|   When the song ain't enough & the performers could be better | J
Apr 16, 2002 7:43 AM | | As I've had to explain to Troy, I'm never in favor of performers being weak for the sake of some faux indie/garage/punk ethic, I've always thought that was bulldinky. However, I seem to prefer music that happens to be made by people who might not be the best technical musicians, or <i>aren't</i> the best technical musicians. At some point you look at yr collection & you see that there's a common thread running through a lot of it--the players are not on the level of, uh, fill in the blank. But as a musician (though I hate defining myself with that term) I try not to let that sway my feeling that it's nice if great songwriting can be brought to wax by folks who actually have some ability. In other words, I don't go looking for music on the basis of it being made by 'low-fi darlings.' That's when you end up with something like Guided By Voices, & I always thought they blew.
I am not writing this post because of the discussions that took place yesterday. As it happens, I'm previewing some records I'm selling to a guy overseas who bought some of my records on Ebay, so I don't send him anything that skips. One of 'em was a rec I picked up about a year & a half ago & never got around to listening to--Great Plains' "Born In A Barn." It's a shame that I have to do this at the moment, because, aside from the comps I already got from Chip (Hoodoo Gurus & assorted blues), dbi (Favs of 2001 & RPM's B'day mix), Troy (Killer Drums), DLD (Joan Armatrading), WStan (Double Trouble) and someone else I'm probably leaving out, I got three big envelopes in the mail yesterday. I've managed to hear all the ones I mentioned at least once at this point, but of course not enough yet. So now I have Masonjar's Mercury Rev comp, a 2-CD prog sampler from Demetrio to go along with a comp of Brazilian music (salivating...no, not for the prog, though the 'new' disc looks better to my ears than the 'old' one--but I'll let you know, big D, & thanks!), and like 37 discs' worth of Smile boots from this lunatic we know named Brad...who also threw Yes' Relayer in the envelope (I've got yr address, buddy. Very funny...no, just kidding, I did ask for the thing after that masterful essay a few weeks ago). So though I should stick to the comps I haven't heard enough of yet, I am eager to check these new ones out too. But I'm listening to this Great Plains album. And you know what? It has on it what sounds like a collection of great great songs. But they're kinda RUINED for me because while the amateurishness of the playing itself isn't the worst thing in the world, the vocals are HORRIBLE. They're not <i>slightly</i> off key, they're in another zip code. And they sound like they're sung by a guy who thinks it's cool to sound like he's not trying at all. Hey, you guys know I listen to a lot of punk rock, and maybe some of you think or have thought that sounding like you don't care was supposed to be part of the point of the stuff, but that's something that I've always disputed. This guy sounds like he REALLY didn't care, and if there were ever a bunch of cool-sounding songs that could've sounded great with at least passable vocals...it's such an extreme that it actually angers me. Because it makes me foolish for arguing so strenuously that the performance isn't as important to me as the material. Well, I shouldn't go that far, because that's definitely true. However, this definitely crosses the line for me. Puh.
Then again, I've never said that a lack of ability is a marker for good music. I just don't like it when too much emphasis is placed on ability for ability's sake, because that's definitely not a marker for good music as far as I'm concerned. |
| Uh-oh, you got me started again | WStan
Apr 16, 2002 9:46 AM | | Well, I said I was going to wait a week before stirring up any more controversy, especially on this topic, but your post has prompted me to ask: how can you reconcile that post with your very high opinion of the Velvet Underground? The number one adjective that came to mind from the first to last of the half dozen listens I gave to your VU comp was "weak." The singing and musicianship I heard ranged from arrogantly sloppy to merely unimpressive. The songwriting featured minimal tunes that had no real "hook" and did not have clever or interesting transitions between the notes, nor appeared particularly complex or creative. It had a basic "downer" atmosphere but did not inspire any particular emotions other than that general, slightly depressed one. Sometimes it can be difficult to describe music and its effects on a person, but, as a connoisseur of fine ales (if there is a heaven and I make it there, it will feature an endless supply of Belgian ales), it impressed me that VU was the auditory equivalent of taking a 12-oz. can of Bud Light, pouring it into a 20-oz. glass, adding a few tablespoons of vinegar and topping the glass up with ice water.
Granted that I am not a musician and much of what people hear in music is subjective, but still, I cannot think of too many other groups that better fit your description of deliberately tentative music than the Velvet Underground. J, can you articulate for me why you don't feel the VU fits the description of the groups you mentioned? Or, is this simply the music equivalent of you liking licorice but I hate it, whereas I like coconut, but you don't like that taste?
It's interesting, these differences in musical tastes. We can differ on a group like the VU, yet think the same thing about Guided By Voices. I have a friend who is a big GBV fan who enthusiastically loaned me one of their CD's about five years ago. Despite wanting and expecting to like it, I eventually returned the disk, highly unimpressed. |
| J's gonna have a field day with this . . . . | Darius
Apr 16, 2002 10:21 AM | | I think Velvet Underground on their first three albums had one of the greatest and innovative guitar sounds in rock history (well, actually the sound by the third album was quite different from the first). That's just my opinion, but their sound was also among the most influential. Three arcehtypal songs in this regard are "I'm Waiting for the Man", "I Heard Her Call My Name" and "What Goes On". Waiting for the Man pioneered the on-the-beat style of playing, whereas most guitar strumming is played against the beat. This gave the song the unified pounding rythmic sound thst it's so famous for, and which is so effective with the subject matter. It raises an almost unbearable tension that is only released in the guitar solo at the end. "Call My Name" contains such an incendiary and extreme guitar solo. "What Goes On" from their third album contains the propulsive strumming sound with Lou and Sterling Morrison that became so influential on hundreds of alternative rock bands over the decades, it's a veritable blueprint.
I think it was Guitar Player magazine that had some article a few years about what they thought were the 25 most important guitar sounds in the history of rock. VU's first album was on there; no suprise to me but it may be to you. |
| Couldn't disagree more | J
Apr 16, 2002 10:22 AM | | Hey, if you don't like it, you don't like it. That's what makes horse racing, & honesty's always the best policy, or usually, anyway.
'I Can't Stand It' and 'Foggy Notion' immediately became two of my favorite r'n'r songs when I heard them 17 years ago. Both are prototypical punk rock with what I've always thought was a great guitar sound & a style of drumming that I've always loved. Especially on Foggy Notion, which sounds to me like Chuck Berry playing punk rock. Lou Reed's & Sterling Morrison's leads on these two are right up my alley, and the lyrics I always liked as sort of a commentary on urban existence.
The songs from the 1st album--I'm Waiting For The Man & Venus In Furs were completely ahead of its time; nobody was writing material like this in 1967, and that's true not only for the lyrical content but also the traces of dissonance in the music itself. Which work for me, since the songs aren't about the dissonance, it's just an ingredient. What exactly about Nico's singing is it you don't like? Her voice was nothing if not distinctive.
What Goes On & Beginning To See The Light are pretty similar musically to I Can't Stand It & Foggy Notion. Are you opposed to 3 chords over a 4/4 beat? Stephanie Says, Candy Says, Pale Blue Eyes, & Jesus are ballads that've always worked for me. I hear melody & changes that I rate very highly. The D-F#m-F-B change in Candy Says is particularly good to my ears (not to get too technical, sorry). No hooks? I have to disagree. I've always found these songs to be rather catchy.
I don't hear a 'downer' atmosphere on the rockers at all. Temptation Inside Your Heart doesn't sound like a downer, nor does We're Gonna Have A Real Good Time Together, to me. I've always thought they rocked.
But what puzzles me most is yr assessment of the musicianship. Arrogantly sloppy? Where do you hear slop? And what about it is unimpressive? I think that's a first for me, I honestly cannot recall anyone ever characterizing the musicianship on these records as being unimpressive. It makes no sense to me, because it's the furthest thing from what my ears perceive as the truth. And I've played these songs, a lot of 'em. Believe me, there's a reason why so many bands covered VU tunes.
Before I became alcohol intolerant I used to drink Chimay Grande Reserve whenever possible. I got into a discussion with this guy one night about beer & he preferred Samuel Smith & other British brews to anything from Belgium & wouldn't budge no matter what I said to try to convince him that Grande Reserve is the best ale in the world (which I still believe). He hadn't had that but suggested I try some of the other Belgian ales he'd had--other Chimay products, Orval, Duvel, Corsendonk, etc. So I did. Maybe I was spoiled by the Grande Reserve, but I was wholly unimpressed & found that certain Samuel Smith's products compared favorably. So I'd reject yr beer analogy. Budweiser, by the way, is not the watery garbage it was prior to six years ago. It's been 5% alcohol for quite some time.
I don't think this is a question of I like licorice vs. you like coconut. I truly don't get what you're hearing & not hearing in what to my ears are a supreme batch of tuneful ballads & great rock'n'roll songs. But, hey. I'll live. |
| Couldn't disagree more | WStan
Apr 16, 2002 12:42 PM | | I think the food analogy really is an apt one to explain music tastes, as we are listening to the same songs, are both capable of describing our observations in a detailed fashion and they are making totally different impressions on us. I can be a highly opinionated person, but I tend not to be so pigheaded that I let biases and preconceived notions completely cloud my judgment or prevent me from discovering new things that I would enjoy. Perhaps, with your greater knowledge of music of that period (and most other periods and, as a musician, of music in general), the group's innovations have made a more significant impression on you of their worth.
The guitar playing on your comp seemed to me to be very casual, lackadaisical and disinterested. I recall hearing no signs that the musicians particularly cared precisely how the music they were playing sounded. In fact, in addition to weak, "disinterested" is another adjective that would be high on my list of ones to describe the VU. I heard practically no passion in that music - it seemed almost disdainful of traditional sonic values - tunes, melodies, contrasts of various sorts - present in music of that time and that continue, perhaps less broadly, to this day. I think this general sort of lazy impression is why I attributed a depressed sound to their songs, even the several somewhat upbeat ones. This overall attitude I perceived from the music reminded me a bit of a friend of mine from college when he was stoned. He was a brilliant guy (scored 1580 on his SAT's) but gradually got into drugs, eventually failing out of college. Before he got heavily into drugs (and after his rehab), he was sharp, witty, interesting and passionate about many subjects; after he became a stoner, everything to him was "it's cool, man," he sat around getting high, listening to Marillion albums and reading science fiction novels and just didn't really care too much about himself, other people or anything else around him. Maybe this analogy is too personal to my own feelings and experiences, but perhaps if you have known people who have been chronic substance abusers, this may make some sense.
As for Nico, her singing was distinctive but didn't really do anything for me. The singing of the others was more of what I was referring to by the "arrogant" description.
I recall some months ago doubting that the Velvet Underground had much influence on anyone, and in retrospect, I think that opinion was made in ignorance. However, I think that many of groups that VU may have inspired fall into two categories: 1) groups, such as Roxy Music and the Violent Femmes, who took VU's non-traditional approach to rock and roll and added to it melodies and harmonies, passion and excitement that is lacking in the VU's music and made substantial improvements on it; and 2) groups who kept the same general sound and attitude of the VU and who are ones that I personally find uninteresting.
J, you made me think of something I haven't thought of in a while, but I concur generally with you on the Chimay Grand Reserve (I say "generally" because I'm also equally partial to Westmalle Triple and Roddenbach Grand Cru) and if I'm not mistaken, there is still a bottle of it hiding in the very back of my refrigerator that I brought back from Bruges two years ago. I bought a book entitled The Good Beer Guide To Belgium and Holland that increased the enjoyment I had on that trip to Holland and Belgium by at least 50%, with its thorough descriptions and accurate recommendations of beers and places to drink them. I like Samuel Smiths' beers very well, but I probably had two dozen different beers in Holland and Belgium that I liked better. I'm sorry to hear that you are no longer able to partake in these fine beverages, but at least you have music to fall back on, of the more pleasant vices.
In any event, I do thank you for sharing the comp with me. I would equate the experience |
| response part 2 | WStan
Apr 16, 2002 12:43 PM | | In any event, I do thank you for sharing the comp with me. I would equate the experience to reading Hemingway in high school - it wasn't particularly enjoyable for me but it was educational and a good experience. |
| Couldn't disagree more | J
Apr 17, 2002 8:26 AM | | Obviously there's not much to say with regard to you not liking the songs. I'm surprised, and I'd certainly disagree with some of yr characterizations, but these are merely differences of opinion. Of course, there are no hard feelings. I'm just a bit surprised, because I hear great rock'n'roll there.
Where I differ from you in a more specific sense relates to yr comments on the musicianship. If the stuff sounds sloppy to you, then the players' credentials don't matter. But the music sounds that way on purpose, and it has nothing to do with deficiency.
Despite elements of weirdness, I don't think it's all that sloppy. But Rolling Stones records are sloppy too. Again, Paul Westerberg's comment: it isn't rock'n'roll without mistakes. Keith Richards had to concur with that on some level, since the Mats were the opening act on one of his tours back in 1988 or so. There is a point to not playing everything perfectly, not to have every single note sound like it's being performed by a master. But that doesn't serve as a comment on the musicianship to me. These were not novices.
John Cale's accomplishments are the most obvious: classical training; an Aaron Copland scholarship; the fact that he was writing symphonies in 1963, unaware that down the street there was a blues club where a band's residency was making noise--the Rolling Stones. To my knowledge he was the first to bring a sensibility that incorporated classical & avant-garde influences to rock'n'roll. Is this necessarily a good thing? Maybe not. But would such a guy play with people who couldn't play?
Of course not. And not only was his use of viola rather unique, those syncopated rhythm guitar tracks were completely innovative. They sound like the players were disinterested to you? That I don't get. 'I Can't Stand It' & 'Foggy Notion' were recorded live, no overdubs. They sound pretty intense to me. What I don't understand is why the jam bands never play stuff like this, at this velocity. If they did, I'd be a huge fan.
Also, Tom Wilson was the guy who was behind the scenes & was the 'real' producer of their first album. He'd produced Dylan & also worked with Zappa--very closely, actually. If the musicianship was really deficient, how could a guy who worked with a stickler like Zappa find his way clear to work with charlatans who played in a disinterested fashion? And would he allow the rather odd & idiosyncratic refusal of the band to use cymbals or even a snare most of the time? |
| Well, maybe I could... | J
Apr 17, 2002 8:32 AM | | >1) groups, such as Roxy Music and the Violent Femmes, who took VU's non-traditional approach to rock and roll and added to it melodies and harmonies, passion and excitement that is lacking in the VU's music and made substantial improvements on it
You're certainly entitled to that opinion, but I think there's a good & very valid reason why you're pretty lonely in holding it.
>2) groups who kept the same general sound and attitude of the VU and who are ones that I personally find uninteresting.
Like who? The Feelies? The Modern Lovers? It can't be an accident that Jonathan Richman, a future Talking Head, and a future Car all sprung from the same VU-worshiping rock band.
As for the songs, hey, if you don't like 'em, there's nothing that anyone's going to say that's going to make you change yr mind. And I wouldn't try. But there's something you should understand: I don't remember who it was who said this, but they framed it a particular way: Lou Reed approached rock'n'roll songwriting like no one else had before. Unlike most r'n'r, including the Beatles to that point, he wrote about stuff more adult than the most common one-dimensional songs about puppy love & relationships & so forth. Now, Dylan & the folkies were writing about more topical things, also, but Reed had a different approach: he had characters in his songs that he genuinely identified with, because he either lived the lives he was writing about, or knew people who did. It was all real, little if any of it was made up whatsoever.
And it didn't do what John Cale said he hated about protest songs--it didn't ask all these questions. It was referred to by this guy as 'method acting in song.' Nobody had done that in rock music. Patti Smith is often pointed to as someone who tried to bring poetry, and the sensibilities of poetry, to rock music. 10 years before that, Lou Reed was trying to bring literature, and the sensibilities of literature, to rock music. Obviously his results have to be viewed as mixed (given yr opinion). But if Dylan was the first to raise the sensibility of the lyrics in pop music, Lou Reed wasn't far behind; and while he didn't do what Dylan did, Dylan didn't do what Reed did, either. Bukowski may not have been a Hemingway, of course, but Hemingway didn't do what Bukowski did, either. If Dylan had been interested in bringing those sorts of subjects to pop music, it's not likely it would've come out the way Reed distilled it. But that's because Dylan relied mostly on very basic blues & folk structures with little regard for a pop sensibility, while Reed had a way with pop music. It's no accident that he was a staff songwriter in the Brill Building. Yes, that Brill Building. Combine that Bukowski sensibility with enough ability to be a pro pop songwriter, and that's what you get. If you don't like that, fair enough; but perhaps you can understand why the songs of the Velvets are viewed with such high esteem.
So, overall, while I am most puzzled by how it is that you don't hear passion in the music, that's life. I mean, one man's garbage is another's feast. But it does remind me that at one time Charlie Parker was considered to be a guy who spat out imperfect echoes of Lester Young's ideas. |
| |
