Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Miscellaneous [BG]' started by bearhart74, Jul 9, 2019.
Definition of can | Dictionary.com
it was mostly MEH for me as well. I kept waiting for something interesting to happen and it almost did a couple of times. The primary point of my post was to see if I had missed something.
I am definitely not opposed to covers in general and like it when someone trumps the original... Like this
Or this as examples
i think it's fine: i like the video because i can see the talent at work.
"putting your own spin" on a piece can be risky because it's a clear break from the herd. and while there may be many motivators at work to take such a risk, here's two:
1 - "i really think this is a great rendition."
2 - "i don't have the talent to execute the original."
the musicians in the video are clearly in the first group!
I struggled to not hit the pause button during the piano intro wanking noodling.
Once the band got going there were times when I thought they were about to catch the spirit of the song but alas no.
My vote is borderline elevator music.
Reminds me what a friend of mine said about newer van halen. They were not able to get out of first gear. This song tries to shift gears but never seems to get there for me.
Chillout lounge with a faux Hopper on the wall,
people having boring conversations,
sipping their alcohol free cocktails….
What can I say?
When you serve me an alcohol free Martini dry,
the olive should be really good!
But at least these are real (good!) musicians playing real instruments.
I try not to remember the times, when techno/ dancefloor versions of classic rocksongs
were the only covers that got airplay (Always the same computer beats and plastic voices )
may the bass be with you
This gives me hope!
Finally a jazz ballad that even a headbanger like me can play by heart!
thx for sharing!
I guess, though, that's the point of my earlier post back on page 1 of the thread: to "catch the spirit of the song" would be a mistake. It's not like they're going to out-Zeppelin Zeppelin. So in a way, the problem with the cover is that they try to do it from time to time. If they're going to rethink the song as something mellow and sophisticated, they should fully commit to that and completely rework the song with that vibe. The way the Joss Stone cover of the White Stripes did that I posted, or Yes' take on "America," which sounds nothing at all like Simon and Garfunkel.
On the other hand, if they're going to do a straight cover, like a cover band playing to an audience that wants to hear familiar songs played in a familiar fashion, then they shouldn't have messed with it at all and do their best straight-up Zeppelin impersonation without all the easy-listening elements. This one shows some skill, but it falls between two stools.
Again you're making assumptions based on a fiction of your own construction: I never said music has to be art, I just said we have the right to criticize based on real, not fictional aspects. Everything isn't relative and deconstructed so that everything is equal. Good is good sometimes. Actually there's great elevator music out there, I'd submit Kruangbin, it's an idiom since the 90s when someone re-released Esquevel. They should be huge in Australia
You're right. I just don't get it when anyone tries to loungeify rock classics.
A few years ago, my wife called a clothing company's customer service 800 number and was on hold. She put it on speakerphone while waiting. I immediately recognized the hold music as a Muzak style of The Ramones' Blitzkrieg Bop and I started singing it. My wife asked me what I was doing. After her phone call I played it for her.
Again there is an inference that needs to be addressed. You say “People Can Tell when something is contrived and more of a product than an art work.” This may not state it but it implies that you believe that music that is not art is inferior. You make inferences and then suggest taking issue with them is fabrication.
Everything is relative. There is no central point of reference. “Good is good sometimes.” Actually is completely relative; who is the arbitor?
You’ve also illustrated my assertion that in the eyes of many, mellow equals elevator music by submitting Khruangbin as “good” elevator music. Why? Because it doesn’t rock or have an edge? I don’t know.
Though I have heard of Khruangbin, they aren’t huge in Australia and TB is the only reason I know who they are.
The Rhodes intro, although strangely unrelated to the song, sounded nice to me (I appreciate great key players).
The rest of it - very polished players, enjoyed their rendition of the song. Thought she (singer) had a nice grit on the chorus.
Maybe I'm just easily impressed, or maybe some others just have to find the fault in something such as this.. ?? |c: ??
I think what you guys are getting stuck on here, and which comes up often in TB threads, is really the difference between subjectivity and objectivity.
Any given piece of music has some objective characteristics - its instrumentation, tempo, dynamics, and so forth. These are not dependent on how any individual perceives it, they are the same to any possible observer.
Subjectivity, on the other hand, is the perception of the piece by an observer. It isn't really a quality of the music itself, but of how a listener perceives it. Thinking that a piece of music is, for instance, "emotional," or "contrived," are subjective perceptions.
The problem is that we tend to think that objective perceptions of the music are true and that subjective perceptions therefore must not be, they must be merely relative and personal. But this isn't the case. What we subjectively perceive about a piece of music - that it's wonderfully creative and moving, or that it's canned and contrived - may well be absolutely TRUE about the piece. It's just that there's no way to objectively measure such things. The Beatles may well have been a better band than the Rolling Stones, but there's no way to rationally demonstrate that. You either get it, or you don't.
When we start throwing around labels in discussions like this - words like "art" and "elevator music" - we import subjective terms into the conversation as though they were objective qualities. I have never heard Khruangbin played in an elevator. For that matter, I don't think I've actually heard music in an elevator in decades. "Elevator music" doesn't have any objective meaning. It just means music that the speaker feels has the kind of quality that would have gotten it played in an elevator, or a resemblance to the kind of stuff that was played in elevators back in the days of muzak. It's a subjective way we choose to draw lines around works to create categories for our own thinking. But being subjective, others will draw the lines differently.
Actually, I think that could work great in a live setting. The audience doesn’t know what’s coming and then they burst into applause when they recognize the song.
Only in religion! In art, humanity is the arbitor. But it is confusing. I used to believe that everything is relative in art. I now believe that good work is discernibly different from shoddy work, and that the cave painting of Lasceau France, Van Gogh, Beethoven, ancient Chinese Taoist wood carving etc countless others etc etc all have this quality in common. The acquisition departments of art museums Believe they are buying pieces that meet this quality. Sometimes it's hard to see, but it's usually there. On Talkbass people are pretty savy. Animals can sense insincerity and people can learn to.
Band/musician does cover of song that is exact and faithful to original: “boring, so bland, if i wanted to listen to this I’d play the original”
Band/musician does cover of song that is different and rearranged: “this is terrible sounds nothing like the original”