-

Did you read my whole post? I made it clear that I felt older forms of music had many masterpiece level works, but due to modern technology I find them limited in the sounds they could create with the insutruments and technology they had available...

-

Some still don't understand what I am getting at (my fault for not being clear)... I fully acknowledge the greatness of many works in jazz and classical music... My point is there are many works under the banner of rock which are also masterpiece level work... And my personal preference is the landscape in which modern music has been able to work under since the 1950's... That's not to say I think only rock musicians since the 50's have created great works... Just that the "standard" classic formations of classical music and jazz don't offer enough unique sounds for my tastes (as I explained clearly in my initial post, I thought)...

Roivas and Seerix: You seem to be hung up on the tired cliche about Classical music that it is superior due to complexity in standrd musical form (harmonics, arrangement, or whatever else)... First off, complexity is not the main criteria for greatness, but let's just say for now that complexity in composing is improtant... The great works of the classical master composers was created to be duplicated (and I assume few have a problem with the various arrangements that have been experimented with over time)... Many rock masterpieces can not be duplicated... Oh sure some kid in his bedroom can play Day Tripper on his guitar or some prodigy can copy Eddie Van Halen solos to some degree... The key is very few actual recordings can be duplicated. This is why cover versions of original great works in rock are rarely very good (there are exceptions of course)...

Now I will educate you Roivas so perhaps you can better understand where I am coming from... Let's take the flawed masterpiece "Tomorrow Never Knows" by The Beatles (why it is flawed is a whole other debate, but lets just assume most agree it is not the greatest Beatles masterpiece)... In April of 1966 John Lennon explained his vision of the song to the other Beatles and the engineering crew and producer George Martin... It was agreed that they could not duplicate his initial vision of monks (or the Dahli Lama himself) chanting from a mountain top and sounding as if there were 1,000 of them doing so... Lennon tried to explain his vision further and everybody agreed that they should try and "create" sounds that might match John's vision by experimenting with tape loops, various organic recordings and electronic manipulation... So each Beatle went home and over a few days period of time recorded with primitive reel-to-reel machines a variety of "musical" sounds... Some with traditional instruments, some with other sounds... Over the next few weeks in the studio the Beatles and studio crew tried a variety of maipulations of sound using these home recordings as well as standard rock instrumentation... One of the key innovations was recording John on his back (to achieve a different singing result) with the mic placement several feet above him. They then ran that sound (at a varied speed) thru a revolving Leslie speaker and then again through the mixing board. Also adding other electronic effects (none of which any of them had ever attempted before). The result was called ADT (Artificial Double Tracking) and it was used in other Lennon psychedelic masterpieces... The final production result (including the tribal like almost perfect timed drumming of Ringo) was a song that was a landmark in rock music... The sound achieved on that song was groundbreaking and very influential... The sound also can not be duplicated!! Even the people involved don't remember every little common or weird experiement in sound they tried in order to produce the final product...

That type of production was revolutionary because with it (and the rest of the Revolver and Sgt. Pepper albums) made listeners of music (including music scholars) take notice... Virtually everyone (except for perhaps some of the teenage Beatles fans of that time) realized The Beatles had crossed over to a new level of musical art...

Stories like this in rock from that period thru today are common... Sure 99% of rock is average, simple or unispired... But there are hundreds of songs that are great works of art...
Complexity in music has nothing to do with the speed or technical gifts of the performer (or else Cecil Taylor and Malmsteen would be among the most celebrated muscians on Earth)... Complexity also involves every little trinket of sound you bring to the production... And when done right it has the potential to lead to greatness...

Now, some of the rock masterpieces have nothing to do with experimentation (as Tomorrow Never Knows did,) but still have achieved their level of greatness due to the final sound production and emotion that was put into it...

I have a feeling too many of you have let society color your opinion of what is depth in music... For Seerix to say rock hasn't explored the ground that jazz has just shows me you know little about the depths rock music has explored... Of course I know you do know rock and jazz but your ideas of what is "depth" is totally skewed... Have you ever listened to Frank Zappa, Henry Cow, John McLaughlin, Robert Fripp, Faust and about 100 psychedelic bands that I could name from the late 60's thru today? Do you even know that the song structure in a simple song such as "See Emily Play" explored arrangement rarely attempted in a "pop" song of any era and also incorporated a wide variety of instrumentation beyond the "standard" rock line-up (not to mention the variety of electronic effects bestowed upon this jewel to give it a fairy-like feel... Most of which were inspired by The Beatles work in 1966-67)...

Also, Coltrane's technical ability is not the sole barometer as to why he was great (once again there are many virtuoso players in every style of music), it is the emotion Coltrane released in his playing that moves people...

I can relate to Panbient's and Seerix resentment towards the commercial nature of rock music... But you have to get past that... There are tons of great rock songs that never made much money for artist or corporation...

Seerix you seem hung up on trying to push classic rock down a peg or two... Why? Who cares when a recording was made, it's the result that counts.. It just happened that technology happened to take off in the mid 60's thus giving artists (in every style of music) a bigger landscape in which to work with...

Coltrane's work on My Favorite Things blew people away because he took a piece of music that most considered sachrin and transported it to high art.. And not just because he played technically well, but because he brought a level of sound to the song that was actually quite shocking for its time... And it has held up well... The fluid nature of his playing around the familiar portions of the song caught the ear of all who heard it... In fact it was his non-technical playing on something like "Chasin The Trane" that really sets him apart in my book... There are missed notes and awkward sounds in his Village Vanguard performance of the song, but the explosive nature and endurance and honest felt emotion are what come thru... Thus that recording has become as influencial as any he did... It set the template for EVERYTHING the Grateful Dead did live (although some may say that is a bad thing, lol)... My point being it was the emotion of his playing that came thru... Also, his playing (along with Miles and Cannonbal Adderly and Bill Evans) on Kind Of Blue sets a mood of softness and silk that may never be matched, but that silky feel has nothing to do with speed or technical greatness... It's the vibe that counts...

I would have loved to hear Coltrane with Hendrix... Who knows, it may or may not have worked... Or hear Coltrane explore music with a wider variety of instrumentation...

Perhaps what bugs you guys the most is that the term of music that incoporates everything from Britny Spears to King Crimson can be considered high art... You must get upset that the umbrella of rock includes "artists" you feel are inferior.. Ya know what, it bugs me too... But to deny the great masterpiece level works in rock is just as bad as dismissing the entire form as being unable to achieve complex or depth in music... Think about it folks...

-

-

This is what I think bothers people who treasure "high art" music... They get upset that something in the rock genre (which is huge of course) can be considered high art...

The other thing is I am sure most of you have moments where you are in your car singing at the top of your lungs along with a favorite fairly simple rocker... At that moment you have reached musical nirvana, just as you might when listening to Mahler with your headphones on... Go on, admit it... It's O.K.... Your classical or jazz mates probably do the same thing...

Now, I will freely admit that the acknowledged masterpieces of classical music are more rewarding than 99% of all the rock music that has been created... But within that 1% there are hundreds of songs that are brilliant (some complex, some simple)...

-

Stockhausen had already made the first quadraphonic recording by that point.

It all had been done before, but I understand. It doesn't count until a 60s group does it.

http://cec.concordia.ca/econtact/Mul...sic_short.html

So why the complete avoidance of the early gurus of electronic music? Isn't the history of technology so fascinating that it instills maybe a little interest in a music lover such as yourself?

Not enough backbeat and electric guitars or something?

So, from what you're saying, complexity in music doesn't really matter. Whatever proves my point is irrelevant. That's convenient.

And now I will pull out my clincher (as to why I feel that rock offers the listener more depth)...

Very simple:

LYRICS


I have always been one who when doing music critique focuses more on the music side of rock music (as 90% or more of the rock songs I love have singing)... I get frustrated with so many modern critics who focus their review on the lyrics... While the lyrics of a song may at times be the most powerful element in a song, I find the reverse is true most of the time... BUT, great lyrics can take a great song and turn it into a timeless masterpiece...

Any arguments???

The range of emotions a lyric may bring to the individual listener is a VERY powerful element in rock music... Once again, many rock songs are trite in music and lyric, but some are just truly magical gifts of supreme art...

Case closed (I would think)...

Hey guys (Seerix and Roivas) I am not putting down classical music or jazz... All I am saying is that for me those forms have a smaller playing field than rock... Sure, there are pieces of jazz and classical music that I continue to find new "meaning" on repeated listenings (I just recently was listening to Miles' Porgy and Bess for the first time in 7 or 8 years and the version of Summertime on there really struck me fresh... A whole new level of appreciation was realized)... But, just as that happened, I was listening to a "dark" psychedelic song titled "Black Mass" by Jason Crest the other day and was continually amazed how the epic choral like vocals in that tune still give me chills and a sense of evil I have never experienced in any other form (thru film, music or literature)... An evil that I feel is controled (in other words I don't get nightmares, but more a sense of gloom,, a shading of darkness within the work that gives the song its power)... I also was listening to "Talk To The Wind" by King Crimson and I continue to marvel as to how that song soothes me no matter what mood I was in previous to listening to it... The Greg Lake vocals and the electroniclly cultured mellotron along with the simple sound of the recorder in that tune are beyond my vocabulary (in order to try and explain its lush gentle sound)...


-

-

Oh no, you are correct... Complexity can be very enjoyable when done right (in any form of music)... It is just often not the ONLY criteria to greatness...

Sometimes complexity can be in sound manipulation... For example I actually like the works of minimalist Terry Riley a bunch. He took a minimal ambient approach to music but used very uncoventional methods to achieve his productions...

To be honest though, if there is an artist who chooses to use just electronics I often get bored... I do prefer more elements of sound and thus a recording like Todd Rundgrens 1981 Healing album fits the elctronics style of music perfect for me... His blending of synthetic sounds with standard rock instrumentation and technique... The result was quite good...

Another example is George Harrison's Electronic Music album... I thought it sucked as he completely avoided using his skills as a songwriter or vocalist and chose to just "experiment" with Moog equipment... I thought it was a failed experiment... Where as the naive experiments Pink Floyd used on Obscured by Clouds in electronics came off better...

Roivas, you must get beyond your ingrained perceptions of art in music if we can have any type of insightful conversation here... Spewing stuff from history books is pointless (who cares who did quadraphonic music first)... My point on the Beatles Tomorrow Never Knows shows that they could create masterpiece level work.. Yes, it was influential, but the point was to show their creativity..

Give me some of your feelings into the music you like... Give examples of portions of songs or entire works you feel counter what I have said... Don't feel I am putting you down in any way, I am just trying to show how rock is art... Yes, I do have my preferences (I do like the heavier song of the electric guitar, but I also like the piercing heaviness of the cello at times...

I am not trying to prove anyone is wrong... Anyone can and should enjoy any music they want... But try and understand what I am saying in that rock can and has reached masterpiece level status at times... And just because I find jazz and classical limiting in form doesn't mean I am right or wrong... A lover of synthetic music that is played (or programmed) at speeds in which a human could not produce may feel I have limited myself in my listening habits... Just as one might say I am limited for feeling some of Coltrane's later work crosses the line out of music into a form of sound collage I don't like (Ascention being the prime example)...

The point Roivas seems to want to prove is that Classical music is superior to rock... O.K., as a whole the great works of classical music are superior to the vast majority of rock music... Does that make you feel better? I think though that within that small percentage of rock music there are gems of masterpiece level art... If you disagree that is your opinion... I have tried to explain why I feel there is and I have given detailed examples within the form... I think my analysis was quite insightful...

I have many other examples in rock of creativity if you need more exapmples...

Why are some of you around here so threatened by achievment by rock artists (especially 60's era artists)? I don't get it... Is it some psychological hang up you have with your parents? Or with older generation rock fans... As I have said in other threads, 60's music is not really my era, I grew up in the 70's... I came to much of 60's experimental and progressive music after my teens...

Now if you can show me how Stockhausen or your other heroes created Starwberry Fields or Tomorrow Never Knows before the Beatles did, or if any of them had the abundance of sound in Hendrix' 1983 A Merman then bring it out, it would be the greatest find in music history... Of course you can't because those are original works that can't be copied as is... Do you still not understand what I am getting at? I don't deny that all that came before rock gave rock what it has... It was what the masters of rock brought to the table with those influences as to what counts... Do you understand?

-

Maybe another good example of complexity in music and its value would be that I could go right now and program my synthesizer to play a extended 20 minute piece built around a standard chord progression or perhaps around a Rachmaninoff Piano Concerto (as Eric Carmen did) and then speed it up, add in random element generators to alter tempo as well as other tonal manipulations, then speed it all up to a level no human can play... I may even throw in a MIDI hook up to my drum machine programed for a mix of a guiro and a droning indian tamboura... Now, the result would be demanding on the listener... Does that make my creation a masterpiece Roivas? Of course it doesn't... Do you get my point?

Now give my synth to Stevie Wonder and throw out the drum machine (as his drumming skills are solid) and give him the exotic other instruments I mentioned and the result may be wonderful... He may come up with something simple, maybe something complex...

Just because there is complexity doesn't mean there is greatness (haven't music scholars been arguing that for ever?)...

Now Roivas, who would the music scholars really be making fun of???

Put the ego down and open up your mind... You obviously have a desire to enjoy music... Let us all enjoy... The musical canvass is wide... Let us rejoice it its greatness...

My goal in life is to spread the gospel of great tunes, and to document the greatness of great rock music for future generations... Join my Roivas and Seerix in that quest...


-

Man, you guys like to type. I was going to make some comments and so I started to read all of the posts, but Jesus in the garden you guys are pompous, and Syd is especially pretentious.

I'll comment on what I could gather.
Syd, your arguments about technology are bunk. That's all there is to it. From what I understand, you are saying that technology has advanced music - escpecially rock music - to a greater realm of art. So, the electric guitar, big studios, 8-track, feedback, stadium concerts, digital recording, yadda yadda are the saviours of music as art? With all that technology artists were finally able to express their deeper emotions?
Ever hear any early recordings of field hollers? If not, have a listen. You won't find any fuzzy guitars, shakin' baselines, screamin' digitally altered vocals, but you'll find real people making time pass as they sweat the dog days away doing unjustified work for white folks. It's true music, true art, because it's real. If you don't hear emotion (I mean, dude, real emotion), then pawn your CD player, sell me your better CDs, and start listening to Casey Kasem.

I'm not coming down on rock, dude, I love the stuff, but you have to start hearing the light.

Let me see if I get what you're saying Syd.

Rock music that fuses conventional song forms and patterns with avant influences can be considered art, and is better than classical music or avant garde music because they do not fuse them together. As in:

Rock: Emotional and timbre experiments
Classical/jazz: Only emotional, no timbre experiments
Avant: Only timbre experiments, no emotion.