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: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:12:42 -0600
----- 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 > > > Ok, this is my fault, so lets clear things up. Yes, Punk is simple and > catchy (when it's not annoying),
Like....uh.....Nirvana?
Not....uh.....exactly......uh......uh.....like....uh.....Nir....uh....vana....uh...
> 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!
Yeah, I've never been up to standard.....
Seriously though, Punk (real Punk) is my definition of what is considered to be "pure" Punk, as opposed to bands that though they have been influenced by Punk, and pass themselves off as Punk, are no more "Punkish" than my dogs left nostril.
> 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.
No doubt he is. But he doesn't belong in the company of the guitar gods. And as much respect as he will ever get out of me, is stated above in my previous statement. Which is a good thing. For him. I think...
> 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.
Yes I do. And they are/were.
You find Nirvana superior at expressing Hate and Angst.
No I don't. I'm saying that no band before them channeled so much hate and angst through such a simplistic and beautiful medium. And based on my clarifications of the use of the words "simple/catchy", I figured that you would understand what I was getting at.
Hate and Angst are dime a dozen staples of the Rock'N'Roll toolkit, as pedestrian as The Love Song.
Without a doubt.
A deft expression of Angst or Hate is of no more value than a deft expression of Love.
How very true. How very false. It comes down to something comparable to sentimental value, really. Or personal taste.
But even Nirvana never plumbed the depths as well as Lennon or Zimmerman.Perhaps not even as well as Axel Rose.
Well of course not! I don't dispute this. And if you have truly read what I have written, then you know that I haven't argued this either. Besides, nobody can do it much better Axl. I'll wait now for you to eat me up on that one!!<lol>
> > > >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>)
What's your real name? Is it Saul? You do look an awful lot like Slash in that old picture...<lol>
What exactly have you produced, if you don't mind my asking? And if you are so inclined as to throw in a tidbit about your lyrical meandering, I would greatly appreciate it.
> > > >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.
If such is the case, then you brand every member of the Human race a loser. And if I'm not mistaken, that includes yourself. Tell me that you have never felt some degree of angst at some point in your life!! I dare you.
Any band that ever became popular to any degree abandoned the stagnation of the loser message.
I disagree, because I disagree with your assessment of angst in Rock music.
Its a total dead end.
Bad feelings Robert, if one were to call them that - hate, angst....etc, often spur the most creativity. And I don't think that creativity is a dead end my friend.
A real artist can see horizons and uses them.
I should truly like to hear your expanded definition of a "real artist".
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.
I've always thought of Rock music to be a very large pool of water, with many segregations (some natural, some contrived), but existing within the same basin.
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.
It is difficult to build ANYTHING without a foundation, Robert.
> > > > > > > >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.
Sure. I'll give them a try when I get around to it. But at the same time, I think my perspective on music is pretty solid.
> > > > > > > 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".
I don't think so. Long before I ever knew Robert Seeberger existed, I used to listen to old school tunes and picture what it would be like to hear them for the first time, way back when they were initially released. And I think I can appreciate what it was like.
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.
I don't think you can convey it either. You'll just have to trust that I can understand.
> > > 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.
One word: Evolution. And that takes time.
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.
Yes and no. They didn't take the world by storm for nothing you know.
Artists always become greater after they die. Look at Obi Wan Kenobi<G>
Yeah. He was a crappy Jedi anyway. I bet Captain Kirk could kick his butt any day.
> > -Travis "stop picking on the dead" Edmunds
Well.....the dead need to get a life.
xponent Irreverence Inc maru rob
<lol> That is so true.
-Travis "btw...I'm not a huge Nirvana freak. That's reserved for Guns N' Roses" Edmunds
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin.msn.com%2f%3fpage%3dmisc%2fspecialoffers%26pgmarket%3den-ca
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
