The No.1 Website for Pro Audio
 All  This Thread  Reviews  Gear Database  Gear for sale     Latest  Trending
Hits are made by playing and singing....well.. "hit" stuff!!!
Old 15th May 2004
  #1
Hits are made by playing and singing....well.. "hit" stuff!!!

I was just listening to The Rasmus on the radio, (the Finish new metal / pop act) and OK, it does sound a complete rip of "Waiting for a girl like you" by Foreigner HOWEVER.........

Every damn moment of that song is either sung or played to be "chartbound".

So if you want a hit, just play it like one!

Mad rant over...

Old 15th May 2004
  #2
Lives for gear
 
jazzius II's Avatar
 

technology has ruined a lot of artists and created a load'a new ones who are artless.
Old 15th May 2004
  #3
Rab
KMR Audio
 
Rab's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by jazzius II
technology has ruined a lot of artists and created a load'a new ones who are artless.
Artless? I don't think the charts were ever about art... more about milking schoolgirls of their pocket money.

I know I'm old because I just don't "get" Top Of The Pops anymore. It's kind of analogous to seeing a bad movie... how can people go to so much money and effort to produce something so crap?

Pass the Zimmer frame...

Old 15th May 2004
  #4
Lives for gear
 
jazzius II's Avatar
 

I'm using the word "art" in the loosest possible sense.
Old 15th May 2004
  #5
Quote:
Artless? I don't think the charts were ever about art... more about milking schoolgirls of their pocket money.
Hummmm.. Well maybe true. The Beatles got a lot of school girl pocket money for sure BUT they did it with classy music that was full of “art”. Led Zep got a lot of school boy money with plenty of “art” as well, at least in my book. Nirvana got a whole lot of money from both boys and girls and they did some cool stuff as well that I think deserves some praise. Tool is fantastic (at least the first 3 CDs) and I think they did a great amout of “art” while selling a bunch of albums.

Every single song that the Beatles released was released with one thought in mind, be a number one hit. The production was geared towards it, the lyrics were geared towards it, the damn album art was geared towards it even. Did that make it bad?? Hell no!!! At least not to me and a whole pack of school girls.

I personally am NOT a big fan of much new music I do love some of it. In the end I think the goal is to produce something that you like and that others like enough to spend money on.…

Quote:
and OK, it does sound a complete rip of "Waiting for a girl like you" by Foreigner HOWEVER.........
Paul McCartney once said (paraphrasing) we stole everything we ever wrote and we wondered how we never got caught. In the end we are all products of our enviroment and we pick up, consciously or subconsciously, on all the music that came before, no one is really to blame I guess.

One point on this that I have pondered for a while though. In Western music (all music really) there is a finite amount of combinations available between tempo, beat, note choices and lyrics, we have to run out some day right?? To put it another way, when Elvis was Elvis they had the beginnings of rock and roll and everything was undiscovered territory. Since then we have seen funk, disco, heavy metal, pop, boy bands, girl bands, soul, easy listening, reggae, R&B, death metal, techno, grunge, new wave, cool jazz and on and on. The question is, what can possibly be NEW after all of this??

When Jimi Hendrix was Jimi Hendrix everyone said “what can anyone do to top that” and 10 years later we got Eddie VanHalen. Now we had (like it or hate it) Marilyn Manson and 10 years later we have….. ?? Nothing new….. I don’t think this is completely the fault of the record industry or the listening public I think we are (gasp) at the end of "new." (I would ve bery happy to find out I am wrong)

The internet allows people to explore ideas that would never have been heard outside of the garage. It is a great tool because it lets all of us speak but it also has the long term effect of leveling the playing field and getting more ideas out quicker to more people. Does that mean we are running out of ideas faster?? I don’t know but I think it has changed music and creativity. It allows more people to be more creative and that is good but it also tends to mix so many ideas that it becomes the great equalizer in my eyes.
Old 15th May 2004
  #6
LTA
Gear Addict
 
LTA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by not_so_new
Since then we have seen funk, disco, heavy metal, pop, boy bands, girl bands, soul, easy listening, reggae, R&B, death metal, techno, grunge, new wave, cool jazz and on and on. The question is, what can possibly be NEW after all of this??
You didn't work jazz into that near enough. That is the roots of american music. If its got a drum kit in it, it probably has roots to jazz. Even metal and techno (which is just electronic disco).

Now, a problem is that people today are copying contemporary artists, rather than going back in time to sinatra, benny goodman, charlie parker, buddy rich, louis armstrong, king joe oliver, gene krupa, duke ellington, don redman, charlie christian, glenn miller, and even john philip sousa. That is just a handful of names i could think of off the top of my head that have been lost to current generations of musicians (and engineers). Kids these days are just copying what they hear (and see) on the radio and tv, so it isn't really their fault they all sound and look about the same.

But, as the analog users know, what do you get when you copy a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of an original? Is there any transfer in there where it miraculously gets better? Generation loss, generation gap, its all about the same thing. And yet music has the ability to cross both the generational boundary and move forward through time without losing the impact it once truly had. The only thing lost will be what was never truly there in the first place. And what is never passed on at all.
Old 15th May 2004
  #7
Lives for gear
 
cdog's Avatar
Quote:
Originally posted by not_so_new
Hummmm.. In Western music (all music really) there is a finite amount of combinations available between tempo, beat, note choices and lyrics, we have to run out some day right??
Nope sorry. It is infinite. Fortunately.

Old 15th May 2004
  #8
Gear Addict
 
LaLaFaV's Avatar
 

I completely agree with not_so_new because I used to wonder when "the next big thing" was going to hit for years now. I don't think about it anymore and instead just listen for music that I connect with or has a interesting way of using emotion or lyrics. Today, it seems like its all about which old sound/style to mix into your band to make it new enough for the current generation, who usually never listened to the original artists that did this kind of music 10-20-30 years ago. The only problem is that these "waves" of new bands remain interesting for kids for shorter and shorter periods of time. It's this downward spiral effect. When does it end?
Depressing as that is, I still enjoy playing music with my band everyday and making up "new" songs. Recording the stuff lets me create a kind of new world for me to dive into and lose myself in until the song is over. This is the beauty of recording for me.
Old 15th May 2004
  #9
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by not_so_new
way, when Elvis was Elvis they had the beginnings of rock and roll and everything was undiscovered territory. Since then we have seen funk, disco, heavy metal, pop, boy bands, girl bands, soul, easy listening, reggae, R&B, death metal, techno, grunge, new wave, cool jazz and on and on. The question is, what can possibly be NEW after all of this??

I hate to say it but the only thing that was "new" about Elvis was he was a white dude playing the blues instead of a black dude. His own style developed when he started adding more country music styling to his repetoire.

Funk is just a natural progression of soul music which was a progression of R&B which was a progression of blues.

Disco was just a watered down version of funk.

Reggae had a huge progression but the really old **** sounds like Fat`s Domino or even country music in comparison. It just developed in a weird way because they kept some things from the Fats domino days like the quick signature guitar strum on the 2 and the 4 while adding a funk elemant.

Marilon Manson is just a ****ty metal band with Androgenous gimickery.
I think that was covered by David Bowie and Alice Cooper and for the time they were a lot more shocking than Marilon. (and better music to boot)

Jimi Hendrix is thought of the original "crazy" guitar player with wild showmanship and off the wall guitar riffs. Guess who his main influence was. Buddy Guy who was known for doing the exact same thing 10 years before him.

So what am I trying to say here.

None of it is new. Period.

We all draw on influence and there is no way to write a song that is not calling on influence from something.

The more influence you draw on the more original sounding you will be.

That`s why Miles Davis allways seemed like such a ground breaking "new music" kind of guy.

He was influenced by tons of different music and managed to "fuse" them all together which is also what every other great musician has done before then and after.
Old 15th May 2004
  #10
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by LaLaFaV
The only problem is that these "waves" of new bands remain interesting for kids for shorter and shorter periods of time. It's this downward spiral effect. When does it end?
I`m going to use the most recent "wave I can think of for an example here.

The funny thing is the whole "wave" that happened in Seattle was a bunch of kids that were into Various hardcore punk and heavy metal bands started writing songs and playing shows.

The thing is Kids all over the states had been doing that for years and years. Not a big deal at all.

It`s just like kids that discover Led Zeppelin these days and start writing stuff like that. (yes it does still happen)

The thing that turned it into a wave was the fact that MTV and the various big labels jumped on Seattle for some reason and decided to mass produce it and call it grunge.

It was never a wave before that happened. It was just a local club scene and the same thing could have happened in Boston or San Francisco 5 or ten years earlier if people started jumping on the local punk bands there instead.

The problem is that oncethese record label idiots jump on something to that degree it creates this thing where kids start trying to emulate something that happened 2years ago instead of the combination of bands over 15 years or so.

So instead of getting newer bands that were also good at writing punk metal tunes we got abunch of bands that were directly ripping off Pearl Jam and Nirvana and you can`t go anywhere musically with that.

Like I said earlier you need to draw on MORE influence not less to create an original style and it aint going to happen if your trying to come up with an original sound based on the newest wave of pop punk.

You have to reach a little further.
Old 15th May 2004
  #11
Lives for gear
 
Meriphew's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by kevinc

Marilon Manson is just a ****ty metal band with Androgenous gimickery.
I think that was covered by David Bowie and Alice Cooper and for the time they were a lot more shocking than Marilon. (and better music to boot)
Agreed. Manson does well with the showmanship/shock factor, but I think any forward musical "steps" they took were a by product of their affiliation w/Trent Reznor.
Old 15th May 2004
  #12
Lives for gear
 
matucha's Avatar
well, there is a one thing I smell at the moment... parallel to what visual art faced at the beginning of the previous century... It is not important what we paint, important is how. You don't need something never heard in terms of harmony and "melody", there are so many ways of expressing the two things...
We can deconstruct and reconstruct the sound and music in very cool, interesting ways... it seems there is always a way where to go. Searching for this in the mainstream is funny idea ;-).

On the other hand people in majority doesn't care for a new things, they need something safe after they return from tiring school or work...
Old 16th May 2004
  #13
Quote:
I hate to say it but the only thing that was "new" about Elvis was he was a white dude playing the blues instead of a black dude. His own style developed when he started adding more country music styling to his repetoire.
Agreed but I think you are missing my point. I am not saying that Elvis was “new” I am speaking of his time period here, the mid to late 50’s. In that time the world was a different place. When the Beatles entered this world with “long hair” they were absolutely SHOCKING to the establishment, that was the mind set of the world of the day. Elvis shaking his hips on TV was completely unacceptable. This is not about Elvis and him being the King or any of that crap (but he was way cool ) this is about the progression of society as a whole.

When Elvis was Elvis who would have ever thought David Bowie was coming only 15 or so years later?? Or Black Sabbath in 10?? In our times David Bowie has been done may times since David Bowie so what would shock us as new?? What would be new to us after Slayer or M Manson or techno or whatever?? What is new and different when as a society we are more accepting of new things?? Where is the underground where the new stuff lives if we are so accepting that nothing needs to be underground?? Elvis was a copy cat of the underground blues scene and the Beatles were just coping Elvis copied the blues.

I am not saying that we should be less accepting at all, that is not my point. I am saying that our ability to be more open and making Metallica etc. “acceptable” as led us to a place were I have easy access to Tori Amos and Anthrax in my CD collection and this might not seem so out of the ordinary.

I would agree that Miles was one of the last great innovates but my point is there have been people along the way that have helped us to grow musically but the well may be running dry (and I am not a pessimist). The $64000 question is what possibly could be new to us with all that we have seen in music to this point??

Quote:
Nope sorry. It is infinite. Fortunately.
I respectfully disagree. In an exact definition of the word infinite you are incorrect 12 half steps inside a tempo of what 50 bpm to 200 bpm, and I am pushing this (but I will agree it is a very very large scope before it is exhausted). In reality we are human and we hear similarities where mathematically they may not be there. I can hear Elvis in Led Zeppelin, Black Flag in Nirvana, Sabbath in Rage Against the Machine, King Crimson in Tool and Jules can hear Foreigner in The Rasmus but none of this is because of some mathematical equation, it is because our ear fills in the blanks. Now Nirvana “sounded” new because many had forgotten where they were getting their sound from, that does not mean they were new or innovative (but I do like them).

Maybe a different way to describe it. Daddy Bach accomplished everything that was ever to happen in the “classical” world. If you want an example of something in musical theory (short of parallel 5ths) you can find it in Bach’s music. Does that mean we should toss out Beethoven’s 9th or Tchaikovsky’s March Slav?? No but they were looking to Bach for guidance (as was Yngwie Malmsteen but who’s counting right??).

My idea here is that we have copied and copied for so long and the copying has been aided by the phonograph, radio, CD, tape and now the internet that at some point we will hit a wall. Things are going to sound like other things. Should we through out the things that sound like something else?? Only if it is bad.

Because things like the internet have given us access to every nook and cranny and everything is fair game because of were we are as a socially we may just have covered all we can cover and everything from this point forward will be a rehash of something else. I ask again what would be new?? Is someone would produce an album of white noise and called it cutting edge music would you call that new?? I would not like it but I would not be surprised if it happened and I would not be surprised to find that it already has. So what would be new?? I know if we had that answer we would be rich but I tell you we are at a different point than we as a species has ever been and that has fundamentally changed everything we know. All the old patterns of change could be outdated. Again I ask can any of you think of anything that has not been done at some point?? Anything??
Old 16th May 2004
  #14
LTA
Gear Addict
 
LTA's Avatar
 

Quote:
Originally posted by not_so_new
My idea here is that we have copied and copied for so long and the copying has been aided by the phonograph, radio, CD, tape and now the internet that at some point we will hit a wall. Things are going to sound like other things. Should we through out the things that sound like something else?? Only if it is bad.
And how do you propose to reintroduce the folk process? Nihilism?
Old 16th May 2004
  #15
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by not_so_new
When the Beatles entered this world with “long hair” they were absolutely SHOCKING to the establishment, that was the mind set of the world of the day...
Yeah, but just a few years ago people were trying to blame Marilyn Manson for the Columbine shootings. And only a few months ago people were "shocked!" at Janet Jackson's breast. Stupid people will always be shocked by something, and what you're talking about there doesn't really have anything to do with the music.

Quote:
[i]What is new and different when as a society we are more accepting of new things?? Where is the underground where the new stuff lives if we are so accepting that nothing needs to be underground?? [/B]
If you don't see any underground or new music you're just not looking. You might not like it but it's there. As just one example there's an entire global underground making experimental electronic & computer music, the influence of which has already crept into the mainstream through artists like Radiohead, Bjork, or Timbaland. Think of how many people thought Radiohead's Kid A and Amnesiac were just "oh so crazy!" and incomprehensible when those albums are actually presenting a certain type of underground electronic music in a very poppy and accessible way.

Quote:
[i]My idea here is that we have copied and copied for so long and the copying has been aided by the phonograph, radio, CD, tape and now the internet that at some point we will hit a wall. Things are going to sound like other things. Should we through out the things that sound like something else?? Only if it is bad.[/B]
That's simply absurd. How about sampling and the artform of hip-hop? There's a type of music that is completely constructed around this type of "copying" that you're talking about. And yet you wouldn't say that hip-hop sounds exactly like the old funk or jazz albums that the artists sample. Through "copying" we can create something new. And all of the people on your list of historical innovators were simply copying what came before them and adding their own creativity to it. Look at how Charlie Parker copied the chord progressions of Gershwin tunes to create his own tunes.

Quote:
[i]Is someone would produce an album of white noise and called it cutting edge music would you call that new?? I would not like it but I would not be surprised if it happened and I would not be surprised to find that it already has. [/B]
Well no wonder you're not seeing an underground anywhere if you're not even aware of developments that happened almost 30 years ago! Yes there is a whole scene of noise music or "power electronics" which can arguably be traced back to the Italian futurists. Just the fact that you say you would not like it proves that there will always be lines that certain audiences won't allow themselves to cross and therefore always something new and shocking. People were shocked and appalled by Lou Reeds Metal Machine Music when it was released in 1975 and some people would still be shocked by a new release by Merzbow.

Quote:
[i]Again I ask can any of you think of anything that has not been done at some point?? Anything?? [/B]
That's an inherently unanswerable question. Can you think of any great inventions that haven't been invented yet? In 1900 could you have anticipated Elvis? It all depends on your definition of "new." If you get right down to it there is truly nothing new under the sun as all human knowledge builds upon previous knowledge and achievements. But in the limited sense that we culturally define "new" (i.e. Elvis, Beatles, Punk, Disco) there will always be some new development somewhere.
Old 16th May 2004
  #16
Gear Head
 
DClarkson2004's Avatar
 

Quote:
So if you want a hit, just play it like one!
Yeah!
That's my mofo!
We producers, engineers,songwriters, are a bunch of broke MF's!
Whatever happened to the art of stealing?
Everyone seems to fall for the same trap; to be original, to have an original sound, arrangements, hooks, etc...
Everyone MUST steal from anyone; that's the art of being creative.
Stravinsky started his **** with stealing, so did Prokofiev, so did John Williams...
Steal like hell and you'll get your hit!
Old 16th May 2004
  #17
Lives for gear
 
Ruphus's Avatar
 

Quote:
But in the limited sense that we culturally define "new" (i.e. Elvis, Beatles, Punk, Disco) there will always be some new development somewhere.
For ears which find hiphop and techno to be `just as´ versatile as the above mentioned, probably so.

For the rest I am afraid, unfortunately not really.

Ruphus
Old 16th May 2004
  #18
Gear Nut
 

Quote:
Originally posted by cdog
Nope sorry. It is infinite. Fortunately.


As far as ALL possibilities being infinate ... yes .. agreed.

But for combinations that are 'perceived' as pleasing/aesthetic -- it is almost obvious that it's certainly finite. Otherwise, pop music would have descended into songs built upon 12 Tone Rows (ala Schoenberg) --- symphonic orchestras would not be rehashing Mozarts Jupiter once a year --- etc ....

The progressive nature of art MAY be at a standstill -- look what happened to jazz -- anything new after 1970's ???

Especially now with the record industry in dire straites, there will be no envelope pushing, everything released will be 'safe' --

Since the 60's the recording industry has logged and formulated a 'hit record' -- there are secret papers that document the psychological impact of key vs. tempo vs. form vs. arrangement -- and what will 'break'.

And someone PLEASE show me something 'new' -- somthing completely original --- something i can't say "Ahhhh, that's Led Zepplin meets the Kinks," .... etc.

Hmmmm, now if someone composed a symphony of power tools using microtonality --THEN we may have some envelope pushing.

Till then .... i heard .38 special's "Hang On Loosly" today .... man that's a great hook!!! Next band that comes through my door with a broken song song ..... BAMM ..... im gona steal that hook!!

Old 16th May 2004
  #19
Lives for gear
 

Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
But for combinations that are 'perceived' as pleasing/aesthetic -- it is almost obvious that it's certainly finite.
Huh? I think quite the opposite is obvious. You can make an infinite variety of unique compositions just within the 12 bar blues structure simply through variation of lyrics, instrumentation, melody, rhythm, etc.


Quote:
The progressive nature of art MAY be at a standstill -- look what happened to jazz -- anything new after 1970's ???
Have there been any new developments in Baroque music lately? Anything new in the art of playing the once-popular accordian? If not then surely all art must be at a standstill

Quote:
Especially now with the record industry in dire straites, there will be no envelope pushing, everything released will be 'safe' --
Yeah, all envelope-pushing has traditionally come from the record industry

Quote:
And someone PLEASE show me something 'new' -- somthing completely original --- something i can't say "Ahhhh, that's Led Zepplin meets the Kinks," .... etc.
Please show me something anywhere throughout the history of art that was completely new and original. Unless that's the point you're trying to make? If so I apologize for the misunderstanding. The "Led Zeppelin meets the Kinks" line is funny though because I can easily say Led Zeppelin = electrified covers of old blues tunes (or Yardbirds pt. II). And the Kinks = R&B + English music hall tradition. But of course making those comparisons in no way diminishes the brilliance of either of those bands.
Old 16th May 2004
  #20
Lives for gear
 
Renie's Avatar
 

Jules original post

Jules

Are you angry that some bands you work with aren't as commercially focussed or do you think it's tacky to be chart focussed?

I thought you meant the former but maybe I misunderstood.
Old 16th May 2004
  #21
I am being philosophical,

I spend a lot of my time persuading bands to try to play their music in a more commercial fashion.. Often with a lot of resistance.

The fliipside is, most of them want money from 'the man' - in the form of major label funding so they can quit their day jobs.

I just wished they would walk it like they talk it.

So yes, the former...

It's a classic new indie rock band dilemma, hardly front page news.
Old 16th May 2004
  #22
Gear Maniac
 

I think that Elvis (besides the fact that he was indeed way cool ) broke at least some of the bounderies in music just by becomming famous.
He just loved music, but not just Black OR white, he liked Dean Martin and Sinatra, Hank Williams, Muddy Waters and probably his biggest idol Big boy Crudup.
many people did the same thing, even Robert Johnson sang cowby songs. But Elvis made it clear to the rest of the world that in music there are no bounderies.
However the reason for his succes was his talent, his voice and charisma. The most innovative thing he's ever done was just being Elvis.
C
TstikeB
Old 16th May 2004
  #23
Quote:
And only a few months ago people were "shocked!" at Janet Jackson's breast.
Okay lets examine that for a second. Think in the mind set of 50’s America for a minute. A woman singing very sexually explicit material (much more explicit than the veiled sex of 50’s rock-n-roll) on a nationally broadcast TV show. Oh and did I mention she was black (gasp!!) and that she was singing to a white man (double gasp!!) and that she was not only singing but she was making very explicit body jesters and the camera was showing it?? She was.. she was.. touching herself (loudest gasp!!). Roll forward to 2004 and none of this is a real big deal, sure some people would have complained but for the most part it is excepted (as a matter of fact I really enjoyed the show). The issue is the bare breast and that was not as big an issue to most as the news would have you believe.. We are still stupid but we are much more accepting and much less shocked than we were in the 50’s, there is no question about it.

Quote:
If you don't see any underground or new music you're just not looking. You might not like it but it's there.
Dude what are you missing in my thought process?? I know I am not getting the point across very well but come on. I never said the underground was not there or that I was missing it. What I am saying is the underground is much less hidden. In the 40’s if you wanted to hear blues and you lived in India you would probably have to travel to Chicago or Mississippi (except for the pesky war and all) and that was if you had even HEARD of the blues. Now if I live in India I can turn on my computer and hear .. anything.. I am not complaining about this, it is a good thing my point is the underground then was new and fresh, it was the place for new ideas to fester and develop. It would simmer for long periods of time before anyone outside of the movement got hold of it. Now new things are incorporated much faster. Again I do not think this is bad but it has accelerated the process to the point where nothing is really "underground" any more.

Quote:
Think of how many people thought Radiohead's Kid A and Amnesiac were just "oh so crazy!"
Hummm… none that I know of and I know a bunch of people (including me) who love the music. Was Kid A a society changing album or did it put the music world on it’s ear?? No not in my eyes and really even for how great the music was it was not THAT big a deal. Lots of reviews gushed all over it but it was not like it was really suprising in terms of production or ideas. Compare that to Sgt. Pepper, now that was a wake up call for the music world. Nirvana’s Nevermind was about as close to a music industry shake up as we have seen in the last 30 years or so and that was an example of the underground bubbling to the surface. Nirvana was not the only pop punk band of the day and maybe not even the best but it was surprising and refreshing at the time. Please not one more heavy rock ballad from Winger and BAM like a shot in the arm Nirvana was there….

Quote:
That's simply absurd. How about sampling and the artform of hip-hop? There's a type of music that is completely constructed around this type of "copying" that you're talking about. And yet you wouldn't say that hip-hop sounds exactly like the old funk or jazz albums that the artists sample. Through "copying" we can create something new. And all of the people on your list of historical innovators were simply copying what came before them and adding their own creativity to it. Look at how Charlie Parker copied the chord progressions of Gershwin tunes to create his own tunes.
Dude you gotta learn how to relax a bit. Maybe read what I posted before you jump and say it is “absurd” huh?? You are making exactly my point. No current hip-hop does not sound like the jazz they are sampling from, but what about the next generation of hip-hop?? Are they going to sample from this generation?? When are we going to say “that has been done before” and more importanly the idea of sampling itself IS NO LONGER NEW. And on top of that some sampling is cool and interesting (think Prince) but Ice Ice Baby was not so “innovative and interesting” as you would think. Yes Parker copied Gershwin just as Gershwin copied Jelly Roll and yes there is a pattern here. Again the point here is with the advent of instant access to media from around the world our collective social conscious is becoming less diverse and because of the new media revolution you can kiss all the old standards of social growth good by. We are living in an age that has never been mirrored before in history. Yes have we had stupid leaders before sure and have we had plagues and strife sure you bet but these things are perceived much differently than they ever have. Things are more different then they ever have been before..

Quote:
Just the fact that you say you would not like it proves that there will always be lines that certain audiences won't allow themselves to cross and therefore always something new and shocking.
Call me crazy but an album of static is not my cup of tea. I am very very open about music and I am all about living on the edge musically but an album of static is about the one thing that I can see as just art for “shock value” and would be meaningless in my book. I picked this out of the blue because I think it is about the one thing the largest majority of people would dislike (knowing full well some would eat it up). I do not think many people would think it was interesting except elitists but again you miss my point, it would not be too surprising or new if someone released a CD of static.

Quote:
That's an inherently unanswerable question. Can you think of any great inventions that haven't been invented yet? In 1900 could you have anticipated Elvis? It all depends on your definition of "new." If you get right down to it there is truly nothing new under the sun as all human knowledge builds upon previous knowledge and achievements. But in the limited sense that we culturally define "new" (i.e. Elvis, Beatles, Punk, Disco) there will always be some new development somewhere.
Obviously correct in 1901 no one would have though of Elvis that is why I said if we could think of the new thing we would make millions (millions I tell you). No in 1901 I would not have imagined Elvis BUT in 1901 Elvis would have been NEW big time new. Because we are now so accepting and used to change anything that NEW is just not a big deal.

Check out Future Shock ,by Alvin Toffler

“In the mid-1950s the United States started on the path to a completely new kind of economy – one based on knowledge rather than muscle power. This is part of a gigantic wave of technological, social and cultural change. Ten thousand years ago the agricultural revolution launched a slow wave of change. The industrial revolution, starting roughly 350 years ago, triggered a second – faster – wave of change. What we’re living through now is history’s third great wave of change – one that is arriving at hyper-speed and is global in extent.”

This is true of all aspects of “human” including art. As we grow more used to the idea of change we are less and less surprised by it and we are even dulled by it’s inevitability.
Old 16th May 2004
  #24
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

I`m going to say it again.

The more influence you call upon in songwriting the more original you will sound.

Listen to Stevie Wonders Songs in the Key of Life. You can very easily pick out things that he was influenced by in some of the different songs.

Does that make him a copycat ?

Of course not ! He`s one of the most original songwriters there is which is why 90% of the R&B out there today sounds like Stevie in some way.

It is completely impossible to write a song without drawing on some kind of musical influence. It`s the way you take that influence and mold it into something fresh and new that makes something sound original.

That combined with ever evolving recording techniques is why bands like Nirvana can sound so fresh sounding when all they really are is a product of their influences. As is every band and musician that has ever existed.

Some are just better at adding a bit of themselves in also.
Old 17th May 2004
  #25
Gear Nut
 
spacebass's Avatar
 

Quote:
Jimi Hendrix is thought of the original "crazy" guitar player with wild showmanship and off the wall guitar riffs. Guess who his main influence was. Buddy Guy who was known for doing the exact same thing 10 years before him.
true but i would say that jimi is a GREAT song writter more so then a GREAT guitar god!!!

unfortunatly he "suffered" from this "knowing" and it killed him


also there is nothing shocking.....thanks janes for reminding the planet of thatheh

oh yeah jules i feel yer pain as i try to tell the guys in the band i play with the same thinggrudge

so i have them read this KLF
Old 17th May 2004
  #26
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

Agree with Jules whole-heartedly on this topic.

Music that sells is popular. Music that sells even more than the singles charts is even more popular. All the music that we love we have paid money to listen to, if it wasn't being bought then we couldn't even have listened to it to even add it to our list of favourites.

The biggest pop bands are U2, Nirvana, Chilis, Radiohead etc. Just because the subject matter isn't for little girls doesn't mean it's not pop. It means that popular listening habits have changed. The same reason we don't go out and buy skiffle records now.

It's popular music. This doesn't mean it's bad. And writing music that no one wants to listen to or no one actually likes is a waste of time. Unfortunately some bands have a contradictory view of what they want to be and on what terms.

Nirvana wrote unbelievably catchy popular songs. There's no such thing as 'selling out' when you're in an industry which you need to have your voice heard. I don't moan about my ISP when I put a web page together, its just part of the process. If I wanted to be really underground I could write a book, or only write my ideas on the back of postcards, knowing that even though the world would never see my vain scribblings, I knew that I myself was a genius and no one would ever know the depths of my talent.

**** that stupid double standard juvenile backwards thinking egotistical bollocks.

If these people want to talk about making an honest living because their lofty morals wont let them do otherwise, what the **** are they doing in a band in the first place.

Not only that, they're emulating bands that are succesfull, and they wouldn't have even heard that music without them being popular, and they heard this music on commercial radio and bought them in huge record stores and watched these guys they want to be like on MTV and at awards ceremonies - they want all that and at the same time adopt the moral high-ground reserved for people like Nelson Mandela or the Dalai Lama. **** off.

The fact is there are great bands out there who are able to do their 'thing' and still make great records without being 'afraid' of being succesful. If you don't want to make a noise, why form a band?

All 'the greats' were successful. What is the problem.
Old 17th May 2004
  #27
Gear Maniac
 
studiomusic's Avatar
 

Einstein

Didn't Einstein say something to the effect of "Genius is hiding your sources well."?

I believe the more sources of influence, the more 'original' or 'fresh' the sound.
Old 17th May 2004
  #28
Lives for gear
 
kevinc's Avatar
 

Nice one Bev.


The one thing I`m not to sure about is how you would go about tailoring a band to sound more commercial.

That can be looked at in a couple ways.

One way is simply taking a rough song and make it a lot better by refining certain apsects which makes it more appealing. That`s good.

The other way that`s not as good is to take a set of songs by a band and basically try to make them fit the current mold for what`s making hit`s on the radio. A lot of that sounds like it`s done in production to me and doesn`t reflect what a band could sound like if a different approach was taken.

They end up sounding like they`re copying other bands instead of doing their own thing. Obviousley we`ve all seen people get famous that way but I don`t think it`s a good thing for music overall.

Record companies should be more interested in finding bands that break the mold instead of finding more and more bands that they can fit nicely inside the mold.

Nirvana didn`t have much to do with the huge success they had. They were just good songwriters and as I said before there were hundreds of bands around playing similar music at that time.

The record companies broke the mold with Nirvana than all of a sudden they had a new mold and started signing anything that they could fit into that.

The same goes with the current trend for soft, dark, moody, female singers with a slower James Brown Beat (how the **** did that get in there) and moody background musicians.

I actually dig a lot of those tunes but theres about 30 different artists playing **** like that on the radio right now and I honestly can`t tell them apart.

The songs are good but the "formula" sucks because it`s been done 5000 times allready and shows no sign of slowing down until people decide they hate that music.

As I said before the reason these bands sound like this is not because they are influenced by certain music. You can`t write music without influence.

It`s the production that`s making everything sound alike and that`s something that could change for the better I think.
Old 17th May 2004
  #29
Mindreader
 
BevvyB's Avatar
 

Let's not forget how much the 'New Sound' of Nirvana was down to the production.

Some moments can't be planned and a little magic happens. The problem arises when people think they know the spell.
Old 17th May 2004
  #30
Lives for gear
 
David Herbert's Avatar
 

My thought on the issue of what is "shocking": Shock value is only good for about 6 months and then the acceptance level has passed you by. If your material/presentation is based mostly on shock value you have a short shelk life. Marilyn Manson is a prime example (great article in The Onion about MM reduced to going door-to-door trying to shock people and having no luck). Writing COMPELLING music is what gives long-lasting value, for example the Beatles: they (along with Martin and Emerick) were responsible for numerous innovations, "gimmicks", that helped sell them in the short run but that sound academic today. The power of their song-writing, however, has kept them relevant to this very day. Primary example: the song "In My Life" was voted as best song of the 20th century by a songwriters' association (forgive me, I forget which one) because of the beautiful/sad lyrics, the infectious melody, the astute performances, not the (perhaps) "gimmicky" middle eight double-speed piano (or whatever that was).
I think compelling song-writing comes from expressing an idea or feeling that many people can relate to, in a manner that is catchy. David
Post Reply

Welcome to the Gearslutz Pro Audio Community!

Registration benefits include:
  • The ability to reply to and create new discussions
  • Access to members-only giveaways & competitions
  • Interact with VIP industry experts in our guest Q&As
  • Access to members-only sub forum discussions
  • Access to members-only Chat Room
  • Get INSTANT ACCESS to the world's best private pro audio Classifieds for only USD $20/year
  • Promote your eBay auctions and Reverb.com listings for free
  • Remove this message!
You need an account to post a reply. Create a username and password below and an account will be created and your post entered.


 
 
Slide to join now Processing…
Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Forum Jump
Forum Jump