Respect your elders

[Lackey]

IMO,, more technical music isn't always better , Weather Report vs. CAB1 and 2, Tool vs. Dream Theater being two examples.

Now,, Bunny Brunel,, Dennis Chambers, Scott MacAlpine and Brian Auger ALL have incredible chops, but the CAB2 cd gets boring within 5 minutes to me. There doesn't seem to be any interesting structure to the band,, just jam grooves interspaced with endless chopfests.

I prefer Weather Report; the songs speak to me whether Jaco is playing a smooth MEANINGFUL solo or a slow descending line ala A Remark You Made. Restraint is practiced throughout the band,, going from a whisper when needed to a thunderous roar shows to me they had incredible control over the dynamics of the music.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Now Tool vs. Dream Theater is kinda the same thing, I prefer Tool DESPITE the fact that John Myung and John Petrucci are technically superior to Justin and Adam. I think Tool makes better use of their talent. (it's not what you don't know, its what you know and how you can make use of it!). I won't get started in the LaBrie vs. Maynard or Portnoy vs. Carey comments!

However,, I still feel that extremely technical material can be very musical, Meshuggah and Fredrick Thordendal being an example (IMO ). I enjoy listenening to Sol Niger Within as much as any of my other favorite albums,, and that's some ridiculous stuff!

I also feel Coldplay is excellent, their music is good enough to stand on its own without needing a distractive solo or whatever to back it up.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Maybe I'm way off,, maybe not.

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by ConU
You think he did the Beethoven Piano Concertos because he did'nt want to be heard,or for people to enjoy them?

I'm not really sure since we are talking about Glenn Gould here but there is nothing wrong in wanting your music to be heard but altering your music in order for more people to hear is. Glenn Gould could had played outsold concerts until the day he died but he resented it and withdrew from it.

 

[ConU]

Originally posted by Coypu




Since I like a total of 0 of thoose mentioned all I can say is that we seem to share completely different view on music and while I could mention plenty of weak songs by say Miles Davis don't think that is necessary since you would disagree by default.

That remark speaks volumes.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Coypu


we seem to share completely different view on music and while I could mention plenty of weak songs by say Miles Davis don't think that is necessary since you would disagree by default.

Very possibly. But that's fine. My bias is that by being so rigid and doctrinaire about what Art is "supposed to be," you'll miss out on a lot more great music than I will, but to each his own ....

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by moley
lol, Coypu, you always go on about Glenn Gould, don't you?

However great he was (and I don't know, I can't say I'm familiar with his playing) - any greatness he had was entirely compromised by his incessant habit of audibly singing along with himself!! (j/k with ya)

And, your remark about it being easier to play at 140 than 40, well - I disagree. To play a real slow ballad, yet maintain the energy and interest, is much harder than it seems. In the Big Band I used to play (piano) with, we did a couple of very slow ballads, for example Count Basie's "Lil Darling". And to play it slow, yet maintain the energy, *without* dragging, and getting it tight, is a lot harder than it might seem.

Well Glenn's habit of singing goes alot deeper than just what most people hear. I read an article about it written by Sean Malone and it really puts it in a new perspective.

Well I will definately have a easier time playing Lil Darling than playing Water on the brain, if you don't then I congratulate you but personally I have that problem.

But I never said that playing slow automatically is easy and I will never say that. I know what you mean but playing fast is harder.

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
Very possibly. But that's fine. My bias is that by being so rigid and doctrinaire about what Art is "supposed to be," you'll miss out on a lot more great music than I will, but to each his own ....

Don't get me wrong, not all music I listen to is pure but the one I like the most is. Which is why I would like to see that more musicians choose this path of pureness. I really don't see what is wrong with trying to settle for the best?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Coypu


I'm not really sure since we are talking about Glenn Gould here but there is nothing wrong in wanting your music to be heard but altering your music in order for more people to hear is. Glenn Gould could had played outsold concerts until the day he died but he resented it and withdrew from it.

If what you're talking about is *knowingly making your music worse* by simplifying it, then I'd agree that's a bad thing. But simplifying art does not necessarily make it worse. Ask anyone who's ever tried to write a haiku or a sonnet. I know you don't understand that simpler is sometimes better, but sometimes it is. You can change a work to make it simpler, or just make it different in response to someone else's criticisms, and make it actually better at the same time. You can sometimes make a more elegant garden by pulling the weeds out.

 

[lamarjones]

Originally posted by Coypu


Don't get me wrong, not all music I listen to is pure but the one I like the most is. Which is why I would like to see that more musicians choose this path of pureness. I really don't see what is wrong with trying to settle for the best?

I think Candiria is a band you would appreciate, and while they ber no immediate resemblance in their tunes, they do take not of wht they are doing, and they have regarded what other groups have done to get where they are.

Still thinking what we are arguing about is a little vague....

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by Lackey
IMO,, more technical music isn't always better , Weather Report vs. CAB1 and 2, Tool vs. Dream Theater being two examples.

Now,, Bunny Brunel,, Dennis Chambers, Scott MacAlpine and Brian Auger ALL have incredible chops, but the CAB2 cd gets boring within 5 minutes to me. There doesn't seem to be any interesting structure to the band,, just jam grooves interspaced with endless chopfests.

I prefer Weather Report; the songs speak to me whether Jaco is playing a smooth MEANINGFUL solo or a slow descending line ala A Remark You Made. Restraint is practiced throughout the band,, going from a whisper when needed to a thunderous roar shows to me they had incredible control over the dynamics of the music.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Now Tool vs. Dream Theater is kinda the same thing, I prefer Tool DESPITE the fact that John Myung and John Petrucci are technically superior to Justin and Adam. I think Tool makes better use of their talent. (it's not what you don't know, its what you know and how you can make use of it!). I won't get started in the LaBrie vs. Maynard or Portnoy vs. Carey comments!

However,, I still feel that extremely technical material can be very musical, Meshuggah and Fredrick Thordendal being an example (IMO ). I enjoy listenening to Sol Niger Within as much as any of my other favorite albums,, and that's some ridiculous stuff!

I also feel Coldplay is excellent, their music is good enough to stand on its own without needing a distractive solo or whatever to back it up.

----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----

Maybe I'm way off,, maybe not.

You are right on, I feel the exact same way (and I love Fredrik Thordendals Sol Niger within aswell...).

Its all about choosing the best stuff out there, take DT for example. Lots of their music is to please the crowd and to showoff their skills. No one in the band would deny that fact as you pointed out this does harm the music. Endless of other examples can be made but in the end we should try to find the good ones instead.

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
If what you're talking about is *knowingly making your music worse* by simplifying it, then I'd agree that's a bad thing. But simplifying art does not necessarily make it worse. Ask anyone who's ever tried to write a haiku or a sonnet. I know you don't understand that simpler is sometimes better, but sometimes it is. You can change a work to make it simpler, or just make it different in response to someone else's criticisms, and make it actually better at the same time. You can sometimes make a more elegant garden by pulling the weeds out.

This is not about easy or hard, its about writing music and compromising an idea you have in order to write something to please others. If you do that then I beleive that your music will suffer from it since you no longer are expressing your inner ideas.

If you have the luck of being around people who shares your ideas and visions then their criticism can work for the greater good, but if you write music and wonder what thoose 14 year old kids really want to hear then you are on a road leading straight to hell.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at here.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Coypu


Don't get me wrong, not all music I listen to is pure but the one I like the most is. Which is why I would like to see that more musicians choose this path of pureness. I really don't see what is wrong with trying to settle for the best?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with making the best music you can or listening the best music you can find, however you personally define best. All I'm saying is that what matters is results, not how the music gets made. Frankly, IMO, there's been some transcendent music written and played for what you might consider corrupt motives--e.g., financial gain--and some utterly dreadful music created from the "purest" artistic motives. What I'm saying is, I don't care about motives, I care about music. I don't care what somebody's "path" was, I care about where they got to. In any case, I believe it's presumptuous and simplistic to think you can judge what's going on in some artist's head anyway. The music, on the other hand, is out there in the world: it's a fact that can be addressed. Worrying about the pureness of their path is for me a waste of time.

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by lamarjones
I think Candiria is a band you would appreciate, and while they ber no immediate resemblance in their tunes, they do take not of wht they are doing, and they have regarded what other groups have done to get where they are.

Still thinking what we are arguing about is a little vague....

I have heard Candiria and they are alright, I'm not really fond of their vocals but some musical sections are really high quality.

Vague or not, I think that its worth discussion. You hardly ever get any solid facts in internet discussions anyway.

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with making the best music you can or listening the best music you can find, however you personally define best. All I'm saying is that what matters is results, not how the music gets made. Frankly, IMO, there's been some transcendent music written and played for what you might consider corrupt motives--e.g., financial gain--and some utterly dreadful music created from the "purest" artistic motives. What I'm saying is, I don't care about motives, I care about music. I don't care what somebody's "path" was, I care about where they got to. In any case, I believe it's presumptuous and simplistic to think you can judge what's going on in some artist's head anyway. The music, on the other hand, is out there in the world: it's a fact that can be addressed. Worrying about the pureness of their path is for me a waste of time.

My point is that the best music is created from pure motives and that pretty much no exceptions. I listen to mostly the stuff that is really out there and I can totally understand that people disagree with me but until you have heard the music I talk about you should not knock it. Maybe you just haven't discovered the glory of pureness yet. You won't know until you try.

Music is about emotion, if you compromise your own inner emotions when you create the music then it becomes flawed in this aspect. Sure the music can still be good but it will never reach the level of someone who managed to completely express his emotions. Then it comes down to what emotions that touches you personally but of all thoose bands that can affect you the pure ones will have the most impact.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Coypu


My point is that the best music is created from pure motives and that pretty much no exceptions. I listen to mostly the stuff that is really out there and I can totally understand that people disagree with me but until you have heard the music I talk about you should not knock it. Maybe you just haven't discovered the glory of pureness yet. You won't know until you try.

Music is about emotion, if you compromise your own inner emotions when you create the music then it becomes flawed in this aspect. Sure the music can still be good but it will never reach the level of someone who managed to completely express his emotions. Then it comes down to what emotions that touches you personally but of all thoose bands that can affect you the pure ones will have the most impact.

My point is that you have no basis, as far as I'm concerned, for the first statement. This is what you believe, which is cool. But you don't have a prayer in hell of proving that the best music is made from pure intentions. For one thing, you can't possibly know with any certainty what those intentions are! Even if you did know, you can't possibly prove that the music would be better if the intentions were different. Therefore, you also can't know how many, or how few, exceptions there may or may not be. That's why I think it's completely pointless to worry about it. Listen to the music that moves you, don't listen to the stuff that doesn't, and make the best music you can.

 

[lamarjones]

Originally posted by Coypu


I have heard Candiria and they are alright, I'm not really fond of their vocals but some musical sections are really high quality.

Vague or not, I think that its worth discussion. You hardly ever get any solid facts in internet discussions anyway.

I was a pretty big Pestilence fan back in the day. Actually, I like a lot of death metal for their odd arrangments, but I also think Death metal fans expects those type of arrangements as the norm. Which, that is how genre's get better. Cause they get created of the fact that they are trying to do something new, and then it snowballs cause people learn from their previous pioneers.

 

[da_witch]

Originally posted by Howard K


Hmm. I disagree.

It wasnt purely the fact that he played bass unlike anyone at the time. It was also the fact that he has absolutely an incredible feel, a voice like no one elses.
Alot of his material isn't flash by todays standards in terms of technique (and a lot is!), but playing it with the same emphasis as Jaco, with the emotion is something else.

Not many bassist have that, and IMO Marcus Miller doesnt either. He is fantastic, but his music is just one big bass solo really. The guy slaps nearly every melody! Fine for about half an album, but he's not what I'd call a great bassist - he's too rooted in that one tinny slap vibe for my liking.

Dont get me wrong I think Marcus Miler is amazing, but his music is too 'written around the bassline' and his basslines too 'written around the bass' for my liking.

Now, Christian McBruide is one technically flash player who has some truly amazing feel.

Than this a matter of taste IMO...I respect Jaco, just as much as I respect Miller, Hamm, Bynoe etc...
You are going into the music of Miller, telling your opinion...not necesarry I guess..
You prefer Jaco over miller, fine, but not my opinion...and it is good that we all have different tastes, how boring it otherwise would be!

Wendy

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
My point is that you have no basis, as far as I'm concerned, for the first statement. This is what you believe, which is cool. But you don't have a prayer in hell of proving that the best music is made from pure intentions. For one thing, you can't possibly know with any certainty what those intentions are! Even if you did know, you can't possibly prove that the music would be better if the intentions were different. Therefore, you also can't know how many, or how few, exceptions there may or may not be. That's why I think it's completely pointless to worry about it. Listen to the music that moves you, don't listen to the stuff that doesn't, and make the best music you can.

I guess we all make our own choices in life and decide what we enjoy or not. I myself shall try to create the music that I can claim to solely from my own heart and if other people choose to create music by the desire to earn money then its regrettable but I guess it can't be helped. I wish you the best of luck anyway and I hope it works out for you.

 

[Coypu]

Originally posted by lamarjones
I was a pretty big Pestilence fan back in the day. Actually, I like a lot of death metal for their odd arrangments, but I also think Death metal fans expects those type of arrangements as the norm. Which, that is how genre's get better. Cause they get created of the fact that they are trying to do something new, and then it snowballs cause people learn from their previous pioneers.

Yeah, I think it looks pretty good for death metal right now. The more progressive stuff seem to have gained more acceptence and once we get more bands inspired by bands like Atheist, Cynic and similar we will hopefully get a new wave of amazing music. Too bad the musicianship required to create music like Cynic is so high that it might take 10 years before it happens again but the hope is alive.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by Coypu


I guess we all make our own choices in life and decide what we enjoy or not. I myself shall try to create the music that I can claim to solely from my own heart and if other people choose to create music by the desire to earn money then its regrettable but I guess it can't be helped. I wish you the best of luck anyway and I hope it works out for you.

Same to you.

 

[Brad Johnson]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey
I know what you mean, Brad, and you're right--some of those old patches do make you squirm hearing them. To take WR as an example, I don't care for some of the synth sounds on Mr. Gone, but I love most all the sounds on Black Market. All I'm saying is that great tunes and great playing trump cheesy sounds. If I were playing blackjack, cheesy synth sounds would be a hand of 15 or 16, and great tunes and playing would be a 20 or 21.

Agreed... and Mr Gone was the album that first came to mind. That's when I started losing interest in WR.