought Rush's "THe Trees" was about labor unions, but it's been about 16 years since I bothered with it.

― anthony kyle monday (akmonday), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 00:47 (twenty-two years ago)

not to plug my retarded paper again, but i have chapter (Chapter 2) about the inherent high brow/low brow tension in rock.

http://wma.weezernation.com/thesis.htm

― MerkinMuffley (MerkinMuffley), Tuesday, 18 November 2003 02:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Rock should be dumb in content but clever in execution.

― Ronjeremy, Tuesday, 18 November 2003 02:22 (twenty-two years ago)

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