theBlackman on 14/12/2007 at 21:34
Quote Posted by Brian T
Well, giving the choce between a catchy song with "Ooh baby baby baby!" lyrics and a dull song about the evils of the politicians corruputing the Woodstock generation, I'd take the former. If that sounds shallow, so be it. Beethoven's lyrics to the few "songs" or (lieder) he wrote were full of trite "It's Wunderbar!" stuff but I like the mans music.
Melody is paramount to me in rock/pop music It doesn't have to be "wild", just catchy. Lyrics are of secondary importance. The Beatles often had flippant lyrics (or even nonsensical ones, I am the Walrus goo goo ga joob) but that doesn't detract from my liking of them.
Anyway, there's a simple way of settling musical disagreements. I've seen people on the internet use it all the time, so here I go...."I've been playing guitar for 109 years so I know what I'm talking about, matey. I win!" :cheeky::joke:
I agree. A good musical line is paramount. And, as you say "lieder" as an art form is good stuff.
Quote Posted by Brian T
...."I've been playing guitar for 109 years so I know what I'm talking about, matey. I win!" :cheeky::joke:
You win.:D I've only been playing for 70. :p
steo on 14/12/2007 at 21:55
You missed Frank Zappa.
the_grip on 14/12/2007 at 22:18
Why does it hurt when i pee?
Aja on 14/12/2007 at 22:41
Frank doesn't really belong in the same category as any of these musicians.
New Horizon on 14/12/2007 at 22:52
No Classic Seventies Elton John? The man was brilliant, and the tunes were so great for the time. Probably don't seem as ground breaking today, but when I put myself in a seventies headspace, I can imagine how they would have wowed everyone back then.
ercles on 15/12/2007 at 06:58
As much as I love Can, I see their albums as pretty damn patchy. I mean when they had Damo with them they pulled out sublime stuff, but listening to some of their later albums, it's simply bizarre how pear-shaped it all went.
On the topic of lyrics I have to say Bright Eyes writes some of the best lyrics I have seen recently, although I disagree with those who say he is the new Bob Dylan.
Jason Moyer on 15/12/2007 at 13:36
Quote Posted by ercles
As much as I love Can, I see their albums as pretty damn patchy. I mean when they had Damo with them they pulled out sublime stuff, but listening to some of their later albums, it's simply bizarre how pear-shaped it all went.
I like them all, but I only really *love* the Mooney and Suzuki stuff. Part of that, imho, was because Holger was simultaneously being reduced to a very minor role in the band, which eventually led to his departure - and IIRC he's really the one who had nurtured the experimentalism in the band. Thankfully, after making such crap in the late 70's the original members managed to return to making great music, individually.
ercles on 16/12/2007 at 06:28
I'd be interested in any hints as to similar albums to Tago Mago/Ege Bamyasi
KingAl on 16/12/2007 at 08:05
Hmmm, I've never really understood people disliking a band on the basis of them being pretentious - I couldn't really care less about the attitude of a band to their own music, as long as it's good :P Still, I can see why you might find DSOTM a bit soporific, what with Alan Parsons' 'easy listening' production style... Similarly, I don't really get the hostility towards Bowie.
I've always just found Ian Anderson amusing, to be honest, though I can see why he might get on your nerves - I'd be entirely unsurprised if I learned he was manic depressive, and he seems to be a control freak - and I haven't even bothered looking at any 80s Tull so bad is its reputation. I'm with you on Procol Harum - though it's bloody hard to actually find their albums, at least in Australia - but I've never really 'got' the Sex Pistols.
Fingernail on 16/12/2007 at 11:32
Quote Posted by KingAl
Similarly, I don't really get the hostility towards Bowie.
Yeah, you see, Bowie is (or certainly was '70 to mid-'80s) pretty much a genius. And however much he stole off other artists, it's always unmistakably Bowie and people have been plundering off him for years.
I think his voice divides people sometimes, personally I find it very variable - some songs it's really good, other times he has this very thin high range which is quite nasal and Cockney. But at least he has that range - I played someone two different records (I think Boys Keep Swinging and then It Ain't Easy off Ziggy) and they almost couldn't believe it was the same singer - just totally different sound in the voice.
The other thing is that he uses a lot of odd chord progressions, often combined with quite traditional ones. His songs are often about taking a traditional riff or style and turning it around into something new and something that's his own, which is something I can identify with. It's this kind of meta-pop thing where there are bands like the Rolling Stones to a certain extent "originating" a particular style of their own, and then Bowie's sitting there listening to it, and making some music that derives from all these sort of "basic genres" but also transcends them.
Which, I guess, is a very pretentious way to look at it, but that's all just unecessary waffle. What it boils down to (as all music) is that the man has undeniably written some
tunes in his time.
