I think whether I like to listen to u2 or Jimi Hendrix depends on what mood I’m in. One of my favourite rock songs of all time is “let me stand next to your fire”. The performance of the band in that recording is really amazing.
here’s a great example of the problem i see here. these two statements made by space seem to be two different things. on one hand he’s saying it depends on his mood as to whether or not he likes something. i agree with that whole heartedly. in fact the kind of music everyone listens to and enjoys has to do with all sorts of personal factors. space then goes on to talk about the amazing performance of jimi and his experience on the track “fire”. this is now moving into the realm of something actually being undeniably musically good as opposed to what you happen to like or feel like listening to. when joel doesn’t feel like listening to hendrix does it then mean that “fire” is any less of a great performance?
my stance is that there is a world where space’s two statements are seperate and that in this world people can stand back and measure the artistic greatness of something without getting bogged down with personal preference. i believe this world is difficult to live in because it makes us uncomftorable to admit that things we enjoy might not be in the best form. not only that but it’s much easier to live in the other world, just listening to what’s on the radio, trusting corporate clear channel to set our playlists, and believing that just because it’s happening right now that it’s artistically relevant. no offense to grant here, but when you start arguing for the artistic validity of a band based on things like “invisible skill” it shows how strong the urge is to try and combine these two worlds even to the point of silliness.
a local radio station has been playing nothing but U2 all weekend and i’ve been listening. some of their live performances were quite spirited and i was occasionally surprised by the edge’s moments of prowess, but i must say in the world of an un-hyped, leveled musical playing field bono and co. remain mediocre to my ears.
I’m currious about whether the classic rock dudes like Tom Morello, guitarist for Rage against the machine. He is extremely fast and perfect technically but plays simple riffs and wild solos that are usualy more about the sounds.
i have always enjoyed tom morello’s playing and admired his ability to make his guitar roar with anger and remain very controlled. i especially love the funky feedback tweeks that have seemed to become his trademark. “mic check” off of “the battle of LA” is probably my fav. i must say i enjoy that stuff more than his hyper note-filled solos from their debut, but it’s assuring to know that he knows how it’s done. it’s funny that you would have brought him up now since his new band “audioslave” has really started to suck it up ever since they decided to become a crappy U2 knock-off.
Also, what do classic rock dudes think of Hip hop? Not too many notes going on there.
i really despise this musical form. perhaps one day it will evolve into something worthwhile, but for now it seems to be one big never ending crap factory with each subsequent artist being worse than the one before.
that being said i would never deny that it’s very cool and i’m sure it’s good fun in a club or to turn up really loud in a car. when listening to certain artists such as the roots and the beastie boys it’s obvious that the funk is still there. i just don’t see hip hop becoming valid until the MC’s get together with some real musicians, kill all the producers, and bring that funk front and center. of course then people would say it wasn’t hip hop anymore, but “urban rock” or some bullshit like that.
lopez
Apr 29 2005
10:41 pm
here’s a great example of the problem i see here. these two statements made by space seem to be two different things. on one hand he’s saying it depends on his mood as to whether or not he likes something. i agree with that whole heartedly. in fact the kind of music everyone listens to and enjoys has to do with all sorts of personal factors. space then goes on to talk about the amazing performance of jimi and his experience on the track “fire”. this is now moving into the realm of something actually being undeniably musically good as opposed to what you happen to like or feel like listening to. when joel doesn’t feel like listening to hendrix does it then mean that “fire” is any less of a great performance?
my stance is that there is a world where space’s two statements are seperate and that in this world people can stand back and measure the artistic greatness of something without getting bogged down with personal preference. i believe this world is difficult to live in because it makes us uncomftorable to admit that things we enjoy might not be in the best form. not only that but it’s much easier to live in the other world, just listening to what’s on the radio, trusting corporate clear channel to set our playlists, and believing that just because it’s happening right now that it’s artistically relevant. no offense to grant here, but when you start arguing for the artistic validity of a band based on things like “invisible skill” it shows how strong the urge is to try and combine these two worlds even to the point of silliness.
a local radio station has been playing nothing but U2 all weekend and i’ve been listening. some of their live performances were quite spirited and i was occasionally surprised by the edge’s moments of prowess, but i must say in the world of an un-hyped, leveled musical playing field bono and co. remain mediocre to my ears.
i have always enjoyed tom morello’s playing and admired his ability to make his guitar roar with anger and remain very controlled. i especially love the funky feedback tweeks that have seemed to become his trademark. “mic check” off of “the battle of LA” is probably my fav. i must say i enjoy that stuff more than his hyper note-filled solos from their debut, but it’s assuring to know that he knows how it’s done. it’s funny that you would have brought him up now since his new band “audioslave” has really started to suck it up ever since they decided to become a crappy U2 knock-off.
i really despise this musical form. perhaps one day it will evolve into something worthwhile, but for now it seems to be one big never ending crap factory with each subsequent artist being worse than the one before.
that being said i would never deny that it’s very cool and i’m sure it’s good fun in a club or to turn up really loud in a car. when listening to certain artists such as the roots and the beastie boys it’s obvious that the funk is still there. i just don’t see hip hop becoming valid until the MC’s get together with some real musicians, kill all the producers, and bring that funk front and center. of course then people would say it wasn’t hip hop anymore, but “urban rock” or some bullshit like that.