|
Post by Guitar on Oct 26, 2019 15:15:46 GMT -6
Smells good to me. But there is no accounting for taste, that's for damn sure.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 28, 2019 1:24:30 GMT -6
I like the Faces. Cheers, Geoff I like The Small Faces.
Steve Marriot > Rod Stewart
|
|
|
Post by geoff738 on Oct 28, 2019 17:43:25 GMT -6
I like the Faces. Cheers, Geoff I like The Small Faces.
Steve Marriot > Rod Stewart
I thought the Small Faces were really good. But the Faces might be my favourite band. I love the looseness. And Rods albums that were made contemporaneously with his time in the Faces are also some of my absolute faves. which is no slight on Marriot. He was great as well. But, at the end of the day, gonna have to agree to disagree. But you’ve reminded me I haven’t put on any Humble Pie in a long time. Gonna go do that right now. Cheers, Geoff
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 28, 2019 19:33:50 GMT -6
I like The Small Faces.
Steve Marriot > Rod Stewart
I thought the Small Faces were really good. But the Faces might be my favourite band. I love the looseness. And Rods albums that were made contemporaneously with his time in the Faces are also some of my absolute faves. which is no slight on Marriot. He was great as well. But, at the end of the day, gonna have to agree to disagree. But you’ve reminded me I haven’t put on any Humble Pie in a long time. Gonna go do that right now. Cheers, Geoff Marriot and Winwood are tied for the greatest white Engilsih soul singers in history. Rod's good, but he ain't got the real soul. Too pop. And Winwood kinda gave up the soul vocals as his career progressed. Still a great singer but he got a bit... folky?
Stewart's all time best album was the first Jeff Beck Group album. After that it was all down hill.
"Do You Think I'm Saxy?" I dunno - lets hear you blow some tenor. Or Bari.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 30, 2019 13:19:59 GMT -6
Arranging is everything!
Back in 3-track daze, there were ONLY great arrangements and train wrecks. As multitrack Les Paul memorial overdub parties became common, arranging went right down the drain. At least Les was doing destructive overdubs that forced him into a reasonable arrangement.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 30, 2019 14:56:07 GMT -6
Why? A song is a sum of the parts. Some of the parts are the writing and performance, and some of the parts are the production and "polish". Why wouldn't someone want a song where they like the writing, also have production values that they like as well? I'm not going to listen to a song where the production sounds like garbage, even if the melody and lyrics are good. The production and so-called "polish" shopuld NOT uverwhelm the song and transform it into the "modern" (in other words bad taste) version of elevator music.
I'm sorry, but some people allow their financial onterests overwhelm artistic qualiy
Who the hell is going to listen to the typical crap on the curren t excuse for the "top 40" (BOUGHT 40) in 20 years?
It sure as hell ain't like when I was young and anything had a chance as long as actual, real PEOPLE liked it.
Back then there was payole, sure. But no amount of payola back then could make a record a hit if it wasn't.
These days it's the exact opposite. The only thing that matters is a-hole "focus groups". Who may in fact not even be composed of humans. Or even Klingons. They're f-ing BORG!
I can assist and can witness that the younger generation (now 16-25) ask me more and more in my guitar classes "why so many music sounds uniformed" on the radio. Some of them ask for something new. Thank god we have Spotify today! I play a song first on the guitar, and then I see smiling faces. To hear the Beatles (put in any old music you know) the first time in their live still impresses.
Depending on the students' history same goes with Springsteen, or Sting ....
@bob Olhsson
The Beatles sold like sliced bread.
I ask myself if every band wanted to sound like the Beatles?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 30, 2019 20:08:28 GMT -6
Many wanted to sound like the Beatles but Sgt Pepper's was not what broke the Beatles. Their live recordings with overdubbed vocals launched their recording career. They learned to arrange on stage with audience feedback as unknowns.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 30, 2019 21:22:06 GMT -6
I have to question not liking a song because the amount of polish does not meet one's standards. Why? A song is a sum of the parts. Some of the parts are the writing and performance, and some of the parts are the production and "polish". Why wouldn't someone want a song where they like the writing, also have production values that they like as well? I'm not going to listen to a song where the production sounds like garbage, even if the melody and lyrics are good. I hear many "modern" mixes/productions where a perfectly good song and performance have been utterly ruined by overly "polished" techno-perfection. To the point where I find it unlistenable because I can hear through the horrible "perfection" and hear the ghost of what might have been, if only it hadn't been produced and mixed by idiots with no real sense of aesthetics and, above all, no sense of humanity in art.
All too often the "production" and "polish" are merely a layer of excrement smeared on by one or more artless people to make it conform to their tin eared sensibilities.
There is NO ART involved in using machines to reduce a work to boring mechanical "perfection".
The chances of that stuff making me either laugh or cry is nil - unless I'm laughing at or crying for the ruined song.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 31, 2019 5:23:55 GMT -6
I ask myself if every band wanted to sound like the Beatles? I don't think bands wanted to sound like the Beatles because of their mixes, they wanted to copy their style of music and jump on the bandwagon. Just like bands will do today. You get enough bands that copy a new style and you create a new genre.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 31, 2019 12:43:09 GMT -6
We haven't seen a new genre since Hip-Hop in the late '70s. Genres are created on stage but these days, most people can't afford to perform on stage, much less get paid for it.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Oct 31, 2019 14:31:54 GMT -6
We haven't seen a new genre since Hip-Hop in the late '70s. Genres are created on stage but these days, most people can't afford to perform on stage, much less get paid for it. EDM, Heavy Metal, Post Rock, Reggaeton lol. There have been plenty of new genres.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 31, 2019 14:59:42 GMT -6
As far as I know, that stuff all actually originated in the '70s even though some became famous later.
|
|
|
Post by mrholmes on Oct 31, 2019 15:50:39 GMT -6
We haven't seen a new genre since Hip-Hop in the late '70s. Genres are created on stage but these days, most people can't afford to perform on stage, much less get paid for it.
I doubt that even Songwriting does not sound like in the 60s or 70s anymore.
We have new creative young artists which have a totally diffrent taste.
Listen to the Luminers for example and you will understand that they have a total different approach. And yes they are on stage more than ever before, that's where the money comes form - if you are popular these days.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 31, 2019 19:15:04 GMT -6
I ask myself if every band wanted to sound like the Beatles? I don't think bands wanted to sound like the Beatles because of their mixes, they wanted to copy their style of music and jump on the bandwagon. Just like bands will do today. You get enough bands that copy a new style and you create a new genre. Yeah. Bands that invoke the response:
YOU'RE NOT THE BEATLES!
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE THE BEATLES!
YOUR INEPT PASTICHE TOTALLY DISRESPECTS THE BEATLES.
Please f*ck off and do something else. Or just shut the f*ck up. Please.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 31, 2019 19:22:48 GMT -6
We haven't seen a new genre since Hip-Hop in the late '70s. Genres are created on stage but these days, most people can't afford to perform on stage, much less get paid for it. EDM, Heavy Metal, Post Rock, Reggaeton lol. There have been plenty of new genres. Only people who are ignorant of history believe that stuff is "new". Heavy Metal, for example, started in the late/middle '60s. And a lot of the stuff back then (Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, (original) Deep Purple, etc.) were actually a fuck of a lot heavier than any of the current raft of self indulgent "shredders". Who are mostly just boring.
"Post Rock" is a non-genre. The name and the music mean nothingt inm the historical flow of things.
EDM has been around since Kraftwerk, if not significanly before. Commercial EDM has been around since Moroder and Donna Summer.
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Oct 31, 2019 19:30:14 GMT -6
I don't think bands wanted to sound like the Beatles because of their mixes, they wanted to copy their style of music and jump on the bandwagon. Just like bands will do today. You get enough bands that copy a new style and you create a new genre. Yeah. Bands that invoke the response:
YOU'RE NOT THE BEATLES!
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE THE BEATLES!
YOUR INEPT PASTICHE TOTALLY DISRESPECTS THE BEATLES.
Please f*ck off and do something else. Or just shut the f*ck up. Please.
Pastiche. New vocabulary word for me.
|
|
|
Post by svart on Oct 31, 2019 19:43:23 GMT -6
I don't think bands wanted to sound like the Beatles because of their mixes, they wanted to copy their style of music and jump on the bandwagon. Just like bands will do today. You get enough bands that copy a new style and you create a new genre. Yeah. Bands that invoke the response:
YOU'RE NOT THE BEATLES!
YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE THE BEATLES!
YOUR INEPT PASTICHE TOTALLY DISRESPECTS THE BEATLES.
Please f*ck off and do something else. Or just shut the f*ck up. Please.
Nah.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Oct 31, 2019 20:00:05 GMT -6
The good news is that some kids are due to pull off another Beatles.
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Oct 31, 2019 20:11:17 GMT -6
EDM, Heavy Metal, Post Rock, Reggaeton lol. There have been plenty of new genres. Only people who are ignorant of history believe that stuff is "new". Heavy Metal, for example, started in the late/middle '60s. And a lot of the stuff back then (Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, (original) Deep Purple, etc.) were actually a fuck of a lot heavier than any of the current raft of self indulgent "shredders". Who are mostly just boring.
"Post Rock" is a non-genre. The name and the music mean nothingt inm the historical flow of things.
EDM has been around since Kraftwerk, if not significanly before. Commercial EDM has been around since Moroder and Donna Summer.
Lol, sure...whatever you say. If that’s how you define genres then there are none, because everything was derived from something that came before. Listen to Deep Purple and then listen to Slipknot and tell me they’re the same genre. Same goes for Modern EDM (maybe to a lesser degree). Oh and save whatever condescending remark you’re thinking up. Don’t really care what you have to say since you can’t seem to form an argument or articulate a point without throwing an insult.
|
|
|
Post by johneppstein on Oct 31, 2019 21:16:24 GMT -6
Only people who are ignorant of history believe that stuff is "new". Heavy Metal, for example, started in the late/middle '60s. And a lot of the stuff back then (Steppenwolf, Iron Butterfly, (original) Deep Purple, etc.) were actually a fuck of a lot heavier than any of the current raft of self indulgent "shredders". Who are mostly just boring.
"Post Rock" is a non-genre. The name and the music mean nothingt inm the historical flow of things.
EDM has been around since Kraftwerk, if not significanly before. Commercial EDM has been around since Moroder and Donna Summer.
Lol, sure...whatever you say. If that’s how you define genres then there are none, because everything was derived from something that came before. Listen to Deep Purple and then listen to Slipknot and tell me they’re the same genre. Same goes for Modern EDM (maybe to a lesser degree). Oh and save whatever condescending remark you’re thinking up. Don’t really care what you have to say since you can’t seem to form an argument or articulate a point without throwing an insult. First, I said nothing insulting to anybody. If you found anything "insulting" in my quoted comment, perhaps you should think about what I said a bit more carefully before posting a knee-jerk reaction.
"Genre" is a stupid word, promoted by corporate radio to justify their trchnique of narrowcasting and dividing the audience up artificially into fractionated groups for marketing purposes.
It's the musical marketing equivalent of divisive political tactics. Divide and conquer, or in this case, divide and market.
It's hogwash. And allowing such tactics to flourish is a bad thing, be it in music, politics, or anything else.
Deep Purple and Slipknot are both "metal" in the same sense that JS Bach and Pachelbel are both "Baroque." Which, BTW, is an historical style within the overall category of classical music, not a "genre".*
Genre is a marketing term, plain and simple.
Music evolves over time. Every little stylistic difference by one act - or even a few stylistically similar acts - does not make it a new kind of music. It's just minor stylistic differences within a greater whole.
We are idiots if we allow Madison Avenue to define our art.
* - and if you ask me, Deep Purple was a hell of a lot "heavier" than Slipknot. (Although Slipknot IS noisier...)
|
|