The rise in American(a) / root music (via Mumford & Sons) -- and the predictable backlash

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: The rise in American(a) / root music (via Mumford & Sons) -- and the predictable backlash

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:


    I thought it was odd to see several BDC threads at the top, and all seriously banal IMO.  There is no "good", there's only "I like"....and the same goes for "bad" and "I don't like".

     I don't agree with this. I think there are qualitative differences even in the arts, it's just trickier to articulate them. A small minority of people may like off-key singing, but this doesn't mean there is no such thing as bad singing. A toddler may bang randomly on piano keys and think they are making music, but are they really?

     

    If it's all about like or dislike, there is not much to talk about. The problem with the language of opinion, is that it most often isn't phrased as "I like" or "I don't like". It is usually phrased as "this sucks" or "this is great". If I say "Led Zeppelin sucks", I will get a much stronger response from Zep fans than if I say, "I don't like Led Zeppelin". I don't think this is just a matter of semantics. The first statement implies a qualitative judgement. The second statement merely expresses personal taste, without really commenting on quality.

     



    If I were to defend my original statement to the hilt, I'd say that your examples were no more music than a tree falling in the forest....they were just random sounds.  But I won't...my statement was not intended to include all extremes so I'll back off it.

     

    I despise most music of the 70s that isn't Punk.  To me bands like Pink Floyd, Rush, ELO, and all others of that ilk are crushingly boring, devoid of passion, and a million miles away from what rocknroll is supposed to be.  That's why Punk exploded so fast and so widely....it was so easy to expose the arrogant dinobores for what they were.

    Were the former better musicians?  Generally speaking, yes, as many Punk bands devalued virtuoso playing in favour of passion and power and the now.  But what good did good musicianship do for Toto?  My point, getting back to good vs bad, is who am I to tell someone that Pink Floyd (post-Barrett) is bad?  I don't even really think that, I just hate them.  

     

    What is music? Many thought rocknroll was just noise when it first came out.


    Many fans think the bands you hate elevated rock to a high art form. I understand what you are saying about what rocknroll is supposed to be but many others don't place such limitations on rock. I don't think any type of music has to be anything. All types of music are constantly changing as artists take past influence and transfom them into different sounds for different times.

    As far as my personal taste, I find The Sex Pistols unlistenable and The Clash pure pop pleasure. My idea of passion in music is very broad. A soul ballad can contain much more passion than the most down and dirty punk rock song. But I can enjoy either one if it performed by a true artist.

    Your final point demonstrates what I am getting at. You can say that Pink Floyd does a good job creating and recording songs, despite the fact that you personally hate them. That is stating both a critical and a personal opinion. Both are subjective judgements but they are not equivalent.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: The rise in American(a) / root music (via Mumford & Sons) -- and the predictable backlash

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     despise most music of the 70s that isn't Punk.  To me bands like Pink Floyd, Rush, ELO, and all others of that ilk are crushingly boring, devoid of passion, and a million miles away from what rocknroll is supposed to be.  That's why Punk exploded so fast and so widely....it was so easy to expose the arrogant dinobores for what they were.

    Were the former better musicians?  Generally speaking, yes, as many Punk bands devalued virtuoso playing in favour of passion and power and the now.  But what good did good musicianship do for Toto?  My point, getting back to good vs bad, is who am I to tell someone that Pink Floyd (post-Barrett) is bad?  I don't even really think that, I just hate them.  

     

     

     

    What is music? Many thought rocknroll was just noise when it first came out.


    Many fans think the bands you hate elevated rock to a high art form. I understand what you are saying about what rocknroll is supposed to be but many others don't place such limitations on rock. I don't think any type of music has to be anything. All types of music are constantly changing as artists take past influence and transfom them into different sounds for different times.

    As far as my personal taste, I find The Sex Pistols unlistenable and The Clash pure pop pleasure. My idea of passion in music is very broad. A soul ballad can contain much more passion than the most down and dirty punk rock song. But I can enjoy either one if it performed by a true artist.

    Your final point demonstrates what I am getting at. You can say that Pink Floyd does a good job creating and recording songs, despite the fact that you personally hate them. That is stating both a critical and a personal opinion. Both are subjective judgements but they are not equivalent.



    If you like the Clash, then you must listen to Thee Spivs immediately!  They are NOT a soundalike ripoff, but you can hear their influence among others.  I think of the Clash as being London's band of the 70s, and the Spivs as London's band of today.

     

     

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share