boo boo

Ya'll already know what I think about defining music with words like passion. The way people use the term makes no sense to me.

I always assumed passion is about getting really into it, but that's contradicted by how others define it. I hear people calling The Mars Volta and Muse passionless, and then I watch them live and think to myself "what in the hell are they talking about?"

What about My Bloody Valentine? Do they have passion? They sure as hell don't look like it, they're like mannequins. That goes for a lot of Indie bands these days it seems. So really what defines passion to some people is just how it sounds.

So what is the sound of passion? Does passion only manifest itself in certain techniques? Is it in distortion and feedback, but not in reverb and phasing? Does it depend on the instrument used? The musicians amount of skill?

The way people describe it it sure seems that way, if it's sloppy it's passion, if it's clean and precise it's soulless, if it sounds like it's produced in an outhouse it's passion, if it's elaborately produced it's souless.

It's all foolishness if you ask me. There is no sound of passion, at the end of the day music is just manipulation of sound. Music is music, I don't care if the musicians are jumping around breaking stuff or just standing there doing their job and sipping tea between songs. It dosen't affect the music at all for me.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

You really mean to tell me you can't tell the difference between someone expressing their soul and someone going through the motions to make a bit of cash?

__________________

boo boo

Not really no.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

It's all there if you look for it.
I'd go into detail now but i'm bloody starving and there's a curry in the cupboard with my name on it.
But I shall leave you with this quick example...



as opposed to

__________________

Rainard Jalen

To me, I think passion is defined as whether or not you can literally "hear" the smile shining through the speaker system. It needs to be a smile. If the musician is not smiling during the recording, there's no passion.

boo boo

I can't tell if you're joking.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

jackhammer

Passion to me is truth. I can hear passion in MBV's 'Lose My Breath' and if people cannot hear passion in music then they are listening for something else, which is absolutely fine. When people talk about passion in music then maybe they are emotional in their real life? I'm not saying this as fact, just a point of view. Everyone I talk to can relate to passion in music whether that is anger, hate, love, loss, pride, elation etc.

__________________

WaspStar

No, there's nothing wrong with it, but as a personal matter, I don't like most bands that are all about polish. I tend to tire of "perfect" bands that care more about technique than sounding genuinely excited about their music.

WaspStar

Passion is somewhat subjective. You can't point out passion like you can a fluffed note. To some people, Otis Redding is as passionate as it gets; to some people, he's just another singer.

But I think Urban Hatemonger has the right idea. Even though everyone has their own idea of passion, I think there's a clear cut difference between, say, Prefab Sprout and The Sex Pistols.

Urban Hat€monger ?

I think there are several ways of seeing if a band has passion.

Actually saying something rather than resorting to lazy lyrical cliches.

Excessive use of soloing when you can't be bothered to think up an original idea for a song to use instead. (Case in point Noel Gallagher admitted this is what he did on Be Here Now. An album slated by fans and critics alike)

Vocal delivery , Just listen to Lydon sing at an early Pistols gig such as Screen On The Green in 76 when they just started out & he was angry and had something he wanted to say and then compare it to the last gig at Winterland in 78 when he sounded totally jaded , couldn't be bothered and just wanted it to end. There's a world of difference.

Progression (or lack of , or too much) Personally I think this works two ways, If you can't be bothered to build on what you can already do and just release the same album over & over I don't really see how you can get excited about playing it

On the other hand if you suddenly want to add 500 piece orchestras , choirs , samples , studio trickery or whatever to your music then it's seems to me that there's not really anything there with any substance to start with.


Sudden changes of direction for no apparent reason - People like the Clash & Bowie have changed direction but it's always been a natural change. Bowie's Low album didn't come out of nowhere , he was building towards it even without Eno as in the Station To Station album. Same with The Clash , London Calling didn't just happen it was all their collective influences being brought to the front. Compare that to Madonna who just phones up ... (Insert trendy DJ name here)... And get's him to do the work so she's still 'hip' and can sell.

Soul music - How do you think it got it's name.

Those are some of my interpretations or course there are others , of course there are always exceptions to these.
I guess at the end of the day some people are better at spotting a fake than others.

__________________