The Current Trend In Popular Music ... (Page 11)
~LoisLane~: Ya ok dude. The day I lose the "game" to you is the day I shoot myself. Woof Woof go get laid...(I mean with another person, you know , real sex.) bahahahaha
CourtGesture: Cowbells, triangles, and other rather simple instruments like this are not used as "lead instruments", but rather to add a bit of "depth" and "feel". "Variety" if you will. Example....the cowbell is just used in a very minor role in the first few bars to lead into the song, which is carried by the bass guitar with the guitar adding the texture and the drums providing the foundation. BTW....this isn't a new song, showing that use of such instruments has been used within the rock industry for many years.
The Cowbell on Mississippi Queen makes sense compositionally. It actually adds something worthwhile to the song. You can hear it, and it works. It has significance.
The triangle usage I mocked added nothing. That's why I mocked it. The only point of it was that the musicians were PRETENDING that the little triangle "Ting!" (completely inaudible, by the way) had significance. Mr. Triangle presented only an ILLUSION of something musical happening, especially in the totally pretentious, overly-dramatic way the dude tinged his little tinger.
That was my beef with that performance, and my beef, in general, with what I call the Arcade Fire Syndrome. It's stuff that presents the ILLUSION of being musically significant to the song, to the composition, but adds nothing significant to what actually happens musically. It's PRETEND musicianship.
Music is for listening, right?
Close your eyes when you hear that intro to Mississippi Queen, and there's no question that you're hearing that cowbell, and how it functions in that song.
Close your eyes to that Bon Iver performance, and Mr. Triangle won't be making the slightest difference to the song.
(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
CourtGesture: Well, then that's just a poor arrangement. I'm sure there was a lot of that going on back in the 60's and 70's, but because it was of poor quality originally, it's been largely forgotten. The thing about comparing current trends in the music industry to those of the past is that we often only remember the highlights from the past. How many great bands from that era that scored many great hits also put out flops??? How many bands put out a great "one hit wonder" with a horrible b-side??? How many cheesy, poorly-arranged songs spent a week at number 40 on Billboard, but by now have been largely forgotten??? Poor arrangement, poor musicianship and poor production has always existed. I don't think it really has much to do with the way the industry is currently run.
"Well, then that's just a poor arrangement."
Indeed. But it was more than that. I was some guy pretending he was doing something significant.
"I'm sure there was a lot of that going on back in the 60's and 70's, but because it was of poor quality originally, it's been largely forgotten."
Perhaps. I remember some band ... I think it was the Lovin' Spoonful, that had a television performace (Ed Sullivan Show?), and one of them was playing an autoharp. That was pretty pointless.
But the TREND that I've derisively called the Arcade Fire Syndrome didn't exist then. It's a CURRENT trend. One band does it, and quickly, others follow suit. Here's another trend to give you an idea of the kind of trend I'm talking about:
Chris Martin in Cold Play adopts the practice of bringing a console-sized acoustic piano out to center stage. Soon tons of other bands begin bringing console-sized acoustic pianos out to center stage. etc. (While Chris Martin continues that, as a trend, it's kind of blown over now ...)
The Arcade Fire Syndrome is the trend I identified, and described in detail in my initial post. Bon Iver jumped on this trend, and Mr. Triangle exemplified it in a manner worthy of mocking.
"The thing about comparing current trends in the music industry to those of the past is that we often only remember the highlights from the past."
I didn't start this thread for the purpose of COMPARING current bands/trends with past bands/trends. It was started solely because I saw something really stupid on TV, and wanted to deride it.
"How many great bands from that era that scored many great hits also put out flops??? How many bands put out a great "one hit wonder" with a horrible b-side??? How many cheesy, poorly-arranged songs spent a week at number 40 on Billboard, but by now have been largely forgotten???"
Tons. Some are remembered in "one-hit-wonder" websites, compliation CDs, etc. Flash in the pan artists have always existed, and always will.
"Poor arrangement, poor musicianship and poor production has always existed."
True, but in the late sixties, early seventies, there was a gravitation toward recognizing music with a greater degree of skill need to play it. Some of the groups from that era pushed the idea of playing with skill about as far as it ever has gone in popular music. Orchestral music and jazz has always required skill and musicianship. Rock and roll, pretty much from the beginning, had a certain element where there was a steady climb upwards in the requirements of skill and musicianship. It peaked in the seventies.
Then punk happened. Purposefully being as unskilled as possible became acceptable. The residue of that has never left.
Whether you appreciate skill and musicianship is one thing. The degree to which it's important to consumers is another.
Some people, such as me, place value on virtuosity and musicianship. I like to see people do fantastic things. I like music that challenges both players and listeners. I like music that's HARD TO PLAY.
As brie_grape said on page 5:
"Who cares about virtuosity? Jesus, this isn't 1972"
Some things are personal taste, opinions, etc. Other things are factual, and can be substantiated with evidence. What kind of music you like is a matter of personal taste and opinion. Whether or not that music is requires virtuosity, skill and musicianship can be substantiated with evidence.
As I've said before, there are only two ways I know of to judge whether some music is valuable or not. One way is valid, one isn't.
You can judge it by how well it sells.
You can also judge it by how much of an influence it has over time.
If the artist is being cited as a huge influence after 20 or 25 years, it's hard to argue that they suck, regardless of what they sound like.
"I don't think it really has much to do with the way the industry is currently run"
Intuitively, I think it does. But truthfully, I'm not sure. Downloading, YouTube, etc. has massively changed the "business."
By the way, I do like at least ONE arguably unskilled type of music. Blues from the late forties into the sixties is something I really like, especially the dirty, funky urban "Chicago" style. I love guys like Muddy Waters and Howlin' Wolf.
(Edited by StuckInTheSixties)
CourtGesture: WoW.....well, last thing first: Blues is a rather simple form of music, structurally speaking, but it is not unskilled. When it comes to playing the blues well, "vibrato" is the key.
In the interest of fairplay and full disclosure, I searched this thread down to make this post.
I began this thread complaining about the pretentious "triangle guy" that I saw in Bon Iver's band when I saw them play on Jimmy Fallon. It was lame. I continue to submit that it was lame. (Click the "First" button below to read the actual post.) And later, I kind of argued with brie_grape, beginning on page 5, about his merits.
A few nights ago, Bon Iver played on David Letterman, I think. I recognized the song as being the same one that I saw performed on Jimmy Fallon. Triangle guy was gone.
But I must admit, and proclaim, that I really enjoyed the song, and the performance. I'm not sure what the difference is between when I saw the guy do his performance last September compared to the other night. But my perception was very different.
And the dude won an Emmy tonight, too.
jdallman: Dude, i know this post is ancient, but I have to cimment.
Any nusic that touches a person, even for a momentalid and should not be dismissed off hand.
Bruno Mars just played the super bowl half time show, and im not a big fan of pure pop, but i had the opportunity to see some acoustic sessions he did of his songs, and was impressed by his musicianship. What im saying, is just because a song is simple,dont assume the musicans are unskilled.
Case in point....
I am a huge Metallica fan. Personally, i think thcouple albums have sounded forced. On the other hand,Im impressed with a couple of the pop songs ive heard recentiy because of their creativity.
The bottom line is not everyone gets dave matthews. Does that make his music less important? Nope. Hellfolks have a hard time getting jack johnson. Most people can get into suvlime, though. Or pepper, or even gwen stefani or sugar ray. I may not think these bands are on par with the likes of jj, but it opens the door, doesnt it? If some kid discovers minor threat because they listened to simple plan, then im all for it.
You dont like whats on the radio? Change the station.
Better yet, make some music of your own. Until then, quit being such snobs.
quigley: are you still stuck here you silly old sucker i havn't been here for years and you are still at it..................what a life
virtuefilmsltd: Bob Dylan fooled the world for decades claiming to have written many of the melodies to his hit songs when in fact most of the melodies were from preexisting songs that he did not write.
In a last nail in the coffin scenario James Damiano's movie "Eleven Years" draws the straw that breaks the camel’s back, rivets Bob Dylan to his secret past of plagiarism and rewrites musical history"......The New York Times
Bob Dylan 's Stealing of James Damiano 's Songs