|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted November 20, 2014 01:09 PM |
|
|
@ Markkur
I don't think it's an either or.
Unplugged means, it's just you(r voice) and/or your instrument - or your voices and instruments in a band or orchestra.
Creating a SOUND, on the other hand, has been on the mind of people before electronics were invented. A lot of violins playing sound different from just one or two, after all.
In the end - does it really matter, in the sense of, is this really important? I mean, I linked to a recent Black Sabbath Live song, and when I heard it for the first time I was so in awe about the sound, my first thought was - it's faked. They CANNOT sound that good (especially not Ozzy).
But then I thought - who cares. It looks like it, it sounds like it, it sounds great, no matter what, SOME people did one hell of a job.
After all, it's just showbiz.
What is really a problem, is the fact that concerts are costing a fortune now. When I was young, concerts were thought to be a promotion of the existing and current record(s) and was cheap even for a top act.
Now, it's the opposite. With music going digital, the table has turned. Alternative versions, downloadable songs ... now the "records" serve to promote the concerts - which cost dearly. I mean, ok, it's logical and all - it makes sense. Suddenly bands play an album live in concert for 20th anniversary or something.
So electronics and digitals brings us back to the good ole times when there was no recording at all and music HAD to be played live in order to be enjoyed.
Which solves your problem, right?
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 02:47 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 14:52, 20 Nov 2014.
|
>>>Which solves your problem, right?<<<
No, no problem, just preference <L> ...I don't take myself quite that seriously.
Actually, for me my take about everything you all have been discussing, is rather like my perspectives...always changing in the past to now dig-in and move very little. I think "smugness" is more age and personal experience...than any effective argument. 
Cheers all...whatever floats your boat.
Btw, here's a sound I found a while back. Too bad I found it so late.
Owain
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 04:06 PM |
|
|
What I meant was, when we were young, concerts would be very toned down affairs, while they would try all kind of stuff on the records (Sgt. Peppers, the Beatles not playing anymore live on stage, since they couldn't reproduce the sound), and while people would go to concerts, the majority would prefer the clean, full of effects studio versions.
Today, on the other hand, where you can do EVERYTHING in the studio (as you said), the live stuff is more interesting as a confirmation, yes, real artists are playing real instruments and can perform a song, and with the professionalism that we have in the business today, it's the concert visit and the BluRay documentation that's doing it.
Your link, the music is not my cup of tea. I'm sure you will like (and know) this little tune, which I rather like:
Not so long anymore now, so what the heck 
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 04:57 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:06, 20 Nov 2014.
|
JJ said:
Well, you can, actually. You just have to make an effort.
We're not in 19th century, dude, it's not the rabbit out of the hat anymore, they prepare insane tricks, you can't just smartguess an illusionist, if it's a good one. But I don't want to be one of those people who gets stuck on a technicality about an analogy, I saw where you were getting at, so
JJ said:
What you describe is simply the research, looking for MORE as a consumer of art. Along the line you may try to answer a few whys and hows, but Sal is a different person than you, in that regard - you don't teach stuff, right?
By the way, what about the fractal example?
I have the same stance, I know there are some people who needs a little (or a big!) mystical zone to find something truly inspiring or miraculous, would be a fitting word I assume? But that has never been my world view about anything. And as I said, it's like saying a gynecologist would stop getting attracted to women simply because he gets used to seeing them as patients, it happens but it is not very typical and there's a special term for that situation called: Déformation professionnelle. Of course, there is a slightly true aspect to it on a lesser degree. I mean, professional or not, none of us will listen to music the way we used to like in the first years we had discovered it; teenagers getting astonished and emotionally triggered by all the fresh and completely new things around us. But it's replaced by a deeper sort of appreciation that only comes with experience, familiarity and you simply can't both keep having the cake and eat it.
(Edit: Typo corrected, I can't believe I wrote "hat out of the rabbit" instead, now that would be an original trick but one hell of a creepy show!)
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 05:12 PM |
|
|
Well, first you have to understand one thing: all those people who composed awesome music were technically immensely knowledgeable. Because you can dream as much as you want, eye closed, on a guitar solo, the moment when YOU have to write it, you are clueless if you didn't spent years to learn how to.
So all this talk about better artistic intuition for those not technically advanced is pure speculation: without people mastering those techniques, you would have nothing to listen to.
Think about Leonardo, before he started to paint human bodies, he spent years to autopsy them (which was btw very risky at that moment) until he knew exactly how veins, bones and skin work together. You can admire his paintings without being a surgeon, but more you know about human body structure, more details you will probably enjoy.
Same goes for all arts, music included.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 05:18 PM |
|
|
I don't think, you are right.
My desire to listen to music hasn't changed, and I still enjoy the things I listened 40 years ago. It's just that I can and do listen now to so much more. I like it for the same reasons as then, but there may be more reasons now to like stuff and there may be stronger reasons to like other things better, but still.
I also think you are not really having the same stance than Sal. Nor do you do the same thing than he. And I also think we are talking past each other in that regard.
I've been describing the phenomenon from my job experience, and I think that it is true, albeit in a sense your examples don't capture. Looking for flaws on one hand and for purity/perfection on the other spells UNHAPPY, when you live in a gray, imperfect world with gray and imperfect humans.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 05:20 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:24, 20 Nov 2014.
|
I never said I don't listen to stuff from the past or don't enjoy it anymore. It just doesn't come with the same element of surprise, if it isn't something extremely original and astonishing.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 07:08 PM |
|
|
Salamandre said:
Well, first you have to understand one thing: all those people who composed awesome music were technically immensely knowledgeable. Because you can dream as much as you want, eye closed, on a guitar solo, the moment when YOU have to write it, you are clueless if you didn't spent years to learn how to.
It's well known, that it was Steve Vai who later started to transcribe all that guitar work for FZ.
You may find this an interesting read:
Steve Vai on his transcription work for FZ
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 20, 2014 10:37 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
What I meant was, when we were young, concerts would be very toned down affairs, while they would try all kind of stuff on the records (Sgt. Peppers, the Beatles not playing anymore live on stage, since they couldn't reproduce the sound), and while people would go to concerts, the majority would prefer the clean, full of effects studio versions.
Today, on the other hand, where you can do EVERYTHING in the studio (as you said), the live stuff is more interesting as a confirmation, yes, real artists are playing real instruments and can perform a song, and with the professionalism that we have in the business today, it's the concert visit and the BluRay documentation that's doing it.
I certainly agree with that JJ; sorry I failed on a response earlier. And about the concerts; I'm with you; hard to believe I could see three nights of live music from bands rising on the charts for less than ten bucks for all three shows. Not front-row-center of course. But yeah, (Dylan) "times, they are a...completely-changed. 
Cheers mate
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 21, 2014 08:19 AM |
|
|
To continue this, since it was rather late yesterday, this
Zappa plays Zappa - Filthy Habits
will quite probably have been part of Steve's work just as well as this (starts at 39:10, ends at 43:28 when the next song starts
Zappa plays Zappa - Black Napkins
since both songs are from the mid-70s. Filthy Habits (recorded a bit too loud, so it's a bit distorted) is sounding quite outlandish, and even if one of the earlier classics had have something like this in mind (with the instruments and arrangements of their time), they would have been banned from playing it openly for religious reasons, sounding like the devil composed it.
The second one is, in my humble opinion easily on par with every comparable musical effort of any time.
Quite obviously, all three of them, Frank Zappa who initially played and composed it, Steve Vai, who would quite probably have transcribed it, and Dweezil Zappa playing it 35 years later, must and do have amazing technical skills, not only with playing their instruments, but also with cajoling the required sounds out of their equipment which has become an art by itself considering the multitude of foot pedals used.
But there is just no way round admitting that there is no substantial difference between the concert tour "Zappa plays Zappa" and any Symphonic Orchestra playing any of the Classics - in nothing, least of it the amount of preparation and rehearsing together, the amount of technical ability necessary to play the stuff, commitment and even zeal.
Also, Sal, it seems you concentrate on Europe and the last 500 years. But people have been composing and performing music long before that and in other parts of the world as well, for example in India. And they didn't necessarily use a written notation.
Music is a lot more than a couple of classics.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 21, 2014 05:26 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
... they would have been banned from playing it openly for religious reasons, sounding like the devil composed it.
That's true but also a little shy of the whole story. The narrow-minds that would have banned Zappa went "everywhere" including Christian artists playing rock-gospel. You see it was really "Rock-music" of ANY kind that was deemed wrong by those blind eyes. i.e. Swaggart's junk was acceptable to many of those that carried the same oppressive-banners because it was a form of old 50's, so-called innocent SOUNDING rock. I wrote Swaggart once, after he condemned Rez-band and many others; telling the hypocrite that a "C-note is a C-note" period...no matter the sound. If I took Silent Night and erased the words and inserted my own about "kicking dogs" etc. even though the music remained the same it would no longer be the same traditional hymn. But hey, Tyndale was burned for putting the Gospel into English; some things never change.
Btw, things were soo bad when Petra formed in the late seventies that it was not long before the band laid a trap for those small minds that wanted to ban Rock. "Back-masking" was at the forefront in a lot of Devil-claims. Petra was sick of the hype and always being condemned because they wanted to play hard and energetically before those that liked the same. "The Gospel is a message not a Note." (my words)
So at the beginning of this tune they planted "the evil back-masking."
(a.k.a. hidden message)
Judas' Kiss
Petra (More Power To Ya)
A friend of mine was DJ'ing at a local college and had access to a belt-drive turntable; we spun the LP backwards to hear what those "Witch-hunt-minded" would hear when they did the same and what was the hidden message? "Why are you looking for the Devil when you should be looking for the Lord." 
Not directed at you JJ, just felt like sharing something that those outside the fun would probably not know about the history of music-art inside the formal bounds of church. Hopefully things have moved on but I can't say for sure. People never cease to dis-amaze me. <L>
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 22, 2014 02:58 PM |
|
|
JollyJoker said:
I'm sure you will like (and know) this little tune, which I rather like:
Not so long anymore now, so what the heck
Had this on a sticky and this morning thought; what's this. I'm so brain-dead at times.
Anyway, TY for sharing that tune; I do like it very much. iirc, I never heard it. I loved Tull for a long time but when I was following the band I was not a Christian and something like this I may have thought nice but no doubt, it would have been very quickly dismissed.
Sure works for me now; as a matter of fact; I would like Christmas to be that families all pitch-in to a family pot and help another family or loners etc. A Christmas where only children got one gift, adults none and all else went to feed and clothe others would be absolutely wonderful.
Thanks again and was not too early...I watched Scrooge with Sim the other night. <L> Cheers
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 22, 2014 03:27 PM |
|
|
I found it rather amusing at the time (... when you're stuffing yourselves at the Christmas parties ... the Christmas spirit is not what you drink...), but of course the music is rather, well, christmasly.
When it comes to acoustics, well Led Zep's Battle of Evermore comes to mind, Going to California, Gallows Pole and That's the Way - I'm generally not against acoustics in any way, I just think there is nothing like the drone of a guitar chord played through an amp, as exemplified here:
When Mr. Page plays that G-D double chord, letting the D drone on, while Mr. Plant sings from lands of ice and snow and midnight sun and flowing hot springs, that's one thing that did and still does it to me.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted November 23, 2014 01:58 PM |
|
|
Did it for me too...still does. But then Zepplin one of my few best bands of all time. The merging of all the sounds were done so well. Like the recorders on Stairway.
I came across something I did not know. Steve Young wrote Seven--bridges Road and the Eagles did a fine job with it but apparently they used this arrangement which I like better.
Matthews
A way that I like electronics and often the best to my tastes is when they are used as "icing to points of a song" Like Zep did with the Choir...even it's old hat now.
Here's an example of what I mean and done by the same relatively unknown artist; one of the few times I liked a remake better than the original and by chance it is electronics over acoustic.
Ian Matthews
Darkness, Darkness
Here's what I think is an interesting interview about a few things that are in this thread. Kind of funny; Nesmith get's his big break by being picked for a supergroup and the after, fights his way out of those confines to begin making the first music-videos and creating MTV.
Michael Nesmith (Monkees) on Arts And Minds January 17th 2004
interesting
Michael Nesmith Q & A at Monkees Convention
Question's
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted November 24, 2014 08:34 AM |
|
|
I feel reminiscent of James Williamson, when I watch Michael Nesmith. Plays guitar for Iggy & The Stooges, starting in 1970 and creates his own guitar sound. Then, after some time, he switches to engineer. Some ten years after joining the Stooges he drops out of the music business completely and gets a degree in electrical engineering. He designs computer chips and electronic products around those chips. He becomes a Vice President at Sony's, and getting 60 he accepts an early retirement plan of Sony's -
- to join Iggy % the Stooges again.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2014 08:46 AM |
|
|
Watching the Black Sabbath concert BluRay from last year, Gathered in their Masses, I had to think about the massive discrepancy between what the critics said, when they started out, and how successful they were, even without airplay, and how influential.
Just read this review by the iconic Lester Bangs from that time and compare it with this one written with the benefit of hindsight.
By the time of their 3rd album, in which, after having invented "heavy metal", they wrote the hymn that would incite headbanging, Bangs would grudgingly throw in an occasional good word in his damning judgement, but you'd still see him struggling with something he didn't seem to be able to "dig" (his problem being that he didn't see that the result of the elements he describes was so much more than the sum of them).
There are so many examples - and by no means only in music - where critics went DEAD wrong, you have to wonder.
I'd guess, one of the main problems is, that critics are able to rate and judge things firmly within the frame of established "values", but when something comes around that is outside of those, they can be pretty blind - which is a problem, since that's where the new ideas are...
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 03, 2014 09:20 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 10:12, 03 Dec 2014.
|
Well, you know the famous Gandhi quote: "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." While it is true that not only critics but also people whose tastes are more deep-seated and settled (so mostly, older people) often fail to recognize something fresh and unconventional, one must also keep in mind that those situations where something is ridiculed are rarely a new prodigy with an innovative masterpiece. As someone who loves reading music magazines, reviews etc, I'd say critics (at least good ones) are usually descriptive and they have a tendency to talk in the middle, give you both the pros and cons of a work. If they badmouth something in a cruel manner, it's quite possible that it really sucks.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 03, 2014 10:04 AM |
|
|
Well, that's the question, isn't it?
I mean, you can virtually always find good things and bad things in everything, since everything has two sides. Take for example Punk, which was hailed because it broke with the "trivial complexities of self-important progressive rock", reminding everyone that rock music is, in its heart, a very simple thing, a "back to the roots call", but that's exactly what can be criticized, that it's (too) simplistic, often without any real artistry, leading to boredom.
So, with Punk still existing and being made, what is "good Punk" and what is "bad punk", which is to say, is there any objective kind of way to evaluate and judge that?
Even more interesting would be that the music later called punk had been played way before 1976, except that at the time, when it was basically an anti-flower-power thing, Detroit versus San Francisco, no one would dig it, except a few pretty sick people.
Zeitgeist is a strange thing, it seems...
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 03, 2014 03:02 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 15:39, 03 Dec 2014.
|
Music is a long strange trip I think. I mean for me at first it was a no-brainer, a body thing about inner urge M/L. I didn't even care about the words of a song and really didn't care to know a thing about who made the tune. And now, much later some of that but now Meaning rules the stage; what the tune is "pushing or not".
Something like this; I don't care how perfect "for me" the music is; because if the music saying HATE JJ...I'm not listening a second time and I sure as heck aint buying.
Critics...don't need 'em...never have. Early on, reviewers of anything always got on my nerves. Today, a very few Game-reviews can come in handy when they do the pro/con thing and that's enough.
Edit
Thought I'd add I did see Siskel and Ebert a couple of times but that was because at the time, it was fun to watch pompus arguments about taste.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted December 03, 2014 10:07 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 22:09, 03 Dec 2014.
|
A good review can sometimes help you understand an album in a deeper level, it can mention interesting details about the story behind some songs. Also, they can trace influences you are unaware of, for example somebody may not know who Freddie King is and after reading a review of a Clapton album and hearing something like "on slow tracks the Freddie King influance becomes even higher and more direct," he can discover Freddie King, explore both the influencing and the influenced music within a broder context. You'll discover many musicians fitting to your taste that way.
Btw, Markkur, what the listener presumes the meaning of a song is and the intended meaning of the song may very often be completely different things, even when it seems very unlikely. I remember Sting talking about how he wrote the song Every breath you take about obssession and a dark fixation that does not leave him alone, you know, "everywhere you go I'll be watching you!" But now, he says, they all think it's a love song and people pick it as their wedding song. Or what does Mr. Tambourine Man exactly talk about, what does it mean? How about instrumentals? But I guess in the end, when it comes to meaning, what counts most is, what it subjectively means to the listener himself.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
