Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Amy Winehouse before drugs:; What a pretty girl, and what talent!
Topic Started: Dec 4 2011, 07:00 PM (1,859 Views)
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
My personal experience has been that classically trained musicians are pretty snobby about other forms of music, and that decent jazz musicians are pretty snobby about rock and pop. People right at the top of the tree can afford to be magnanimous, possibly since they're less insecure about their own abilities.

However, the very fact that some musicians are 'better' than others is a demonstration that not all music is equal. Saying otherwise is like saying all sportmen are equal, since it's not about winning but about how we play the game. At least, that's what the people who don't win say. :lol:
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
KB
 
As a form of artistic expression, it's difficult to call one thing music, and one thing not. 
What Busta Rhymes can do with the rhythm of his voice is amazing. What WuTang could do with melody/emotion in rap music was amazing. What Lil Wayne can do lyrically on the fly is impressive to say the least. Those artists however, would to many music aficionados be considered to not be music.


Hooray for pluralism! It's all music, isn't it? And since it's all music and can be enjoyed as such, it can all be enjoyed just as equally. It's all the same! Right?

Sorry man, that's horsecrap. 

It's a popular stance to take, but it's an active denial of reality in a few key areas. I'll use some extreme examples to make the contrasts easier to see, but the point here is that you can do this with anything.

What goes into a rap song? Lyrics and beat, right? Sure a voice is important but mind you, the lyricist isn't usually concerned with notes, pitch or tone; the rhythm's the point. As for the beat, it's a big part of it but still supplementary to the lyrics. It's all synthed stuff usually anyway, and what happens with remixes? Generally the beat changes, but the lyrics stay the same. The beat is only supplementary.

What goes into an opera? How did Wagner create Gotterdammerung? What goes into an opera that doesn't go into a rap song? Can you honestly tell me that the level of effort is the same when right off the bat, we can say that most rap songs are only about 6 minutes long? Also, how does one "enjoy" opera music vs. rap? What's fun about them? You're not going to tell me that the listening process for both is identical.

Yes, they're both "music" and are enjoyed by many people. Also, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with listening to rap. The enjoyment people get out of it is no less sincere than someone's enjoyment of a production of The Flying Dutchman. That's the only similarity that exists between the two.

It's also an entirely separate issue. Anyone who tries to make a claim that rap music should be weighted or measured equally with Wagnerian opera is either an idiot for not knowing the process involved for the creation, performance and enjoyment of each, or fooling themselves by denying these differences exist.

Another thing: these categories aren't so clear-cut. Very few people in the world are either only rap fans or opera fans. Most people enjoy things that could be considered both high or lowbrow, and what's more, few artistic genres fit cleanly into either category.

It's all shades of gray, but saying there's no difference at all just takes it too damn far and denies reality.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Thank you, AL.

These extremist arguments about everything being as good as everything else are ludicrous.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LWpianistin
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Mark
Dec 5 2011, 12:30 PM
Larry
Dec 4 2011, 07:00 PM
I had only heard Amy Winehouse on the one big hit she had, recognized she had talent, but didn't realize how much.

What an absolute WASTE - before the drugs and alcohol got her, she was actually a very pretty girl. And man, what a talent. Listen to her version of the Beatles' "All My Lovin"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FiQnrRT16s&feature=endscreen&NR=1

OMFG. :puke:
Yep, gotta agree with Mark on that one. I made it through 2 lines of that scratching, whining horribleness.
And how are you today?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I am not saying that people shouldn't listen to music I don't like.

Just don't do it when I'm around.

Thanks.

:lol:
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Kincaid
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
People still pay a bunch for an original Jackson Pollack.
Kincaid - disgusted Republican Partisan since 2006.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rainman
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
Interesting topic.

I think Larry would appreciate the following, and perhaps anyone else that understands in terms of the "craft" of music composition. Donald Fagen (Steely Dan) knows the subject (music theory/songwriting), and conveys his thoughts on harmonic structure, 5th relation, logical modulations, etc.. I do wish he would have commented on "form," one of the other major (sorry/pun) components in songwriting, along with sound/melody/harmony/growth (form):

Donald Fagen explains the logic in composing the song, "Peg"

A more recent live performance can be found here:
Steely Dan - Peg

When I was in my early 20's, active in several bands, there were a couple of things I knew for sure: if you hadn't made it by age 26, you weren't going to make it (hmm, wrong...).

The other thing was my assumption that rock/pop (and light jazz) would become increasingly complex, as peoples' capability to comprehend required more sophisticated music. Well. . . wrong again. But, there were certainly exceptions.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I haven't argued that all music is equal, I've pointed out that all music has value, and as such discussion as to which music is "better" needs to be qualified with some objective form of measurement. Understand that first before asking ridiculous claims about gross misunderstandings of music.

Quote:
 
What goes into a rap song? Lyrics and beat, right? Sure a voice is important but mind you, the lyricist isn't usually concerned with notes, pitch or tone; the rhythm's the point. As for the beat, it's a big part of it but still supplementary to the lyrics. It's all synthed stuff usually anyway, and what happens with remixes? Generally the beat changes, but the lyrics stay the same. The beat is only supplementary.

No, totally false. Good rap goes well beyond lyric and beat. The timbre of the voice is paramount - it's why an otherwise not extraordinary phonetician like JayZ can be well respected as a rapper.
Beyond the melody and timbre/quality of the voice itself, there is much in the individual artist, and the team of artists who create the finished package. It's totally different from appreciating Christopher Parkening or a similar artist, in that the production process is wholly different, and spread amongst multiple people. To think it is somehow of no value though is ridiculous. Is it less technically difficult than Olga Kern's Van Kleiburn winning performance of the Rach III? Of course! David Helffgott's performance of same? Of course not!

Quote:
 
It's all shades of gray, but saying there's no difference at all just takes it too damn far and denies reality

Agreed, thankfully nobody is saying that.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
I'm not saying all music is equal.
Rather, all people are equal so IMHO each person's musical taste carries equal weight.

I do not agree that a person who graduated from the highest-ranking music conservatory with the highest grades is more qualified to state which music is better or best.
I do not feel anyone can state unequivocally which music is better or best, which seems to be what some in this thread are claiming.

IMHO, there can be no absolute measurement of music's 'goodness' that is independent of listener's taste any more then there can be an indisputable ranking of the best ice cream flavor.

This, "I know good music when I hear it" is sheer arrogance.
You can only say, "I know music that sounds good to me, or that I like, when I hear it."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mark
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
I'm arrogant. :D
___.___
(_]===*
o 0
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Mark
Dec 5 2011, 11:35 PM
I'm arrogant. :D
Admitting it is the first step, brother. :hug:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:28 PM
I'm not saying all music is equal.
Rather, all people are equal so IMHO each person's musical taste carries equal weight.

I do not agree that a person who graduated from the highest-ranking music conservatory with the highest grades is more qualified to state which music is better or best.
I do not feel anyone can state unequivocally which music is better or best, which seems to be what some in this thread are claiming.

IMHO, there can be no absolute measurement of music's 'goodness' that is independent of listener's taste any more then there can be an indisputable ranking of the best ice cream flavor.

This, "I know good music when I hear it" is sheer arrogance.
You can only say, "I know music that sounds good to me, or that I like, when I hear it."
What I'm saying is that certain styles of music have a "richer quality" to them than others (rap vs. operas, for example.), and this kind of quality is tangible and wholly separate from personal taste.

These qualities can't be tallied up in some sort of musical quality accounting procedure, but they can be made explicit on at least a rudimentary level. Simply put, more goes into an opera than a rap song. That's not to say rap is unworthy to listen to or "bad," it means it's not as complex in composition, performance, etc.

It has nothing to do with "good taste" (which I don't much believe in) or credentials.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
AL you are young.
Bless you.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:57 PM
AL you are young.
Bless you.
Why thanks, man. ^_^

Look, I don't see why we can't just be honest about this. It's not like I'm defending snobbery, I listen to a lot of shallow stuff myself. I like it. I like Punk Rock a lot more than I do jazz, the parts that I enjoy speak to me in ways jazz does not; it's just how I'm wired.

But I'm not going to let my personal tastes influence my critical thinking; I'm not going to try to convince you that The Sex Pistols produce material that's the same calibre as Rachmaninov just because I like their songs. That's silly.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
KlavierBauer
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Al, I understand the point you are making, but it is still too simplistic a view. Many operas follow the most rudimentary of compositional rules, and were created by talentless hacks. It was the popular entertainment of its time, and so for every Zauber Flüte there are 5 horrendous 3 hour exercise in 100 level music theory. To take what WuTang does with zero theory and/or compositional knowledge, or what Fagan/Becker do with lots of theory and say its less important qualitatively than every opera misses the point of both completely. It's apples and oranges.
Opera is better than rap.
At what? Exploring melody? In general yes. Exploring rhythm? In general no. Utilizing compositional structure to create specific moods/imagery? Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
More technically difficult? Sure, vocally it is without a doubt. And so what?
I love virtuosic performers. I love watching Stewart Copeland with the police. I love Tony Levin. Obviously I love Dream Theater and Rush. I love Volodos, Kissin, and Periah. But that's not all of music. Rock and classical both have their share of performers who have put in their practice time. Some are amazing (Beck, Clapton, Peart, Kissin), and some are horrible (sting early on, Starr, Helfgott).
Lots of different types of music focus on lots of different things. Technical difficulty and complexity can't be the only measures, or much of classical disappears with all of the dreaded rap.

Of course some is better and some is worse. At what, is the question.
"I realize you want him to touch you all over and give you babies, but his handling of the PR side really did screw the pooch." - Ivory Thumper
"He said sleepily: "Don't worry mom, my dick is like hot logs in the morning." - Apple

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Quote:
 
Al, I understand the point you are making, but it is still too simplistic a view.


I already said that I made my examples extreme for the point of clarity, and that not only are the categories not fixed and clear-cut, but that people's personal tastes cross over these boundaries all the time. When we start discussing jazz vs. Rock the debate gets even more muddled with pedantry and personal bias, which is what I'm trying to avoid by sticking to what should be obvious contrasts.

Quote:
 

Many operas follow the most rudimentary of compositional rules, and were created by talentless hacks.


You're getting into the details of the example, which isn't my point at all. I'm not trying to talk about rap music vs. Opera, my point is about highbrow and lowbrow musical aesthetics, for lack of better terms. If you want, we can change the examples to Tristan & Isolde vs. some guy's bucket band, the point is the same.

Quote:
 

Lots of different types of music focus on lots of different things. Technical difficulty and complexity can't be the only measures, or much of classical disappears with all of the dreaded rap.


That's right, and the parameters change as you compare different forms. But again, my point is about quality, the thought and work that goes into a performance in the most general terms. I'm saying that more goes into some works compared to others, regardless of their differences or inherent qualities. That there's such a thing as highbrow vs. lowbrow aesthetics and that they have nothing to do with personal taste, enjoyment, or skill in whatever makes up the composition.

That these measures are hard to quantify is precisely why rock vs. jazz debates exist, but denying they exist is ridiculous.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
KlavierBauer
Dec 6 2011, 12:15 AM
Some are amazing (Beck, Clapton, Peart, Kissin), and some are horrible (sting early on, Starr, Helfgott).
You've hit on a pet peeve of mine. [First off, you seriously lump Sting and Ringo in with the mentally ill?] To pick Peart as amazing and Starr as horrible is to assume that what makes someone a great musician is his chops. Nonsense. This is the epitome of missing the forest for the trees. Neil Peart follows in the path of the drummer I consider the single most overrated in rock and roll, namely, Ginger Baker. If Ziljian makes it, these guys have to own it, and they don't want any of that money to go to waste, so they've got to hit each toy at least once during their interminable drum solos and their obnoxious "look at me! look at me!" playing during every song. This is a good rock drummer?! Wrong. A good rock drummer is someone who keeps time and plays the song. Here's a surprise: Ringo is the greatest rock drummer. Let that sink in for a moment. If you don't believe it, ask any accomplished rock drummer what he thinks. Everybody I know can "play rings around Ringo", including Peart. (There's even been a lot made of Lennon's sarcastic comment that Ringo wasn't even the best drummer in the band. Yeah? You want to hear the worst drumming on a Beatles record? Listen to the drum track on Back in the USSR, when Paul offers a comparison confirming Ringo's greatness.) But Ringo made the Beatles' songs better with his playing. You don't think John and Paul could have had any drummer they wanted? Did they dump Ringo for Ginger "Garbage Can" Baker? They took and hung onto the guy that helped make them the best band in the world. And Sting? I can't imagine what you have in mind there. Love him or hate him, his singing is amazing from the first Police record to the last, and his bass playing was never less than excellent -- again, what the songs needed.

I understand that Ringo was extremely lucky having the two best singer-songwriters of the era writing and singing the songs he was playing. But they knew what they had as well: a guy who drove songs when necessary but always added to the feel of the songs and let them breathe. That is the essential difference between the Chopsy Magoos and the musicians. [gratuitous snark/]Though I'm sure Ringo would have bombed if he'd played in Rush. There's nothing to be done with a lead singer who sounds like Margaret Hamilton.[/gratuitous snark]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Thank you, Dave. Good post.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
Dave Spelvin
Dec 6 2011, 04:50 AM
so they've got to hit each toy at least once during their interminable drum solos and their obnoxious "look at me! look at me!" playing during every song. This is a good rock drummer?! Wrong. A good rock drummer is someone who keeps time and plays the song.
DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!! We have a winner. Ringo Starr, Charlie Watts, John Bonham. Play the song, not the solo. Although Baker was well matched up with Jack Bruce's godawful bass playing. Clapton was lucky to ever have been heard above the din.

You want virtuosity? Buddy Rich ran rings around every rock drummer I have ever seen in that respect. He could do the solo thing as fast or faster than anyone else, but could also control the touch exquisitely so you could see him wailing but the sound was soooo quiet he was actually hitting so softly. Only drum solo I ever liked.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
I have made more than one person shake their heads in disbelief echoing Dave's opinion of Ringo Starr. None of them were musicians, however.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
kenny
Dec 5 2011, 11:28 PM
I'm not saying all music is equal.
Rather, all people are equal so IMHO each person's musical taste carries equal weight.

I do not agree that a person who graduated from the highest-ranking music conservatory with the highest grades is more qualified to state which music is better or best.
I do not feel anyone can state unequivocally which music is better or best, which seems to be what some in this thread are claiming.

IMHO, there can be no absolute measurement of music's 'goodness' that is independent of listener's taste any more then there can be an indisputable ranking of the best ice cream flavor.

This, "I know good music when I hear it" is sheer arrogance.
You can only say, "I know music that sounds good to me, or that I like, when I hear it."
By that argument, expressing any opinion about music, even the one that 'everyone's opinions are equally valid' is also arrogant.

I kind of take your point, though. The Wynton Marsalis attitude that anything with a rock beat is less valuable than his own very narrow definition of jazz is supremely arrogant, and sounds a lot like a 17 year old talking about music (there I go, being arrogant about 17 year olds). The danger for me is that saying everybody's opinion is equally valid falls apart. You really think that Mozart's opinions of musical taste should carry no more weight than Milli Vanilli?
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mikhailoh
Member Avatar
If you want trouble, find yourself a redhead
What's wrong with arrogance? It is in the eye of the beholder. Simple confidence can often be mistaken for arrogance by those who lack confidence.
Once in his life, every man is entitled to fall madly in love with a gorgeous redhead - Lucille Ball
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
My boss thinks I am arrogant. Of course, he is arrogant to think he is my boss.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
John D'Oh
Member Avatar
MAMIL
Dave Spelvin
Dec 6 2011, 04:50 AM
There's nothing to be done with a lead singer who sounds like Margaret Hamilton.[/gratuitous snark]
:lol:

Rush is one of those bands where everybody can see what great instrumentalists they are. Personally, I wouldn't listen to it if you paid me.

Funnily enough, people made the same kind of comments about a very young Miles Davis as they did about Ringo - what the hell was Charlie Parker thinking when he picked that guy? Based on what happened over the next 30 years, I'd say that some people are way better than others at knowing good musicians when they hear them.
What do you mean "we", have you got a mouse in your pocket?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dave Spelvin
Member Avatar
Fulla-Carp
John D'Oh
Dec 6 2011, 05:20 AM
Dave Spelvin
Dec 6 2011, 04:50 AM
There's nothing to be done with a lead singer who sounds like Margaret Hamilton.[/gratuitous snark]
:lol:

Rush is one of those bands where everybody can see what great instrumentalists they are. Personally, I wouldn't listen to it if you paid me.

Funnily enough, people made the same kind of comments about a very young Miles Davis as they did about Ringo - what the hell was Charlie Parker thinking when he picked that guy? Based on what happened over the next 30 years, I'd say that some people are way better than others at knowing good musicians when they hear them.
I was thinking about Miles as one of the best examples. I'd also go with late Billie Holiday, who can barely croak a note but gives me shivers every time I hear her. How about Alfred Cortot, who sometimes misses more notes than he makes but moves me with the strength and intensity of his convictions. Music is life or death for that guy and it shows in every performance. How about Chet Baker's singing? He sucks technically by every measure, except that the son of a bitch communicates something more than his own insecurities and ambition. It's easier, I think, to sit in a practice room and round every corner than it is to expose oneself in the service of music. Some use their technique as a shield and will never be great because of it.
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply