That song was one of their earlier ones, and I've seen them (sort of) distance themselves from it now. A bit too obviously pop for their preferred direction.
I'm not sure I feel like I can say that yet, especially since they're still such a young band. "The Soldiering Life" and "Song for Myla Goldberg" from the next album are just as pop, if not as great, and "The Tain" would be an anomaly in anyone's career. (At least, I hope it is.)
I finally decided that it's what would happen if punk lost it's spine and started talking about it's feelings.
Pretty much. It's postpunk bands that write about two things: how sensitive they are, and how their ex-girlfriends are bitches.
(I still love Taking back Sunday, though. Sorry.)
decided that it's what would happen if punk lost it's spine and started talking about it's feelings.
Because...only invertebrates have feelings?
Damn those weepy squid!
Pretty much. It's postpunk bands that write about two things: how sensitive they are, and how their ex-girlfriends are bitches.
And not even remotely ironic about the contradiction this entails, right?
signed,
Tunes out emo before he ever gets to the lyrics.
And not even remotely ironic about the contradiction this entails, right?
Heh. I was being a wee bit sarcastic because I've never had much use for the term. But no, it is not music well-known for its engagement with the funny bone.
Most music that is not bad, sounds exactly like other music that is not bad. Of that music, only the best is worth listening to... Only music that does not sound like anything else and is not bad is worth loving.
I'm not sure what the first sentence means, but I don't think I agree with it. Taken in the broadest possible sense (music from all over the world and from any era to which we have access), no, all music that is not bad does not sound alike. Taken in a much more restricted sense there's still the giant problem of determining how to distinguish how alike two pieces of music must be to say that they sound "too" alike (I'm sidestepping the draconian "exactly"). By calling anything a genre you're saying that there are enough similarities to merit lumping this music/these performers together. And in certain genres the expectation is that a form will be fairly strictly adhered to, with the pleasure coming from some combination of expectations met and expectations tweaked. Too many expectations tweaked and the reaction is, "That's not real country/folk/blues/deathmetal/goth/serial/qawwali/whatever." Too few tweaked and it's, "That's just the same old same old. Perfectly executed and perfectly lifeless." Of course, perfect execution is what gets some people's rocks off, whereas others aren't worried about bum notes and delight in the music's spirit.
In theory the second sentence is fine, but in practice restricting oneself to "the best" means missing out on a lot of pleasure. And while pleasure may not be the only reason to listen to music it is really really important. A while back someone was talking about the Yes reunion concert on PBS. I saw some of it. I don't like Yes in general and Jon Anderson in particular, but I do like Steve Howe's playing and enjoyed listening to him for a bit before the rest of it got to be too much. Why deny myself that pleasure?
As for the conclusion, well... if you love something why worry if it's unique or if it's "not bad"? If it consistently gives you some kind of satisfaction (even the paradox of enjoying a really sad song -- Iris Dement can rip my heart out whenever she wants to) then it is good, regardless of whatever flaws it has. Both strengths and flaws are ultimately subjective. You can measure pitch or time or whatever, but I don't believe that greater objective control of those qualities (by which I mean quantifiable stuff like metronomic time or dynamic range or ability to hit a given note) is a de facto strength. Knowing what to do with the weapons in one's arsenal is a lot more important than the weapons themselves. Whitney or Mariah can bring out the big guns vocally but I'd rather hear Willie Nelson's wavering pitch, weird timbre and wonderful phrasing, informed by his decidedly non-metronomic approach. Your ear and my ear may hear the "same" thing, but what sticks out within that sound collage might drive you batty and delight me to no end.
What am I trying to say? I guess it's that I'm reluctant to subscribe to any grand theory of music (much less offer one) other than Ellington's dictum which Peter Schickele has adopted as his motto, "If it sounds good it is good." (Bonus Ellington via Schickele: "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that certain je ne sais quoi.") Re: that I found the following:
Julio Laredo wrote: "As much as I admire the music of Duke Ellington, and as much as I admire the scholarship and humor of Peter Schikele, who repeats the quote in every episode of his radio program, 'If it sounds good, it is good,' only leads to untenable conclusions. Such as the reverse of the statement: "If it sounds bad, it is bad." That means that it takes only one opinion to reduced anyone's else's most cherished and hightly thought of music and throw it in the trash."
Actually, the logical companion to "If it sounds good, it is good" is NOT "If it sounds bad, it is bad," but "If it is bad, it sounds bad."
In other words, so long as it sounds good, we can call it a good work. (continued...)
( continues...)
But just sounding bad does not necessarily make it a bad work. However, since all good-sounding works are good, if it is a bad work, it must sound bad, otherwise it would be good.
Make any sense? -- Neal Schermerhorn
ETA: Wow, auto-break! Cool. Youse tech guys never cease to amaze me.
Because...only invertebrates have feelings? Damn those weepy squid!
"Weepy Squid" could be an excellent emo band name!
Although people tell me Elliott Smith is supposed to be emo, and I like him just fine, poor dead bastard. I'll also cop to liking some stuff by the Get Up Kids and a few others. Death Cab for Cutie, however, I can take or leave.
Excellent post, joe. I'll note that one of the aims of the Lost in the Grooves is to get away from the concept of the 4-star masterpiece anyway. There are records I love with obvious flaws much more than records which I can recognize are "better" by most standards.
Kind of sorry we didn't do The Dreaming in the book, now.
Wait, The Dreaming is considered a "lost" album? I'm confused. Doesn't everyone own The Dreaming and Hounds of Love?
I think everyone owns Hounds of Love and The Whole Story. And maybe even The Sensual World.
Everybody, that is, that doesn't have the box set.
