TheBig3

I was in one of those moods where I'm just pissed about all the nuance of modern music. "Who the **** does that?!?!! Everyone knows this is all affected-bull**** for the sake of appealing to stupid people!" (yes I'm like this IRL as well).

A friend of mine who drags me to almost all the local shows I go to threw on this channel called Palladium which was constant live music. I happened to grab the "I <3 Radio" concert which, to my delight, was Nikki Minaj, Kenny Chesney, and Coldplay.

You can think whatever you want of that lineup, but two of them are what they are. They may not appeal to you, but at least they seem honest. Then theres Coldplay. I started to feel really bad for the guy playing bass. I looked at it like I look at the VP of Enron. By the time the poor shlub knew how wrong his life was, he was in too deep, making too much money, and was too tainted to ever do that well again. You're just along for the ride even if it was a downward spiral. And it is.

Its moving irreversibly in that direct because of one Chris Martin. Not since Ja Rule have I thought an artist was willingly malleable for the sake of getting 13 year olds to jerk off to them. The graffitied piano, the countless wristbands that hover somewhere between a crazy-band bedecked tween and a 1970’s Steven Tyler. The marriage to Gwyneth Paltrow who might be one of the more deplorable celebrities. And don’t think I can’t hear you, Coldplay fanboi.
“But wait, whats this got to do with the music?!? Nothing! You’re just bitter! And The Scientist is a masterpiece!”
Shut your god damn mouth. First of all, the Scientist sounds like the rest of the album which is a watered-down Radiohead track made for the Adult Contemporary audience. It’s the Gerbers of artsy music, mashed up banana-flavored mush meant to appear to be one thing, but in fact be completely unrelated and designed not only to fool but to be digestible. Short of pretending that the spoon was an airplane coming in for a landing, Coldplay marketed their swill for the bowel tracks of Americas masses. And holy **** did they chow down. They’ve been in every commercial known to man, and I’m pretty sure Chris Martin loaned his name out to credit card companies to put on the fake card they show in ads.
But I’m writing this tirade for a more noble reason. While we’re sitting there getting sloshed on $10 wine (bottle, not glass) my friend says to me “you know, music just wasn’t meant to be written for arenas.” I don’t know if he actually thinks that or the booze was talking but I think he has a damn good point. Music is not supposed to be consistently soaring and atmospheric. Not in my universe anyway. For one thing, it inherently implies that the sound system is part of the act. In this case, the sound guys ought to be getting a cut of the check. Secondly, have you ever heard these songs played on acoustic instruments? You either need Phil Spector arranging the ****ing thing, or you need to completely change it up. Primarily because when you’re not cowering behind a way of reverb, you need to back up your nonsense with talent.
To be, Arena music can be damn fun, but it doesn’t have much substance. I never get deep into “Cum on Feel the Noize” or much of the Bon Jovi back catalog. Which isn’t to disparage them (or to make the comparison) but those acts at least know what their wheelhouse is. Neither pretend they’re the Poet Laurite of modern music. Except Coldplay. And that’s the issue. That everyones fully prepared to put their hands out for accolades when they’re cowering behind technological handicaps.
I asked a music professor I once knew (friend’s husband) why you didn’t hear a lot of cello in jazz. In short his answer was “Well jazz recordings were ****ty so players use to find ways around the brass to be heard on an album.” Are ya ****ting me? If Coldplay formed up in 1924 it would be 4 guys with bows behind 3 trumpet plays who had talent. And the dopes would all be in zoot suits.
But beyond my Coldplay hatred, can music be created for Arenas? Is there a value out there in the atmosphere? Should music be something that holds up in the coffee shop, the street corner, and Red Rocks? I had my opinions, and they shouldn’t be heard to figure out, but I’d love to hear from you folks. Whats the point of putting a song 6 feet underreverb?

And wtf is mylo xyloto?

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Trollheart

Woops! You'll want to steer clear of my review of "Parachutes" in my journal then!

Seriously, I know people hate Coldplay, but (and I'm not a huge fan, but I do like their music. Mostly) isn't it sometimes easier just to knock something because it's there and it's got bigger than really it has any right to be? What about REM? They're surely an arena band (or were): do you think they sold out, and do you think that of all bands who play arenas, or did I miss the point? I know it was essentially a rant at Coldplay, but I do wonder. If the London Philharmonic (or pick your orchestra) play in an arena, is that wrong? What about Peter Gabriel and his orchestra on that "New blood" thing? Or the live version of Jeff Wayne's "War of the worlds"? Some music MUST have been written for arenas --- can you really see Meat Loaf playing the Mean Fiddler?

I never really thought about it to be honest. Gigs have just more or less evolved into larger beasts as the artistes get more popular and more people want to see them, and to accomodate them they have to use arenas. Biggest bands here usually play Croke Park or the Point, which would both be considered arenas, sometimes Phoenix Park, biggest park in Europe. Would you relegate them to smaller venues, thus less people could get to see them unless they played more nights, and that's not always logistically possible?

I think you HAVE to have arenas. Sure, it's much better when it's all small and intimate. I saw both BB King and Steve Earle in the National Stadium, which holds about two thousand people:small, really, in comparison to the likes of the Point which can seat up to 13,000 --- it's called the 02 arena now, as it happens. But those gigs were great. Would they have been better or worse in an arena setting? I really don't think so.

When it comes down to it, I think the music has to stand up, whether it's played for a worldwide television audience or six guys in a pub. The venue should not matter: let the music do the talking, is what I say!

Okay, I'm SLOWLY reaching inside my pocket and taking out my musical prejudices .... see? ... sliding them across the floor... you're in no danger --- backing away slowly, just want to talk.... no need for anyone to get hurt....

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

TheBig3

I'm always happiest when posters come with weapons drawn.

Do you think music should be written with the venue in mind? Arena or club.

__________________
I've moved to a new address

Trollheart

Personally , as I think I've made clear, no, I don't. If writers and musicians have to start considering how their music will sound in arenas (or clubs) then it is bound to restrict them. Besides, who knows how popular a band or singer will get in the future? If say Badly Drawn Boy started out in clubs and then got so popular that they had to play bigger and bigger venues, should their music then be tailored to those bigger venues? What about when an artist either gets less popular (Roger Waters playing solo to a few thousand people while Floyd play to ten or more times that number), or else stage a less-than-successful comeback (Jeff Lynne AS ELO)? Do they then have to rewrite their material so that it sounds better in smaller settings?

I don't think the venue has any bearing at all on the music. It's up to the listener. After all, if they don't enjoy a big arena concert they can still go home and listen to the album as it was meant to be, but not if somehow it gets written --- or rewritten --- for stadium gigs.

On another note, what do you think of Waits' new album? Is it brilliant, or is it just brilliant? Or, to put it another way, is it brilliant?

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

TheBig3

Musicbanter as Dinosaurs: Hipster Dinosaur Coloring Book | Runt Of The Web

Baby Boomer Santa

__________________
I've moved to a new address

TheBig3

I feel bad for the “heard it first” crowd. The internet is expanding quicker than the universe. Indie music, which seemed to be the most genre open to odd arrangements and instrumentation since electronic music hit it big has now been consumed by big business. I find more cooler music on commercials now than I do on Musicbanter. The ability to say you heard it months ago is dying. Yesterday is the new “months ago.”

I read once that it’s impossible to remain counter-culture for long because capitalism will find a way to market that culture and make a buck. Not to mention, with the internet allowing everyone to build their portfolio in any capacity they want (advertising, directing, creating music) people who normally wouldn’t have the experience years ago are now proven sensations. Youtube & the Internet have taken the old boys network out behind the woodshed and murdered it painfully.

In a similar comment, I remember some fairly successful mogul (Jay-Z maybe) saying whats wrong with the record industry is that people who had one great find never get fired. That he personally had been told “You can’t fire him, he discovered Motley Crue!” The nerve of some people.

I mention all of this because its leading to one great and final “enough” from the youth of the world that’s going to essentially erase time. The Clash was once called “The only band that matters.” It was predicated upon them living on the cutting edge. But today, that edge is moving so fast that the distance between “Heard it yesterday” meaning current, and “heard it yesterday” meaning forever ago is impossible to distinguish. Hipsters, be forewarned, trying to be ironic about hearing something yesterday is going to land really poorly.

For me, this is all great news. “Heard it first” was always a really poor indicator of music or people who listened to it. It implied you were an amazing scout with a sharp ear for new music; that your judgment was to be higher than those who heard it second or fourteenth. But now you can’t help but trip over some ******* with a rebec backed up with a three-piece brass set walking down to the subway or walking by a television set. If music were dimensions, the days or width would be dead or dying. It’s time to move on to height.

Depth in music is not new. People have been trying to write up the Beatles like they would Shakespeare for too long. It’s not inherently bad, we all start somewhere, but Literature and its critique have evolved as they have because of the type of medium that Literature is. Music, by virtue of its difference, must follow its own path. But it seems only plausible for music that’s old, presumably because we’ve sat with it for a while. Literature needs to allow for time to determine its value to some degree because it is, to steal a line from Christopher Hitchens, “the vehicle by which we deal with questions of ethics and morality.” (paraphrase). Literature is not inventing by refining. It is the Aristotelian Mirror to our human condition. And this differs from music in two very large ways: Music does not give us the same reflection or philosophy nearly as well if at all, and music consistently tries to reinvent the wheel.

You’ve no doubt seen someone try to write something where the words represent the action. Poems about leaves falling throw words all over the page. Shell Silverstein was a master at this sort of thing. But his longevity is not determined by his groundbreaking presentation. And that presentation doesn’t make for good literature. But when music attempts the same concept, that’s what separates the wheat from the chafe. One of the reasons the “heard it first crowd” also held some sway is because they had the potential to bring you not new music, but new sound. Music is like food at times because the same old ingredients you know in parts can be mixed to create new flavors you couldn’t imagine. Do you remember the first time you heard a sound or style that you’d never heard before? There’s a moment there where something ancient and familiar reappears before you, like this sound you’ve never heard before seems somehow natural and refreshing. It is on this ground that music, even in the rapid-paced world of technology, has a future and a contribution to make.

Music going forward should yield a deeper discussion. Without concern about what comes next, we can worry about what will influence “next”; what “next” will reflect of the past. I think it’s best if our discussions of music become richer, that our discussions concern themselves with layers. Depth, arrangement, and scope seem familiar to those who’ve spent time in the more established genres; Classical and Jazz fans probably routinely talk in these terms, but those forms never worried about “next” in the first place. The existed as new at a time when technology only allowed them to be heard places other than in the club live. Today it allows us to auto-tune the news.

As I look around my usual music outlets whether it be friends of forums, I sense a great lull in the conversation. Music, as I’ve said, hasn’t really slowed, so why the conversation? Sloth is natural in a time of transition. No one is looking to commit to things that are on a dead-end. Beta Max, the Mini Disc Player, Google+ -investing in those products was a waste of time for everyone involved. It’s natural to wonder what’s next when the old norms have been worn out and dried up. But I think when the dust clears, technology finally removes “first” from the musical lexicon, we’ll discover that the path forward isn’t “forward” but in fact, its “down.”

__________________
I've moved to a new address

starrynight

I don't think I've ever listened to things just because someone has said it is hip or new in style, why should I care about fashion? You still do get music critics damning by faint praise in both classical and popular music. The technique is normally to compare a lesser known music with something far better known and celebrated and say while it is ok in it's way it is still inferior to the person who is more famous and supposedly did it first. What should matter more is whether something is simply good musically and not whether it is thought to be totally original or influential. Originality and influence tend to be vastly overhyped factors at the expense of the reality anyway. Music is about enjoyment to me and not about agonizing where I place someone in some music history I have constructed.

As for talking about music, I find it easier to talk about things which I have known and lived with for a while. And often what is there really to say about specific music except that you consider it consistent, well constructed and done with feeling? Or the opposite if you don't like it. I find talk about music as an art in more general terms can be more interesting as it can be broader in scope and bring in other subjects and so be a more fruitful way of exploring this mysterious art.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on

duga

I think the major problem is that now music is so accessible and there is so damn much of it that it gives absolutely everyone the opportunity to "hear it first". I think that is where the lull in conversation comes from as well. I have a plethora of bands I would love to discuss, but generally no one has heard them. For me, I would LOVE to have deeper discussions about shoegaze, but the only guy I know that can hold his own with that is Zero. I'm sure many of you can relate.

I honestly can't decide if this situation is good or bad. I have plenty of music to listen to but now the crap to good music ratio has drastically increased. I also have to pick and choose whose recommendations to follow up on. I've listened to so much music over the past 15 years (obsessively for the past 10) that I walk around completely confident that I probably know more about music than the next guy...so why should I take his recommendations? This is why it makes a site like MB even more vital for me. I know the people here who love music on my level and I know when I should take note of a recommendation. It's a little disheartening that it has slowed down.

Despite this transitional limbo, I think it's a fascinating time to live in. It will end (as everything does), a new way to distribute and find music will emerge, and hopefully we can get back to the good stuff. I love the idea that I can look back and say "I lived through a very confusing and uncertain time in music...it was pure anarchy. I could download whatever the **** I wanted".

__________________
Confusion will be my epitaph...

Unrelenting

One of the big downsides of the internet is now someone can dabble into so many genres of the music casually; not knowing very much about any genre aside from 2-3 bands they may have happened upon. Their scope of music may be wider than it would have been without the internet, but overall knowledge on any given style is very limited.

__________________
My lastfm

starrynight

I use google for recommendations and that leads me to many websites. Just type in the name of an album you like (better if more obscure), then type "best albums" and you will come up with lists that are probably worth looking through. This place is more for music discussion for me, I don't even have that much time to listen to the youtube vids here really.

It's hard to assess if the ratio of good to crap has decreased or increased. But certainly I think there is likely to be more good stuff than ever (and of course it's more available), it's just that more of it is little known than ever before too.

__________________
non-cliquey member of every music forum I participate on