All I have read in these threads over the last couple of days is a lot of generalization, backpeddling, flip flopping, insulting, psuedo-intellectual nonsense, psuedo-psychoanalysis, and chest beating by someone that Geryon to name one of many has a wider range in taste in rock music.



It's a way of arguing straight out of the Karl Rove and Fox News playbook.





If anything, this thread will end up having the opposite effect on a great many. It actually has already.

Why the hell would you say this? It isn't even true. Its an opinion being given with some explanations for it. If anything some of the replies are horribly retarded.

The only thing I haven't seen represented (course I may have overlooked it) is the human element. Everyone is discussing music like its some abstract idea when all it is, is the vocalization of the human soul. It is because we live in relative luxury that we even have time to develop this level of culture.

I don't think that technology has widened the canvas of music. Cause the canvas is what's on top of your shoulders. It's the human mind that's the canvas not the technology. All the technology is, is a different type of brush. If the person is limited then the music will be limited. Just because you have a studio full of toys doesn't mean that you will be able to do anything good with it.

Whatever your opinions are they only pertain to you. They’re YOUR opinions. The arrogance shows itself when someone else tries to convince me that my opinion is wrong. I love rock music and like to think that I could hold my own with anyone here. I just don’t understand why people feel the need to say something is better then something else.

To me all the technology in the world can not compare to 100 or so individuals coming together to voice their unity. To express emotions that are to complex to express in a 5 minute context. I’m not saying the music is more complex but the emotions are.

/end random comments

-

It's not that newer music is best, its that newer music has the potential to be as good as earlier masterpieces (just using different tools with which to create... And in the case of modern music having more tools with which to work with)...


Few want to admit that newer music can be as good as past masterpieces, when in reality newer music has the potential to be even better (although it is easy to hear that isin't the case 99.5% percent of the time)...

The whole idea here is that modern music (including rock) can be as good as past masterpiece level musical art... Not that it is better...

-

-

Thank you... Now I feel I am getting somewhere...

-

I understand, but I think it's wrong to compare in greatness between genres, it's simply a matter of taste. It's true that jazz, classical & avantgarde music &co are generally thought as being more sophisticated, and as a rock fan, you might dislike that, but I don't think it's anything you can "undo", mainly because most people are more exposed to rock and pop those genres will be easier, as well as through the draw-in factor of vocals and lyrics (easier to create an emotional bond for most people).

It appears that terms as "good" and "sophisticated", "complicated" & co are getting mixed up, about the first there's no argument possible, as to the second, it seems logical that a 3 minute rock song and probably even a 10 minute prog rock suite are less complicated than a symphony, for example. Not that I know much about classical and jazz stuff, still have to find my way a bit in those woods. I like Satie, and would like some good, not all that difficult piano and/or violin music. what next, Schubert? Bartok?

-

I find as much sophistication in some rock music as I have in any other genre... What people misunderstand is the way society views popular music... Sure, the vast majority of rock is simplistic music... I don't deny that...

But, I am trying to undo years and years of misconceptions people have about rock... To lump all that has been created as rock as "three chords and a cloud of dust" is the response that got me upset with Satch in another thread... Heck, even some rock purists would be upset with me if I didn't agree that anything outside the basic three chord raw emotion of a good rock song is worthless pretentous junk... I don't agree with that extreeme either...

Now, the key is what do we define as sophistication... The limits of standardized structure of music that defines the harmonious and expressiveness of sound? If so, then ALL sound must be included... Not just the speed, technical standards, and complexity in which notes can be arranged or played... All sounds must be included, so that when used creatively can be called music... Thus when I hear an album like from lets say The Flaming Lips that incorporates everything from simple melodies to deeply complex layers of sound, I am moved. On the surface some would just say the Flaming Lips are a just a rock band, when in reality they are studio craftsman who whip up wonderful sound delights... On the Beatles Revolver album there is a wider range of sounds than on almost anything I can think of, from sound sculptured rubbing of a washboard to the blissful vocals of Paul McCartney, to the lush sounds of a string quartet, to the jumble of studio tricks and gadgets (not to mention the top shelf melodies)... Revolver is a Masterpiece... Just as many would say Daydream Nation is, or Kind of Blue or perhaps What's Goin' On...

Step out of the box people... The structure of life taught to us in schools is just a basic guide, not a rigid road...

Get out of the class separation of what good music can be... On any given day I can listen to Forever Changes, a Billie Holiday compilation and Piper at The Gates of Dawn and find masterpiece level music in each...

Do I have to explain any more?

-

-

I agree with all you said... It is the human mind that is the canvas... I just tried to say that the human mind has had more tools to use within the last 50+ years... That doesn't mean I think the music of the last 50 years is better... Just that it not only can be as good as anything before it, but because of the tools avaliable it is more insteresting and compelling to me... Just my opinion... But for various reasons western culture has deemed modern music a "childlike" endeavor... When in reality it can be quite complex and intersting (or simple and interesting too)... The range of sounds available for the artist in the last 50 years or so intrigue me...

-

I dig where your comin' from, but I would say to a certain extent rock music is supposed to be childlike. That's part of the spirit. Although I would say teenager for the increased level of malice.

For the most part rock music does not challenge my mind as much as Jazz and Classical. There are exceptions to the rule, but only exceptions in my eyes. However, I don't want my rock to be that way all the time. I just don't enjoy those types of music in the same way.

I do think the constantly evolving technology is a hindrance at times.

80's Synthesizer