'Tunes'

Perhaps in the UK, more emphasis is put on music being written or at least worked out before recording(forethought & concept to the fore), whereas the US has more of that "it's the feeling, man" improv (rock context) thing, which is seen as self-indulgence here?

Which leads me to that Mark Perry statement I've puzzled over for years about the 'Clash listening to their ELP records'. See, punk & prog are EQUALLY 'poppist' (as opposed to 'rockist') - because (mostly) every note is written/planned beforehand - execution ALWAYS follows idea, and whether it's 'Topographic Oceans' or 'Pink Flag' you can bet they didn't just go into the studio, light a spliff and say "Let's just jam and see what comes out, man." , as is the US method. Is the much-storied 'punk rebellion' more a case of youth rebelling against their elders, not aware of how much they've taken on board subconsciously? By this criteria, punk would have more in common with prog than with Krautrock, or jazz, which is more like the Grateful Dead or other psychedelic stuff (with no 'tunes').

Whoops, I said in the question box that I avoided things with 'tunes', but I still luv heaps of punk & prog so that can't be right. All I mean is, when I see that tired old "Where are the tunes?" in a review, it piques my curiosity far more, because however bad it is I know it won't sound like Teenage Fanclub or some other desperately dull shit.

Re the Mark P. thing - unless he meant that the entire first Clash album is an answer to ELP's reading of "Jerusalem"?

I never really understood why American critics always said the Smiths were tuneless.

I think it was more a case that they thought Morrissey was tuneless -- I would read U.S. reviews along the lines of "the Smiths have wonderful guitar player and rhythm section, but are made terrible by Morrissey".

I've seen the "no tunes" argument a lot on both sides of the ocean, maybe just couched in different terms. The atmosphere seems a lot more conservative and reactionary than it ever has been. I recall reading a U.S. review of Kid A that suggested Radiohead could learn a lot from the Dave Matthews Band in terms of songwriting and pleasing their fans.

I think this may be because the mainstream newspapers and magazines no longer have a vibrant music press (fanzines in the States, the music papers like MM in the UK) to recruit writers with big ideas and a real passion for music. Of course they've moved to the web, but I think most publications are really too lazy to bother looking there.

My favourite music still has tunes. I'm not bored of them. I suspect most critics who describe things as 'tuneless' aren't actually anti-experimentation. They just think the particular record they are reviewing sucks and impatience finds vent in a retreat into mock-reactionary language.

Nick: and we differentiate between mock and actual reaction how?

I think that the music mostly does have tunes, but the critics don't know how to hear them. Also -- sheer stupidity of this charge when leveled [as often is] against teen-pop.

Dunno, Sterling. Sorry. Context? Knowing what the reviewer has said about other things?

I think there's a sense in which that complaint can be made legitimately, and in which that's really the only way to express it. E.g., you go out and buy a recent record from, say, Teenage Fanclub, and you take it home and listen to and you think, well, I suppose this sounds about like Bandwagonesque did, except where are the tunes? Which is to say, it's a decent charge to level at bands who themselves seem to be adopting that framework -- and when I see the phrase used well, it's not aimed at music which is actually devoid of conventional melodies, but rather music that's full of conventional melodies, none of which are at all compelling enough to remember. (Or, in limited cases, bands who are obviously better at writing "tunes," yet have still decided to waste a record futzing with ill-conceived experiments -- which is how plenty of people rather stupidly think of Radiohead right now.)

So I guess I'd like the "where are the tunes?" complaint better if it was understood that it meant the tunes just weren't good or memorable or compelling enough, not that it was a Dead C record and they weren't there.

Oh, and in the bad sense: I think the complaint frequently comes from critics who have grown baffled of the proliferation of genres and subgenres, and get to feeling confused and headachey and out of their depths, and then they put something on and all they can think is, "I just want to hear a melody. Please, just a melody."

The occupational hazard of trying to be musically omniscient; you can wind up getting frightened and wanting to retreat to stuff you can easily get your head around.

the Smiths have wonderful guitar player and rhythm section, but are made terrible by Morrissey

Precisely.

nitsuh - the Dead C are POP like justin timberlake you cannot accuse them of tunelessness. (well, actually, you can & you'd probably be right, but only 50% of the time)

Oh, and in the bad sense: I think the complaint frequently comes from critics who have grown baffled of the proliferation of genres and subgenres, and get to feeling confused and headachey and out of their depths, and then they put something on and all they can think is, "I just want to hear a melody. Please, just a melody."

That's probably right, but it's a stupid way to think. Explaining or discussing why a tune "works" is one of the most difficult things to do in writing about music.

I detest "tunes", "melody", "song structure", "rhythm" and all other commercial eccentricities of this sort.

yeah all those things are evil and only serve to get in the way of the somnolent effect that all music should have

heh!