----- Original Message ----- From: "Travis Edmunds" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 11:29 AM Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica
> > >From: "Robert Seeberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Subject: Re: This Is Spinal Ta-, er, Metallica > >Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 16:14:06 -0600 > > > >However it > > > was NEVER, and I repeat NEVER channeled through such a simplistic > >and > > > beautiful medium. The key words here are simple and catchy. And I > >challenge > > > you to prove me wrong. > > > > > >Punk > >(Here is the entrance for Chad) > >Just before you got here Travis, Chad was making virtually the same > >argument for punk that you make for Nirvana. > > Punk!?!?!? You're making me laugh Robert!! Glad to be of service<G> > > Ok, this is my fault, so lets clear things up. Yes, Punk is simple and > catchy (when it's not annoying), Like....uh.....Nirvana? > but in most cases it's rather difficult to > play. Lets look at the guitar work. Punk primarily utilizes speed and > repetition (real Punk anyway). .....................---------------......................... There you go replacing normal definitions with your own non-standard ones. Really Travis! > And if you play guitar, then you know that > repetitive scales, especially combined with speed, are difficult to play. > Now, yes it IS simple music. But the technical aspects of playing it are > harder than one may think. It's like AC/DC. I find it very amusing when > people scoff at the guitar of Angus Young. Now granted, he's a better > performer than a musician, but those songs are HARD to play! And it's all in > the monotonous repetition. Angus is pretty well respected. > Now Nirvana on the other hand, is so simple to > play it's not even funny. In most cases the changes are slow. And you're not > really moving that much in the chord progression. So that's what I meant by > simple. > > On to beautiful. Nirvana's music is so melodic, and in some cases pop-smart, > that it rises above much of the other music of similar style in acoustic > beauty. It's a fact gentleman. It's catchy, quirky, hateful, rebellious, > simple, and suprisingly solid. Now, add my two definitions > (simple/beautiful) together and you find none other than Nirvana. At least > while they were still kicking around anyway. And that's my meaning on the > score of "No other band at this time (or before this time) channeled so much > hate and angst through such a simplistic and beautiful medium". > Ok,,,,,,,so we have established that you find Nirvana simple yet melodic. And that's iffy for me, but not worth the quibble. You find Nirvana superior at expressing Hate and Angst. Hate and Angst are dime a dozen staples of the Rock'N'Roll toolkit, as pedestrian as The Love Song. A deft expression of Angst or Hate is of no more value than a deft expression of Love. But even Nirvana never plumbed the depths as well as Lennon or Zimmerman.Perhaps not even as well as Axel Rose. > > > > >As far as your interest in music goes, you have to understand that you > >likely don't have access to much of the music that existed pre-CD. The > >majority of those old analog recordings exist only on vinyl and you > >can't find them on Kazaa. > > > My good man. I do not engage in piracy. It's no big deal though. Everyone > does it. But I feel that a person or group of persons who create something > out of nothing. Something that is beautiful in all it's forms. Coherent > noise. Music. Deserves no less than paying customers. And it's my way of > contributing, or rather thanking them for their artistry. Besides, I'm a > pack rat when it comes to certain collectibles, such as cd's. Speaking as a music lover, I agree with you. Speaking as someone who has been published as a lyricist and has been an executive producer for 1 going on 2 albums, I agree with you. (<G> That doesn't increase the cred of my opinion a jot <G>) > > > >Another problem is that > >there were more bands available in 1970 than frex 1990 because of the > >stranglehold the recording industry has on music these days. > >You couldn't even fill the really large record stores of the 70s with > >what is available today, there just isn't that much variety anymore. > > Oh it's there Robert. It's just not mainstream. Well, to some degree that's true. There are a lot of offerings at places like CDBaby that are of considerable quality, but you can't drive across town and pick up a copy like you could years ago. I suspect that's gonna change in a few years. But it's also important to fix radio. (Net Radio just doesn't seem to be going anywhere ATM) > > > > > >The only thing that made Nirvana different was that > > > >it became popular with them, but they didn't in any way invent it > >or > > > >even popularise it or even do it better than it had been done > >before. > > > > > > Just to make sure we're on the same page here, what are you > >referring to > > > exactly with "it"? > > > >Angst and Hate > > I'm not saying that they were the originators of hate & angst in music<lol>. > I'm saying that no other band before them brought it to the masses as such a > simple and beautiful thing. That's where their innovation lies. In crafting > a new way to present the rock n' roll message. Which is, whether you admit > it or not, full of hate and angst. The angst being the foundation of > rebellion. Which in turn is the epitome of rock n' roll. > Utter and complete bull. Angst is the message of losers. Any band that ever became popular to any degree abandoned the stagnation of the loser message. Its a total dead end. A real artist can see horizons and uses them. Angst is simply a feeling of anxiety. To some degree angst is anxiety about personal freedom. But this conflation of angst and rebellion and rock'n'roll is a long lived myth. Rock'N'Roll is far broader than that in that it has transcended the confluence of its roots. Everything you read about "going back to the roots of Rock" is an elaborate fantasy unless one can travel in time. We are deep into the branches of the Yggsdrasil/Rock World Tree and while you may jump from branch to branch to will never be at the root again. The roots can only be synthesized now. Time has moved on. The roots are history. > > > > > > >Tell me what I listen to. > >It would be fun to see what your guesses are.<G> > > > I won't be specific. But I'd say a good chunk of classic rock. 2 or 3 on the list maybe<G> >Some country. F*CKING NEVER if I have a choice!!!!! (I got an attitude regarding country<G>) > Some alternative, and hard rock/metal. Probably #1 of my actual radio listening. But I don't pay enough attention to who is who a lot of the time. There is not much there that makes me want to spend money. > Pop in all it's forms. Only when something significant pops up. Frex: OutKast is a group I admire a lot right now. Best Soul/Funk band since the 70s. The song Hey Ya is quite an accomplishment. I've never heard acoustic guitar based Funk that I can recall. >And some > classical when you're in the mood. I hear all I need in the hallways at work. No elevator music, they play classical on the concourse. > And this morning for breakfast you had a > bran muffin and instant coffee. Black. One sugar. Two Buscuits, two sausage, brewed coffee black no sugar > > > > > > > > > >I'm sure you have listened to skads of classic rock stations, but > >what > > > >you wouldn't get from listening to them is the other 90% of music > >that > > > >was not so popular but still was played on contemporaneous radio. > > > > > > Actually I don't listen to the radio at all. Instead I dig into my > >rather > > > extensive and ever growing music collection. You might say that I'm > >beside > > > myself with B-sides. > > > >Got any Blue Cheer? > >Amboy Dukes? > >MC5? > >I recommend them for people who like Metal > I honestly havent even heard of them. > >Of even more importance are: > >Deep Purple::::::Machine Head > Good stuff. Blackmore is awesome. > >Led Zep::::: both 1 and 2 > This is a Metallica parallel for me. Boy, do I ever recognize their > importance! But they were never a band that I overly liked. Besides, the > Golden God is annoying. > >Montrose:::::::Montrose (very very important album) > Nope. > >Hawkwind::::::::In Search Of Space > Nope > >Uriah Heep:::::::Demons And Wizards > "He was the wizard of a thousand kings. And I chanced to meet him one night, > wandering." Great band. I love 'em. > >Blue Oyster Cult:::::::::Blue Oyster Cult > Decent. > >Or even UFO, The Runaways, Ten Years After, Robin Trower, Status Quo, > >heck theres plenty of others. > Some are decent. But blah. It really helps to be familiar with these groups. It gives you some perspective on why music sounds the way it does today. > > > > > > > > Fair enough. Especially considering the time-frame. But yet > >again, I > > > >must > > > > > say that it doesn't downplay Nirvana in the least. > > > > > > > > > > > > >Who's songs stand a better chance of being remembered or even known > > > >100 years from now? > > > > > > You come from a position I have seen countless times. Some would > >call it > > > nostalgia. Some would brand it ignorance. I say it is simply a > >failure to > > > fundamentally come to terms with "new" music. I have the same > >problem, not > > > with music, but with the small generational gap between people my > >age and a > > > few years younger. And it has been my experience that it is a bit of > >a > > > deterrent with "older" people and "newer" music. Just a thought. > > > > > > >I think you misunderstand. > >There is *no* new music. Everything that has come out over the last > >15 - 20 years is just a rehash of what has been done before. > > Didn't I already say that? To some degree, but I think you are missing a point here. Let me give you an example, well a few examples. Pink Floyd:::::::::Dark Side Of The Moon Yes::::::::::Close To The Edge Queen:::::::::A Night At The Opera Mike Oldfield:::::::Tubular Bells Jethro Tull:::::::::Thick As A Brick (or even Aqualung) The Beatles:::::::::Sgt Peppers (or any Beatles album after Rubber Soul) The Beach Boys::::::Pet Sounds What I would like to be able to convey to you is how it felt when people all over the world heard these albums for the first time and ***everyone*** was hearing something never heard before. I don't think......aw hell I know you cannot imagine the excitement these albums generated. It was "mind expanding". And you really had to be there to "get it". So actually I don't think I can convey this to you All I can do is tell you that it was something more that just a new great album by a band lots of people suddenly liked. It transcended that. > > But there is "new music". Not in the literal definition. But in the > presentation. Which includes the composition. So that's what I mean whenever > I say "new music". Yup. No prob. But I mean something different that variations on older themes. > > > Haha!!!! I challenge you to name a band or artist that isn't a > >product in > > > some way, of a scene or for that matter, of a time. > > > > > > -Travis "oh Robert..." Edmunds > > > >Its not a matter of being of a scene and time, its a matter of > >transcending a scene and time. Lots of bands in the 60s and 70s did > >that and maybe U2 since then. > >The 90s and the 00s have been pretty dead in that regard. > > > > I like the above statement. BUT, BUT, BUT... many bands/artists are most > highly praised for what they have done in a particular scene. And although > transcending a scene and a time is a testament to the talent and whatnot of > some people, it still takes time to do. Well......either you do it or you do not do it. No woulda shoulda coulda is acceptable. They have to continue making music > in order to transcend. But seeing as how Cobain is dead and Nirvana are no > more, I don't think that's a fair or accurate assesment of the situation > pertaining to Nirvana. Its perfectly fair. They had a track record. The direction they were headed in was MOS. And the main reason they are so highly regarded is because Cobain died. Artists always become greater after they die. Look at Obi Wan Kenobi<G> > > -Travis "stop picking on the dead" Edmunds Well.....the dead need to get a life. xponent Irreverence Inc maru rob _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
