[atsonicpark]

Eh, if that's the case, JLIAT has everyone beat!

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Yeah, Mattin's interesting but I've never really seen anything particularly forward looking when it came to Drunkdriver. If you're talking about some kind of collaboration between the two though, then fair enough. I've not heard it so I can't comment.

They collaborated both on record and live.

[demonrail666]

OK, cool. I'll try and check it out.

Incidentally, have either of them got anything to do with the band Homostupids?

[Glice]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Even in terms of Rock, an album like Loveless is far less innovative than I think it's generally credited with. What that album marks is a sense of opening up parameters within an already myopic 'back to basics' Punk idea of what Rock is: (simple chord structures, standard drum patterns, etc) but certainly can't compare, in terms of innovation with the plethora of albums released in the late 60s-early 70s by bands such as Soft Machine or Yes (and obviously Beefheart) all of whom strike me as having a for more expansive attitude towards what Rock could be. I'd certainly say that, compared with those, Loveless closes Rock down far more than it opens it up. I'd even go so far as to say that, in terms of the Valentine's peers, an album like The Butthole Surfers Locust Abortion Technician was infinitely more innovative than Loveless - which I still can't see as anything more than a decent welding together of Dinosaur Jr riffs with Cocteau Twins textures and Beach Boys harmonies. Fortunately, innovation is one of the factors furthest from my mind when I listen to Rock.

Soft Machine are a really good example - I think their intimacy with jazz and their sense of the preposterous makes for more 'progressive' music than much of prog music proper.

Interesting you mention the Cocteaus there - I was going to say before that where rock is capable of being interesting is on a lyrical level. I love the Fall, but they're hardly pushing music too far forward. Lyrically though (and this mightn't apply to their later stuff) there's some really fascinating ideas. With the Cocteaus I find it really fascinating how they created this language-myth around what sounds to me like prosody. That's clever, to my mind.

Also, while I'm not a fan myself, I know a lot of people who see the Cardiacs in the kind of terms we're talking of here.

And finally, I really can't hear it in Drunkdriver either. Mattin is sometimes interesting, but rarely for his music.

[atsonicpark]

I think Autechre pushed things forward Con/Draft/Untitled era, they're kinda stuck in a rut though now (that doesn't mean their music is bad though; they're just not innovating like they used to, but how many times can they be expected to do that?). I think they're one of the few electronic artists who you can identify within like 2 seconds of hearing one of their songs. That in itself seems like a pretty big innovation; electronic music is usually kinda faceless, and their music definitely isn't friendly, comforting, and welcoming. I think Untilted is definitely such a breakthrough record, the way things repeat endlessly but if you pay close attention they're actually never repeating. There's always some little microsound changing. Brilliant.

Scoff if you want, but I think Shellac ... well, they're not young, but I think they definitely have tried to push things forward a bit. When I listen to them, I hear some grumpy talented middle aged men who are very bored with rock music. Minimal power trio. But I mean, no one sounds like them. They get lumped with "math rock" but actually their music is really simple, when focusing on just riffs or whatever. The structures though, are pretty odd. Like on that last album, on the song with the drum solo... no, not a drum SOLO, just the drums playing the main beat solo for a good minute. Everything drops out except this beat going on and on. I find their approach to songwriting satisfyingly lazy, tight, ridiculous, obvious, intelligent, bizarre, and right-on. Obviously, they've been doing this band for 20 years now so they've repeated themselves quite a bit, but I think there's lots of cool little ideas in there. I'm sure most bands would just hear them and go, "Oh, Steve sounds like he's playing a paper shredder! I wanna do thaT!" But there's really a lot of neat little things in most of their songs, if you pay attention.

I thought Phantom Limbs were pretty radical there for a while, I liked the idea of circus goth noise punk, they had a really cool sound. Lots of those bands. Don Salsa, Idiot Flesh, Sleepy Time Guerilla Museum, they all strived to do something different with music. I think all that music is a bit too demanding, with little rewards. Most of those bands only have a few albums, they toured relentlessly and died quietly.

I think Kayo Dot are genuinely striving to do something different, but I dunno if it works all the time. I like their idea of trying to create meaningful climaxes without crescendos, rhythm/time changes, or obvious chord changes and such. They're making this floaty drifty music that still gets lumped in with metal. It seems like they're definitely going for something. I dunno if they'll get there, but it's commendable.

I dunno.

[Glice]

It's interesting you say about Kayo Dot genuinely striving - I know very few musicians who wouldn't like ot think they're pushing things forward. I saw the world's most anodyne metal band a few weeks ago, and chatting to them afterwards you'd think they'd invented some space-ages ears for their radically new and exciting music. Rock musicians are inherently narcissists: discuss.

[atsonicpark]

Toby from Kayo Dot seems pretty down to earth. I mean, he's actually made tons of albums, for 20 years now, alienated his bands who have all quit on him at various points, I think he's very driven by a very specific sound, and I think he's good to the people who recognize that.

http://www.sputnikmusic.com/feature.php?id=5615

This is a really good interview.

But, yeah, rock musicians as narcissists.. well, really, any musician who puts their music out there, wants it to be heard, and I don't believe that most people do things without wanting something in return. I mean, if I give someone money, I at least want a "thank you", even if I don't expect them to pay me back, right? If a musician is putting it out there, they want to be recognized for something, otherwise they'd just make the songs and keep them for themselves.. or, hell, just never take the time to record them. Artists seek ... something. Recognition, fame, money; I think it's more important for littler bands to at least be recognized for talent, or innovation. They want a review to read, "THEY MAY NOT BE WELL KNOWN, BUT THEY HAVE SOME DOWNRIGHT CLEVER STRUCTURES. THAT HAND CLAPPED PART LEADS WAY TO A GHOSTLY SYNTH AND DELICATE TRIPLE VOCAL HARMONIES." I mean, we've all those moments as musicians where we think of some "brilliant" little part, and we want people to pick up on that, I think. I dunno. It just goes to question.. why play music? Why record it? Why take the time to layer parts, to add keys or to overdub or to re-do takes or listen back to what we played? We're all craving.. something.

[pbradley]

Thought I would get shit for my last few posts. Am I on ignore?

How many people here have heard a tune of mine? I know slavo was unable to do anything with one of my tracks.

[Genteel Death]

Glice - You make some good points, as usual. What I don't get is why you seem to apply academic theory to what is really just popular music, with a frankly very different way of evolving than the classical music you love. Personally I think Beefheart is indeed an important musician, but hardly one that didn't come out from a narrative of sort that the numerous experiments between rock, blues and jazz pointed at since the mid to late sixties. Also, good mention of The Soft Machine demonrail. I didn't say Drunkdriver are, or might care to be, an innovative band. Their work with Mattin, though, fuses two worlds that haven't met before, so that at least makes them different from any other hardcore band making music today.

[Genteel Death]

Another thing. Which rock bands, records, gigs are you referring to? Past and present. An extensive list would be helpful.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Glice - You make some good points, as usual. What I don't get is why you seem to apply academic theory to what is really just popular music, with a frankly very different way of evolving than the classical music you love. Personally I think Beefheart is indeed an important musician, but hardly one that didn't come out from a narrative of sort that the numerous experiments between rock, blues and jazz pointed at since the mid to late sixties. Also, good mention of The Soft Machine demonrail. I didn't say Drunkdriver are, or might care to be, an innovative band. Their work with Mattin, though, fuses two worlds that haven't met before, so that at least makes them different from any other hardcore band making music today.

I perhaps didn't make this clear - the thing with academic theory isn't that it belongs strictly to Western art music (which is a more useful term than 'classical music', albeit more cumbersome) but that it purports to offer a vernacular and language to describe all music. This maybe wasn't the case prior to the 20th-century and it's not quite a one-size-fits-all, but the general principle is that the vernacular you're calling 'academic theory' isn't loaded to solely describe 'classical' music, but that it's a way of describing music. You get a frission, as our musical horizons expand in the 20th-century, against other formalised systems - the main two I know about are the Maqams of Arabic states and the Indian 'raga' systems - but I don't believe it's somehow a reduction of the merit of anything to point out that some music has certain abiding forms. This is as true of, say, fugal counterpoint as it is of 3-chord-country.

I suppose the big difference for me is that popular music isn't somehow absolved of its formal structure. I don't think it's stretching the point to say that pop music didn't evolve in a vacuum, 'outside' of 'academic' music - it's only really with punk music that you get this idea of the auto-didactic musician, which is a good 50 years into pop's development. There are exceptions prior to then, but if you think of the early jazz bands (and even your Davises or Coltranes), most of them have some relationship with formal tuition, although not necessarily with the conservatoire-style tuition of your Oistrakhs and so on.

Even within the idea of the auto-didactic musician, there are plenty of people in 'classical' music who are entirely self-taught yet well considered - Takimitsu for instance.

So yeah. With all due respect, I don't think pop and classical music do have a different way of evolving. They still use the same language, the same instruments. I'm not saying that classical music is somehow better, or anything like that. I'd definitely say that one of the most important things that pop music has done is to introduce ideas surrounding tone production that go far beyond the timbral ideas of even Musique Concrete. This in two senses - first, the affect that amplification has on a tone, and second in the way that studio production offers a new palette for recordings. Loathe though I am to admit it, something like Sgt Peppers is a massively important record, if only in terms of studio craft.

I mean, it's worth bearing in mind that I've had no formal training and am entirely self-taught when it comes to matters musical. I'm happy to accept that you may think I'm talking out of my arse. I do think that popular music is capable of doing things that few have done before. My first thought was of Xenomania when I opened this thread, but I can't really be arsed to argue the case for them on this forum because I know most people here just have no time for that sort of thing.

[Glice]

Originally Posted by Genteel Death

Another thing. Which rock bands, records, gigs are you referring to? Past and present. An extensive list would be helpful.

Was this to me? Referring to where?

[Derek]

*typical kayo dot fan comment*

[Genteel Death]

Originally Posted by Glice

Was this to me? Referring to where?

Yes.
I will post a longer reply tomorrow. Why do you think classical musicians use the same instrumentation as pop musicians? That's not often the case.

[Glice]

It's the same family of instruments. It's hardly like pop music is using dulcimer, sarengi and didgeridoo. Same family, same language, same structures etc etc.

[atsonicpark]

After hearing your tape, I think you pushed something forward, Glice!

[Glice]

Pssh. Very kind of you to say. But still. Pssh.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by atsonicpark

After hearing your tape, I think you pushed something forward, Glice!

Wait until you hear his Happy Hardcore take on 'The Little Boy that Santa Claus Forgot".

[atsonicpark]

I made an electronic mix CD the other day and kinda wanted to send it to Glice but I figured he'd go "some of it was a bit shit and some of it represented the end of electronic music as we know it, a bit too much moog for my tastes and the flow from massive epic well-worn classics to slightly odd primitive 303 worshippers was jarring, often abrasive. Not a bad mix but not one I'd want to listen to again." or something like that.

[Glice]

Oh, send it along. You shouldn't worry about that kind of thing, talking shite is mostly keeping myself entertained.