Hot Take/ Musical Confession Thread!

Dtknuckles said:
I get your point, but I’d say the general population has a good grasp on the meanings of words, but struggle with understanding the circle of 5ths.
Click to expand...
It just so happens that this morning I was re-reading the beginning of chapter 8 of Formalized Music by Iannis Xenakis. (You can oogle up a PDF of it if you like.) I love how it explains that Pythagorean thinking (that things are numbers, or that things re furnished with numbers, or that things are similar to numbers) ended up dominating all modern thought. Although I suspect even Xenakis didn't see quite the scale of the digital revolution (the Shannon Revolution) already under way when he wrote it.

For another view, my friend Ken, who is an accomplished composer and a professor of music, tweeted this last month.

 
Ok here’s one. I was listening to Exile on Main St today (as prescribed by the 1001 albums generator) and while I don’t think The Rolling Stones are bad, it feels utterly random that they’re the band people have chosen to coronate as the kings of rock n roll. Like there’s a parallel universe where culturally we feel as strongly about Creedence or Mott the Hoople as we do about the Stones. It’s like the “Beatles vs Stones” debate (which, to me, revolves more around genre preference and one’s definition of “rock” than actual quality) generated the myth of parity when it comes to musical quality/influence.
 
Bull Shannon said:
Ok here’s one. I was listening to Exile on Main St today (as prescribed by the 1001 albums generator) and while I don’t think The Rolling Stones are bad, it feels utterly random that they’re the band people have chosen to coronate as the kings of rock n roll. Like there’s a parallel universe where culturally we feel as strongly about Creedence or Mott the Hoople as we do about the Stones. It’s like the “Beatles vs Stones” debate (which, to me, revolves more around genre preference and one’s definition of “rock” than actual quality) generated the myth of parity when it comes to musical quality/influence.
Click to expand...
Yeah, maybe I haven't listened to enough Rolling Stones, but Creedence is better IMHO.
 
I think the fact that CCR broke up after 4 years is why we don't think of them in the same way. Of all the bands listed, they're my favorite though.

I just watched a 12 minute documentary...sounds like they were the Oasis of the 70s. Warring brothers, lawsuits, etc.
 
Last edited:
Bull Shannon said:
Ok here’s one. I was listening to Exile on Main St today (as prescribed by the 1001 albums generator) and while I don’t think The Rolling Stones are bad, it feels utterly random that they’re the band people have chosen to coronate as the kings of rock n roll. Like there’s a parallel universe where culturally we feel as strongly about Creedence or Mott the Hoople as we do about the Stones. It’s like the “Beatles vs Stones” debate (which, to me, revolves more around genre preference and one’s definition of “rock” than actual quality) generated the myth of parity when it comes to musical quality/influence.
Click to expand...


Exile is a bloated mess though. Sticky Fingers though.

I like Creedence maybe I should listen to them more. Are they the Blue collar Stones? No decadence or pretense. and lived in the culture of all the music they play. Ugh put one of their albums on after I’m done with Earth Wind and Fire-I Am.
 
Bull Shannon said:
Ok here’s one. I was listening to Exile on Main St today (as prescribed by the 1001 albums generator) and while I don’t think The Rolling Stones are bad, it feels utterly random that they’re the band people have chosen to coronate as the kings of rock n roll. Like there’s a parallel universe where culturally we feel as strongly about Creedence or Mott the Hoople as we do about the Stones. It’s like the “Beatles vs Stones” debate (which, to me, revolves more around genre preference and one’s definition of “rock” than actual quality) generated the myth of parity when it comes to musical quality/influence.
Click to expand...
I love The Rolling Stones and listen to them way more than Creedence or Mott The Hoople. I think they’ve made some incredible albums and songs over their 50+ years together. I also think there longevity has something to do with that. Mott & Creedence, for example only created music for approximately a half decade each. The Stones wouldn’t have even gotten to Exile if they called it quits after 5 years.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Exile is a bloated mess though.
Click to expand...
One man’s bloated mess is another’s Rock perfected.

Nothing against Sticky Fingers or Let It Bleed but Exile is a certain brand of disheveled, dirty blues rock that has rarely been replicated especially by a bunch of wealthy English Rock Stars. The decadence to depravity ratio for this album is off the charts.
 
Bull Shannon said:
Ok here’s one. I was listening to Exile on Main St today (as prescribed by the 1001 albums generator) and while I don’t think The Rolling Stones are bad, it feels utterly random that they’re the band people have chosen to coronate as the kings of rock n roll. Like there’s a parallel universe where culturally we feel as strongly about Creedence or Mott the Hoople as we do about the Stones. It’s like the “Beatles vs Stones” debate (which, to me, revolves more around genre preference and one’s definition of “rock” than actual quality) generated the myth of parity when it comes to musical quality/influence.
Click to expand...
TenderLovingKiller® said:
One man’s bloated mess is another’s Rock perfected.

Nothing against Sticky Fingers or Let It Bleed but Exile is a certain brand of disheveled, dirty blues rock that has rarely been replicated especially by a bunch of wealthy English Rock Stars. The decadence to depravity ratio for this album is off the charts.
Click to expand...

For the record - I held this opinion before the recent documentary made Let It Be the Beatles record of the moment.

The "dirty blues rock" on Let It Be is better than anything the Stones can offer.
To paraphrase Paul: The Stones ain't going nothing over Let It Be, baby.

And, being arguably the biggest Black Crowes fan on the boards (maybe second to @Yer Ol' Uncle D), this is not a "genre preference" as much as it is the fact that even when dabbling in the moments where the Stones lived, the Beatles were superior.

The Fab Four could do what the Stones did, and do it better, where as the Stones could not reciprocate.
 
TenderLovingKiller® said:
LOL and Wow! You can have your Beatles records. Leave me The Beach Boys and The Rolling Stones.
Click to expand...

I’m just gunna sit here and love all 3 and laugh at some of the trash on here.

Also as to the other super elitist take that’s going around here the last few days, to use a metaphor, I don’t need to understand how to build and maintain an internal combustion engine to know what I like in car and describe it.
 
Joe Mac said:
Also as to the other super elitist take that’s going around here the last few days, to use a metaphor, I don’t need to understand how to build and maintain an internal combustion engine to know what I like in car and describ
Click to expand...

Super elitist? I’m just saying I would like more criticism to explain music. Not having really only touches the tip of the iceberg when it come a to music.
 
Dtknuckles said:
Super elitist? I’m just saying I would like more criticism to explain music. Not having really only touches the tip of the iceberg when it come a to music.
Click to expand...

What does it achieve? Does it help me decide whether or not I’m going to like something? How does it help get someone new and uninitiated into a price of music? How does it make discovering new music accessible to all?

I can perhaps understand it as a niche area, perhaps on the net in blog or in long form, for those who seek it but as a part of the mainstream? It will serve to alienate the uninitiated rather than open music to new ears.
 
Joe Mac said:
What does it achieve? Does it help me decide whether or not I’m going to like something? How does it help get someone new and uninitiated into a price of music? How does it make discovering new music accessible to all?

I can perhaps understand it as a niche area, perhaps on the net in blog or in long form, for those who seek it but as a part of the mainstream? It will serve to alienate the uninitiated rather than open music to new ears.
Click to expand...

There are many ways to appreciate music. This is one way that is often not explained. Why shouldn’t it be explored? Understanding this aspect of music could lead people to appreciate more types of music. Questions like, “these songs have the same chords but why do they sound wildly different.” Get people to think more deeply about music. Without discussing this we don’t even give people the chance to be interested in music at different levels.
 
Dtknuckles said:
There are many ways to appreciate music. This is one way that is often not explained. Why shouldn’t it be explored? Understanding this aspect of music could lead people to appreciate more types of music. Questions like, “these songs have the same chords but why do they sound wildly different.” Get people to think more deeply about music. Without discussing this we don’t even give people the chance to be interested in music at different levels.
Click to expand...

I don’t see how applicable it is in a mainstream context. Media criticism is limited by word count and attention span. It has to convey an appreciation or distaste to as many people as possible in that space and without loosing them. The amount of people with an understanding of music theory is limited. Hell the amount of popular musicians that can read music or delve deeper into music theory is proportionally quite low. I don’t see how that’s going to add to it. I can certainly see how a longer specialist piece in a blog or book might work and be easier to sell to that particular niche audience that would seek it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top