Need advice quick

General music discussion.
Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Heston »

oliver wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 9:00am
Heston wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:19pm
Beatbox. That Coronation St theme has a history of sightings
Due to the Jimi Hendrix version in 'Third Stone from the Sun' :)
Yes, and "I'm Too Sexy" by Right Said Fred.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Heston
User avatar
God of Thunder...and Rock 'n Roll
Posts: 38356
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 4:07pm
Location: North of Watford Junction

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Heston »

Heston wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 9:04am
oliver wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 9:00am
Heston wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:19pm
Beatbox. That Coronation St theme has a history of sightings
Due to the Jimi Hendrix version in 'Third Stone from the Sun' :)
Yes, and "I'm Too Sexy" by Right Said Fred.
Not forgetting "Dance With the Devil" by Cozy Powell.
There's a tiny, tiny hopeful part of me that says you guys are running a Kaufmanesque long con on the board

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Kory »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:08pm
Kory wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 7:48pm
I guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
Again, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.
Could you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115976
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Kory wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 12:30pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:08pm
Kory wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 7:48pm
I guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
Again, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.
Could you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.
I can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Kory
User avatar
Unknown Immortal
Posts: 17319
Joined: 17 Jun 2008, 1:42pm
Location: In the Discosphere

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Kory »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 1:39pm
Kory wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 12:30pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:08pm
Kory wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 7:48pm
I guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
Again, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.
Could you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.
I can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.
Jeez, it makes me sound like a jerk. Could you send the article? It looks interesting.
"Suck our Earth dick, Martians!" —Doc

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115976
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Dr. Medulla »

Kory wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 2:01pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 1:39pm
Kory wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 12:30pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:08pm
Kory wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 7:48pm
I guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
Again, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.
Could you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.
I can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.
Jeez, it makes me sound like a jerk. Could you send the article? It looks interesting.
It's often employed in a jerkish manner by "real fans" and rock critics, but it's something most of us subscribe to in some manner, as much as punk and alternative fans are skeptical of mass entertainment on some level and privilege that individual artistry perspective. But it is ideology and it comes from a particular Western intellectual tradition that favours the individual over the group. Anyway, I'll pm you the link.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: Need advice quick

Post by 101Walterton »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 1:39pm
Kory wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 12:30pm
Dr. Medulla wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 8:08pm
Kory wrote:
02 Oct 2018, 7:48pm
I guess I was just really asking where you draw the line? For example, this band has written a new song that sounds very much as though the Cure circa "Boys Don't Cry" wrote a new song. Is that too much? It seems so blatant to me, but maybe I'm being a sourpuss. Being derivative has always been a downer in my mind, but maybe it's not a big deal. It just always seems like one of those major criticisms of shallow bands.
Again, you seem to be working the rock vs. pop criticism here. That's not illegitimate, but it is ideological and therefore something to argue about. It's legit for the others to work the homage angle pretty thick just as it's legit for you to be averse to sounding too familiar. Put another way, some people like the familiar because it has therapeutic value; others want something more shocking and unknown. It's the Romantic vs. Modern brawl.
Could you explain more about the rock vs. pop angle? Is pop inherently derivative? I'd like less "homage" in both genres, if possible, but it happens in both to a high degree, and I don't think I'd call a derivative rock band pop for that reason alone.
I can send you an article that covers matters in a lot greater detail, but the very outline goes something like this. In the mid-60s, rock n roll lost the roll but gained a developing ideological framework and became rock. Rock n roll was consigned to being pop—fun, dance-y, for teenagers, unserious and unoriginal, explicitly meant to sell lots of records. Rock and rockism, however, borrowed a lot from folk, which was to be serious, for the young but not immature, to appeal to the mind, and, in a nod to modernism, an expression of the individual artist, especially his/her struggle against society. Rock was authentic and art; pop was inauthentic and commodity. But it was still fine if rock sold as many copies as pop—that actually was validation that it could appeal to so many serious people—as it was understood that success was on the artist's terms, not the audience's (that was for pop). The rock/pop division also tended to break in predictable demographic ways, given that the rules were devised by white males. So, rock was for men, pop was for women; rock was white people, pop was for black people. Rockism is pretty much dead now, tho it still ends up in modified form in punk and indie discourse. So anything that is overly derivative falls under pop because it's insufficiently original. It's why rockism sneers at cover versions—the musicians are just doing someone else's art. A band might "sound" like rock but would still be basically pop if it made no effort at originality, if its entire aim was to be crowd-pleasing and fun. It's pop if the musician identifies with the audience; it's rock if the musician demands a gap with the audience to assure authentic expression. There's a whole lot more and in much more nuance, but that's the gist of it.
Thanks that actually makes sense.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115976
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Dr. Medulla »

101Walterton wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 2:56pm
Thanks that actually makes sense.
It's all part of my work of ruining listening to music for young people!
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

101Walterton
User avatar
The Best
Posts: 21973
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 5:36pm
Location: Volcanic Rock In The Pacific

Re: Need advice quick

Post by 101Walterton »

Dr. Medulla wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 3:09pm
101Walterton wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 2:56pm
Thanks that actually makes sense.
It's all part of my work of ruining listening to music for young people!
That is a whole other topic the disposable generation. Music only for a very short lifespan as it’s audience has the attention span of a goldfish. Kids can’t even buy an album they just download the tracks they have heard and like. I can think of quite a few albums I invested hard earn £4 buying and wasn’t that keen on to start with but could not afford to dismiss after 1 or 2 listens. After time I grew to love them.
Wouldn’t happen now.

Dr. Medulla
User avatar
Atheistic Epileptic
Posts: 115976
Joined: 15 Jun 2008, 2:00pm
Location: Straight Banana, Idaho

Re: Need advice quick

Post by Dr. Medulla »

101Walterton wrote:
03 Oct 2018, 3:45pm
That is a whole other topic the disposable generation. Music only for a very short lifespan as it’s audience has the attention span of a goldfish. Kids can’t even buy an album they just download the tracks they have heard and like. I can think of quite a few albums I invested hard earn £4 buying and wasn’t that keen on to start with but could not afford to dismiss after 1 or 2 listens. After time I grew to love them.
Wouldn’t happen now.
The funny thing, tho, is that that ends up being closer to a pre-rock attitude. Rock privileges the album—it's supposedly more serious/mature and contains so much thought and expression that it needs more room. The single is the pop medium—three minutes and there you go, disposable, short-attention span and all that. Until Dylan and mid-period Beatles, rock n roll albums were largely compilations of singles, bundled up for convenience rather than artistry. So the return to privileging the single could be seen as pop overcoming rock's dominance after so many decades.
"I never doubted myself for a minute for I knew that my monkey-strong bowels were girded with strength, like the loins of a dragon ribboned with fat and the opulence of buffalo dung." - Richard Nixon, Checkers Speech, abandoned early draft

Post Reply