|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jun 9, 2006 9:28:17 GMT -5
"Cookie Monster" (or just plain "Cookie" for short;) I think that'll do it; thanks thorns! soon paul shall rise from the ashes and be known as cookie monster!  Cookie Monster ! Yeah baby ! oh no...my ears are ringing again  from that Crimson Moon/Abyssmal Nocturne show last night... |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 9, 2006 9:52:27 GMT -5
Um, Paul, you make zero sense to me. You said that rockjism was a big middle finger to disco, whenever I stated that that wasn't the case. Now, you are saying that rockjism encompasses all of this other "international stuff". This is why I think this whole term is total BS. You can't even make a clear statement defining what "rockjism" is. I said initially rockjism arrose in reponse to the Rock ethos being in opposition to Disco. rockjism has evolved. To understand rockjism you have to understand the nuances. It really shouldnt be that hard to expand your mind in such a manner that you can see the many different international and/or diverse aspects in Rock is not in direct oppostion to the fact that disco was a challenge to the Rock ethos. Take for example the Beatles. Think of the Eastern influences found in the songs of Harrison. Or of Swing influences found in the works of Paul McCartney, or the Rockabilly found in the songs for Ringo. Do you think something has to be dangerous to be of quality? Rockists dont claim they know what 19 year old freshman at UT want to listen to. Rockists only claim is that they can identify quality. Yeah, rockjism says that the basic two guitar/bass/drums set up is the ideal setup for pop music. Pretty weak. No. that's wrong. I'll use the example of the Beatles again. They showed a good song could have orchestration, it coudl have horn sections, a Moog, backwards tracking, Yoko farting into a bullhorn or it could be as simple as nothng but an accoustic guitar. rockjism didn't start as an opposition to Disco, punk did as it also started as an opposition to Prog, until the punks realized that they were being way to narrow minded. Seriously, stop trying to give me lessons on what music is, it's annoying. You're subscribing to revisionist malarky made by a bunch of buffoons that sweat in closeted sexuality to Stephen Malkmus, and then secretly hiss when they find that "Slanted and Enchanted" lifted alot from The Fall. Of which they will claim they knew that all along. That you bought the shirt first. That George Martin invented tape delay with "Strawberry Fields Forever" and pick apart any magic that is contained in the artform. And no, I don't think something has to be dangerous to be quality. Obviously, if you've paid attention to any of the posts I have made on this, you'd see that I hardly believe that. I'm just saying that rock really isn't anything that is all that special, like being a social worker in the Mission district of San Francisco. I find your notion that rockists "can identify quality" is the biggest rhetorical bullshit statement I have ever had to read. Quality is such a subjective topic anyway that you couldn't hardly begin to ascertain that kind of thing. If you think you can as a group, I have never heard a more narcissistic and self centered statement in all of my life. Also the point was being made that Indie labels from the smallest to the largest, market their product just as much as Interscope or Atlantic does. If you think otherwise, you're are seriously delusional. Seriously, you're definitions for rockjism are weak at best and change for too much to ever find credence in any of this. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 9, 2006 10:01:42 GMT -5
See this is what I thought it was and I agree. I don't see why music can't be discussed on the same level as philosophy or literature. There certainly are definite marks of quality, I don't however beleive the public at large should beholden to these standards but if you're going to come a forum such as this and start throwing around your opinions you should be able to back them up. Yeah, this is the thing that seperates the Rockist from the mainstream consumer. The mainstream consumer will go, "Gee I really like that new song by so and so." And then the conversation pretty much ends there--or it will digress into who the lead singer is dating or something like that. Kinda boring. I think it might help people understand what rockjism is by giving examples of Rockists. The first one that comes to mind is Jack Black (or at lest his characters from High Fidelity and School of Rock). Certainly authors such as Chuck Klosterman and Kevin Chong appear to be Rockists. The problem is however that rockjism has been given such a bad reputation, that alot of folks are embarrassed to admit that they are a Rockists. Okay, I don't suppose you've actually read "High Fidelity" or any interviews with Nick Hornby, or you would know that he was poking some serious fun at guys like Jack Black's character. "School of Rock" is based on a guy who wants to teach kids how to play rock music because it gives them a sense of individuality and it helps with learning. The other thing is, if you look at the scene in High Fidelity where he's putting in his morning tape in his grand introduction, he's playing "I'm Walking On Sunshine", which many thought was a terribly syrupy song when it was released. I'd be embarrassed to admit that I am following around a group mired in the semantics of crap as well. Good lord. And another thing, a ton of friends of mine when we first say the Yeah Yeah Yeahs, learned that Karen O was dating the singer from the Liars at the time. We had wondered if he was the subject matter of the songs and vice versa, which I would hardly say is boring. Another example of presumptive elitism from "rockists" who sound nothing more than a bunch of judgemental bores. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 9, 2006 14:25:01 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I like computers and drum machines in music as well (to a certain extent). IMHO no one has done a better job w/ this than the Beastie Boys...both Hello Nasty and Paul's Botique are prime examples of HOW to sample, and incorporate electronics into music.... i'm not going to say that I hate all computer music/drum machines/synthesizers, etc. Because some of it--like the Beastie Boys--I really like. However my problems with computerized music is that I find it less human, and it often lacks those certain creative moments sparked by human spontaniety (my spellngs atrocious!) I mean if you program a drum track throughout a song, its going to be played that way each time. But if you have a drummer, even the most presice, mechanical drummer, there is going to fills, beats or whatever that will reflect his personality, his style, his human beingness--and that is extremely important for creative chemistry to develope between band members. |
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 9, 2006 14:39:50 GMT -5
I don't agree with this argument at all, which I'm sure is not a surprise. Maybe I'm just being a contrary old fuddy duddy, but come on. Aphex Twin uses nothing but turntables, drum machines, synthesizers and has made some of the most compelling music in the last 20 years and it was all by himself. Nine Inch Nails has produced some amazing songs and most of it with programming on drum machines from Reznor himself. The deal is, is that there are styles of drum programming that other people can not do just like live drummers. No one can come up with beats like Timbaland or Pharrell from the Neptunes. You take a guy like Cevin Key from Skinny Puppy, who actually uses drum pads (electronic drums played like acoustic drums) that he uses to hit off triggers of pre recorded music that is fun, genius, and has it's own personality. Tool's drummer is also known for using some prerecorded drum machine beats and triggers that he will play himself.
Depeche Mode has tons of drum machines and that is some of the most passionate music I have ever heard.
Electronic Artists That Have Changed Music With Emotion:
Aphex Twin
Depeche Mode
New Order
Ladytron
Nine Inch Nails
Skinny Puppy
Information Society
Brian Eno
Beck
..........just to name a few.........
|
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 9, 2006 14:57:03 GMT -5
I actually tend to agree w/ paul's post for the most part...especially about the chemistry part. Just seems to me, you can't recreate chemistry w/ machines, it's done w/ people...now I'm now saying Beck, or NIN don't make passionate, creative music (they certainly do) but there's something more when a goup of musicians are feeding off each other that machines can never fully capture....that's just my take at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by skvorisdeadsorta on Jun 9, 2006 17:32:55 GMT -5
Alright, then how do you explain Kraftwerk, who actually played their parts on their mechanical instruments?
Depeche Mode is a group of people who feed off of each other when they play and it's all electronic, with some guitar thrown in.
Also, it takes humans to program and make the machines, so aren't machines in essense carriers of some of our personalities? See to me, the computer, the drum machine, the synthesizer is an extension for humans to create more music, open up their view more. I view them much in the same way as I would drums, guitar, bass, or clarinet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Kensterberg on Jun 9, 2006 17:46:50 GMT -5
OK, I'm one who strongly prefers real people playing "real" instruments, but even I can't say that there aren't some incredible things done with drum machines, tape loops, synths, etc. Sometimes the contrast between a very human vocal and an electronic backing can be profoundly moving. Just to take an example from my current most listened to band, the Replacements' "Within Your Reach" is a perfect example of this. It was Westerberg's most vulnerable and exposed vocal to that time, and he's the only guy on the track -- with drum machine and his own guitar overdubbed.
Also, I can't say that I can argue that there's a substantive difference between machines and overdubs. No one argues (seriously) today that there is anything inherently wrong with layers of guitars, horns, or whatever in producing a song, but what's the difference between having horns come in and play to a backing track and having that backing track be electronic? Here's another example, from (IMHO) the world's greatest rock and roll band. "The Magnificent Seven" is a Clash classic, one of the first (and best) examples of a rock band performing rap. That funky riff that Strummer's rapping over? A tape loop of a quick jam that Mick, Paul, and Topper laid down so Joe would have something to work with. That's it -- one repeated riff with an occassional drum fill tossed in. And it's an insanely human, visceral recording that grabs you in the gut and won't let go. (BTW, R.E.M. used this same trick, to lesser effect, on "I Don't Sleep I Dream"). And for something completely different, listen to any of Public Enemy's best moments and tell me that those are in way lacking in humanity or genuine emotion. Listen to "Bring the Noise" or "By the Time I Get to Arizona" and tell me that having "real musicians" on these would have improved them in any way.
Personally, I think you can't beat the feel of four or five people -- bass, two guitars, drums -- flailing away in the same room at the same time. But sometimes the best way to get that feel is for everyone to be in a different room, playing to tapes of the other guys, or to a click track. And sometimes, all you need is one guy splicing sounds together, regardless of whether he made them himself or had a computer create 'em, or whatever. Like I said, for myself I generally prefer the "this is the sound made by these people on this date" thing, but there are exceptions to every rule. Stevie Wonder played almost all of the instrumentation on his best albums in the seventies. Paul McCartney played drums, bass, a good chunk of guitar, and almost all the vocals on Band on the Run. How is producing that any different than splicing together noises made on a computer or synth?
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jun 9, 2006 19:01:59 GMT -5
I think the whole discussion is moot. I love electronic music to death and I couldn't care less whether it's contrived or emotionless- my mindset is different when I listen to Tangerine Dream, Steve Roach, Ashra, Jarre or Schulze than if I whack on a Pixies-disc and want to rock out. Creative spontaneity is OK when I hear live music or something but I don't rule a brilliant guitarsolo above a brilliant sequencerriff- it all comes down to the tune, the moment and how receptive I am to the song.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 9, 2006 20:01:52 GMT -5
Well for you electronic fans, I have a question. Do you think there is a difference in the physical afect on someone who pushes a button and has drum beat come out as compared to someone who bangs out something on an actual real set of drums? Isn't the later kind of like the process that happens when you do phsyical exercies? Arenta dopamiens and enforphins released from your brain, you lings fill up and get a work out, your heart beats faster?
I think music is a very physical sensation. From the time your mama rocks you to sleep as a baby in the cradle to the actual playing of a drum or a guitar or saxaphone. Dont you think this physical process is missed out on when you are sitting in a studio pushing your buttons and pulling your knobs...
|
|
|
|
Post by maarts on Jun 9, 2006 20:14:17 GMT -5
It depends on the person. I saw Kraftwerk live and that's probably the least adrenaline pumped band you will ever see. The music however hit me like a houwitser. How that is possible? I feel that music at that time as being no different than going nuts at the very first Pixies-gig I've seen. Less effort indeed as the only movement was caused by clicking and moving a mouse in front of their laptops but the output still was incredible. It's indeed different from seeing a guitarist performing a solo right in front of you, sweeping u you up in the rock 'n roll-feeling but I don't put as much emphasis on the physical process of moving a crowd via the physical process of playing physical instruments as a guitar or drum (although I saw Toto a few weeks ago and their keyboardist just freaked out an unbelievable solo in every bit its equal than more fancied soloists as Steve Lukather or Simon Phillips) as to the sum of its parts, the total output.
For the same reason I can be transported away by listening to, say, Apollo- Atmospheres & Soundtracks by Brian Eno/Roger Eno/Dan Lanois. Again, a different mindset. I can listen to eveything possible if my mood's right. A different physical sensation but one that I can feel as being equally as essential than rocking out.
What it boils down to is that if you don't like it, it doesn't move you at all. I like a lot of stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 9, 2006 20:42:26 GMT -5
Right, I get what you mean about different mind sets. The thing is I dont think you need on computer/electronic gadgest, etc to achieve the mindset that kraftwerk or Eno's stuff achieves--I think it can be done using guitars, drums, etc--or at least a fairly close mindset.
But on the other hand I dont think you can achieve the same mindset on computer/electronic equipment as you could on guitar or drums. I mean actually seeing someone beat the shit out of their guitar, or do a windmill like Townsend, or a freakout like Hendrix is almost impossible to achieve on a cumputer lap-top without getting laughed at.
The thing is that seeing musicians really getting physical with their instrments has a way of inspiring me. Take the Ramones for example, they have put out some poor product in their day, but what classifies them as quality IMO is that their music and physical agression towards their instruments went straight to the very core of what Rock music is all about--it ignites the need for motion inside of me. It ignites the need for speed, if you will... the need to stick my steel toed boot into some fratboys smiley face and then fuck some lonely fat chicks like my dick was a broken perculator on the 'High' setting...so the question becomes why are the Ramones capable of exciting this kind of reaction in me, but Kraftwerk--I'm sorry--just can't? I mean I think as teenagers most of us all played air guitar in our bedrooms to our favorite records, but I doubt if many of us played air computer to Kraftwerk's Autobahn.
|
|
zorndeslammes
Streetcorner Musician
RICKSON BY ARMBAR!!1!!!!1!
Posts: 74
|
Post by zorndeslammes on Jun 9, 2006 23:07:12 GMT -5
Well, its early Saturday morning here, late Friday night on the west coast. Tell ya what. Tommorrow night, go to the local joint in town, whatever town you're in, that plays house music or hip hop. See if the people there are missing out on the physical process as they listen to nothing more than albums on vinyl.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ryosuke on Jun 10, 2006 10:05:59 GMT -5
Yeah, this is the thing that seperates the Rockist from the mainstream consumer. The mainstream consumer will go, "Gee I really like that new song by so and so." And then the conversation pretty much ends there--or it will digress into who the lead singer is dating or something like that. Kinda boring. This is elitism at its worst. First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "gee I really like that new song by so and so." I find that to be quite endearing, in fact. They're hell of a lot more palatable than all those morons whose tastes mysteriously coincides with the reviews of whatever it is magazine they read, and love all the new artists who are hailed by those critics to be Really, Really, Good but who actually aren't that good at all, except instead of just saying "shit, this is awesome" they'll go into all sorts of bullshit to justify their mediocre taste. And I really, really, really cannot stand this "we Rockists can identify quality" bullshit. I'm sure you think you can identify quality. So do I, coincidentally, and I bet that a lot of "mainstream consumers" think that too (though there's actually also plenty of people out there who have crap taste music and will gladly admit it - I'd much rather hang with those type than some stuck-up elitist who only thinks that he has quality taste). So I still don't see how rockists are superior to non-rockists. |
|
|
|
Post by pauledwardwagemann on Jun 10, 2006 12:53:03 GMT -5
Tell ya what. Tommorrow night, go to the local joint in town, whatever town you're in, that plays house music or hip hop. See if the people there are missing out on the physical process as they listen to nothing more than albums on vinyl. Been there, done that, got the t-shirt. Not really into dance clubs, too many of them are more about trying to act cool, get laid and drunk or take drugs--all of which probablly are as much of a motiation for shaking their tail feather as the actual music being played is. Yeah, this is the thing that seperates the Rockist from the mainstream consumer. The mainstream consumer will go, "Gee I really like that new song by so and so." And then the conversation pretty much ends there--or it will digress into who the lead singer is dating or something like that. Kinda boring. This is elitism at its worst. First of all, there is absolutely nothing wrong with "gee I really like that new song by so and so." I find that to be quite endearing, in fact. I'm not saying its wrong--I'm saying its not very interesting. And I really, really, really cannot stand this "we Rockists can identify quality" bullshit. I'm sure you think you can identify quality. So do I, coincidentally, and I bet that a lot of "mainstream consumers" think that too (though there's actually also plenty of people out there who have crap taste music and will gladly admit it - I'd much rather hang with those type than some stuck-up elitist who only thinks that he has quality taste). So I still don't see how rockists are superior to non-rockists. I dont think I've ever claimed Rockists are superiour to non-Rockists. What I do claim is that Rockists are curious as to why they find a song/artist etc to be of quality. And they will examine and explore and do the heavy lifting involved in trying to understand why they believe something is of quality. That's all it is really, and I'm not sure why so many people find that to be offensive or elitist. |
|
Cookie Monster ! Yeah baby ! 
