#46
|
|||
|
|||
Not really, I'm afraid!
Quote:
But seriously, sounds like metal is not your thing otherwise you wouldn't talk about it like this which is totally fine BTW But please I'm not generally a fan of arguments if you're one. One of a lot of things I love about music is that it ain't a competition! And I certainly wouldn't argue with someone who did help me a great deal, not about some personal tastes we might not share anyway. When I actually chat with a person with great knowledge like yours (musical knowledge in this case) I'd rather prefer to listen and learn. So I'd have to say sorry if my words sounded like I was forcing my opinion on you. That was not the intention. I just stated my own perspective on metal music just like you did first. That's it! you don't have to agree with me! Simple as that. Plus you seem pretty sure about it and everything about music is so crystal clear to you which is just fantastic, and would seem metal is no exception, so why would you care so much about my opinion anyway? Quote:
The early heavy metal bands would sound a lot like hard rock bands, granted. They shaped up the whole genre though I gotta say. But since then, "metal" evolved a lot over time to become the rich broad genre it is today. However, cant say the same thing IMHO about "rock", would say it pretty much settled into that popular conservative formula you talked about. Though there would be exceptions of course. NOT that all of metal is that great, sure, but then I don't like all jazz for example. But the complexities of some metal subgenres like say symphonic heavy metal, neoclassical heavy metal... might make metal closer to classical than rock! Obviously can't speak like you when it comes to the theory part so I'd have to stop here, I guess Quote:
My reply was like.. jazz is a broad genre so you might have not listened to enough jazz, but you know what the best part is, you don't have to! I'd hate to tell a person with musical knowledge and experience like yours that it's pretty much the same answer I could give to your question. And at the risk of stating the obvious.. Heavy metal found me, jazz found me, Brazilian music found me..etc. it wasn't the other way around. You love it first then you try and rationalize your love. Last edited by NewGuitarist; 04-28-2015 at 10:20 PM. |
#47
|
||||
|
||||
Not at all!
Quote:
Black people are not excluded from playing rock (the way they used to be excluded from many white pursuits once upon a time), and rock musicians generally worship black musicians. Rock wouldn't exist if it wasn't for African-American music. But black musicians tend to choose not to play rock - maybe they think they have better things to do. Jimi Hendrix is the most obvious exception obviously, but how many others can you name. Any more than 10? More than 5? Even if you can name more than 10, you'd probably be getting beyond a 1000 before you ran out of white rock musicians you could name. No sense in pretending not to notice that, out of some misguided "political correctness" instinct. You could (almost) say the reverse about blues and jazz. Clearly they are African-American musical forms in origin - invented solely by black musicians, and developed largely by black musicians. Of course, over the last few decades, white jazz and blues musicians are now at least as plentiful (and as inventive) as black ones, while rock still doesn't attract huge numbers of black musicians. One could draw racist conclusions from that, if one was a racist. But of course we're not, right? There must be other explanations - and they certainly spring from racial segregation in the US, and the 2nd-class nature of black citizenship. IOW, racism is involved, but of an institutional and historical kind. Commercial recording companies always attempted to segregate white and black music (calling the latter "race" and later "R&B"), believing - probably correctly - that was the best way to sell it, bowing to existing socio-political sensitivities. But musicians were much more willing to mix, and often played together when they could, and influenced each other. (Eddie Lang playing with Bessie Smith and Lonnie Johnson, Jimmie Rodgers playing blues, Benny Goodman hiring Charlie Christian - all before WWII.) Very generally speaking, we could say that black musicians regard (or have in the past regarded) their music as a source of cultural pride, an expression both of their condition (historical and present) and their aspirations. They are therefore very possessive of it. And - despite the mixing that occurred from early on - naturally resented white musicians "stealing" their music. (Because of course it was much easier for white musicians to make money, and easy to hide any black sources they drew on, even when they didn't really intend to.) White musicians, in contrast - at least young ones - don't find much in white musical heritage to excite them or identify with. Classical music? Stuffy, dusty, too complicated, too old.... Folk music? Too archaic, too irrelevant, too insipid. Country music? Too cheesy, too commercial. In contrast, black music- forged in the heat of oppression, with a direct link back to a vibrant African heritage - now that's exciting! Especially if you are a male adolescent with a strong sense of your own struggles against "The Man". You want a music with energy and grit. Roll over Beethoven, tell Tchaikovsky the news.... Quote:
But - equally - I can understand you don't want to subject your favourites to what you expect might be some kind of withering criticism from me... (I always find it leaves an unpleasant taste in the mouth when I adversely criticise music - like I did with the first two Fairuz tracks you posted. I should try to remember my Duke quote below....) In short, personal taste is what it is. No sense in arguing about musical quality or value. Quote:
Quote:
Duke got it right. It's about always being open to new sounds, and trying to evaluate them without prejudice. Trying not to fall into ruts. I think what Duke meant about "liking bad music" is that there is really no such thing. Music exists because people like it. Music you hate will be music someone somewhere likes, or it wouldn't be there. And if some people like it - and those people are almost certainly not stupid or insane! - then there must be value in it, that is worth trying to understand. One doesn't have to be a fan of everything, believing everything is equally great. But music is really like what Woody Allen said about sex (words to this effect): even when it's bad, it's pretty good! (And quite possibly, that's how Duke was thinking too: using the word "bad" in its slang sense, meaning especially good! ) The only kind of music that it's OK to dislike is music that is badly played, at least where the musicians themselves (eg beginners) know that it's badly played. Everyone knows it's not supposed to sound like that, so it's OK to turn your nose up (or - more effectively! - put your fingers in your ears). We can still accept it, because we hope it will improve with more practice! Otherwise, when you hear music that is well played - i.e., that IS supposed to sound like that - but you still can't stand the sound of it (however hard you try), the sensible thing is say nothing and turn it off or leave the venue. (Other points all taken )
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. Last edited by JonPR; 04-29-2015 at 04:48 AM. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
I presume it's still "commercial" from an Arabic perspective - it's certainly slick and well-produced - but that's no sin! I'd still like it "grittier and more vibrant", but that's just me .
__________________
"There is a crack in everything. That's how the light gets in." - Leonard Cohen. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
Gallagher D71 Special Gibson Nashville Custom 2013 1963 ES-335 Ibanez Vintage OM |