Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Robert Plants comment about sabbath.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • thesithempire
    replied
    Originally posted by devilmaycare View Post
    The only person that mentioned race was you.

    Rap IS a totally legimate form of music. To say otherwise is just totally wrong & academically indefensible. Just because it doesn't meet with your (apparently narrow) ideas about melody & harmonics doesn't make it anti anything. There are many forms of music from all around the world that don't meet the western criteria of what music should be but only the ill-informed would argue against them being "legitimate".

    I've heard passionate arguments between hugely knowledgeable musicial minds all around the world about the validity of John Cage's 4'33" where people have even argued that absence of sound doesn't equate to a piece being invalid, so something as obviously rhythmic & melodic as Hip Hop has every claim to be LEGITIMATE.
    But you do agree that according to western criteria, the absence of melody and harmony is outside the definition of what some consider "legitimate" music? If so, then academically it is defensible to argue that rap does not qualify as the branch of art called music. A strong assertion of something doesn't make it fact, nor does its popularity change the definition of what art and music are defined as. There are criteria that qualifies something as artistic. 50 years ago, if rap existed, the very notion that one would argue it was music would be laughable. I don't agree with elitism, but to say the point shouldn't be argued because of rap's popularity, I think is ridiculous, especially when so many can see that it's lacking in several of the qualifications that even the dictionary definition lists as to the requirements of what constitutes art.

    Tribal music and world music from various countries around the world actually meet the requirements that would qualify their admittedly odd sounding (to Western ears) music. For starters: Skill, the ability to use instruments to produce music. Then, craft, which defines the development of those skills to produce difficult passages within the music.

    I don't see how rhyming profanities over a computer-generated beat (that most of the time comes from another artist) fits even into the broader qualifications of world music. Even tribal beats, when examined, prove a lot more complex than at first believed.

    But if you can produce arguments to the contrary, and not from rare exceptions to the rule (like the two death metal bands in the world that break into salsa and country in the middle of their songs), I'm willing to hear your case.

    Leave a comment:


  • kamikazetom
    replied
    Originally posted by devilmaycare View Post
    The only person that mentioned race was you.

    Rap IS a totally legimate form of music. To say otherwise is just totally wrong & academically indefensible. Just because it doesn't meet with your (apparently narrow) ideas about melody & harmonics doesn't make it anti anything. There are many forms of music from all around the world that don't meet the western criteria of what music should be but only the ill-informed would argue against them being "legitimate".

    I've heard passionate arguments between hugely knowledgeable musicial minds all around the world about the validity of John Cage's 4'33" where people have even argued that absence of sound doesn't equate to a piece being invalid, so something as obviously rhythmic & melodic as Hip Hop has every claim to be LEGITIMATE.
    Agreed - There are many forms of music & you should listen to it all with an open mind & not say 'it's not legitimate music' simply because you don't like it - what it all boils down to is there really is only 2 type of music - what you like & what you don't like - that's why I personally hate all of the labels placed on music - rock, country, metal, death metal, black metal, rap, ska, dub, etc - the labels are just marketing ploys - look at the grunge bands - was Soundgarden really a grunge band or just another rock band that had a lot of zep & sabbath influences? I know when I worked at a record store we drove a lot of people crazy because all of the music was in the bins alphabetically & some of our customers didn't like having to go past a BB King record to get to a King Diamond record.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
    I have no problem asserting that with every fiber of my being I detest rap, hip-hop and gangsta rap. This is not a racist thing at all. I'm happy to listen to black artists and musicians doing legitimate forms of music (unless it's really poppy modern R&B) that aren't anti-melodic, anti-harmonic,
    The only person that mentioned race was you.

    Rap IS a totally legimate form of music. To say otherwise is just totally wrong & academically indefensible. Just because it doesn't meet with your (apparently narrow) ideas about melody & harmonics doesn't make it anti anything. There are many forms of music from all around the world that don't meet the western criteria of what music should be but only the ill-informed would argue against them being "legitimate".

    I've heard passionate arguments between hugely knowledgeable musicial minds all around the world about the validity of John Cage's 4'33" where people have even argued that absence of sound doesn't equate to a piece being invalid, so something as obviously rhythmic & melodic as Hip Hop has every claim to be LEGITIMATE.
    Last edited by devilmaycare; 11-16-2009, 02:53 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • thesithempire
    replied
    I have no problem asserting that with every fiber of my being I detest rap, hip-hop and gangsta rap. This is not a racist thing at all. I'm happy to listen to black artists and musicians doing legitimate forms of music (unless it's really poppy modern R&B) that aren't anti-melodic, anti-harmonic, boorish, vacuous, racist, misogynistic and violent. Overall, my ears register it as utterly unlistenable and indefensible. I've had friends play me the A-Z, from old-school to the modern extreme, from positive rappers to gangsta. Can't stand it. And with few exceptions, what's being promoted is morally repugnant (and yes, the actions portrayed in The Godfather are just as morally repugnant in my eyes.)

    But don't go by me. I think death metal (and black metal) should've ended with Celtic Frost's Into the Pandemonium. I think the genre is just as ridiculous, repugnant and formulaic as gangsta rap, representing little more than the expressed tantrums of 20-somethings trying to make themselves look tough and scary. How they actually look is emotionally dysfunctional and psychologically damaged.

    But in fairness, and to cut rappers and death-metallers some slack, I think any extreme representation in entertainment is a reflection of a dysfunctional, broken global society, bad parents (or bad or absent parenting), and the result of the abject failure of government, commerce and religion to behave in ways that are anything but predatory.

    ---------- Post added at 03:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:50 PM ----------

    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    Well, I personally think that you're being highly creative in stretching the defintions of pop, country, bluegrass etc in attempting to claim that "St Vitus Dance" and other Sabbath songs branched out into those genres. Just because a song has elements of a genre, doesn't mean it is that genre.

    A song could have an element of pop in it. Songs like "Looking for Today" (as you suggested ) or the much more radio friendly "Am I Going Insane" and "Never Say Die". But in the end, they are still not pop songs even though they have an element of pop in it.
    I agree. I was just playing with the idea of labels, which I think don't work, and serve no real purpose but to confine. That's why I say Sabbath aren't a metal band. They created the subgenre (along with Zep and Purple) and just as quickly transcended it.

    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    In the end, "Am I Going Insane" and "Never Say Die" and "Looking for Today" are not full blown pop songs like "Show me the Way" from Peter Frampton. So you have to differentiate. Does a song have an element or influence only from a particular genre or is it a full blown version of that genre?
    True, but what really defines "pop"? The word is a signifier of nothing else but "popular". Certainly under that definition, Sabbath and Zeppelin could be qualified as pop. Obviously, however, the term has come to mean something that's commercially viable and relatively lightweight. But even under that definition, is Green Day's "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" really a pop song? It was played on pop radio all over. What about "Stairway to Heaven"? What about "Sounds of Silence"? There are so many songs that were never intended to be pop songs, and in fact aren't, but somehow they've crossed over into mass consciousness, and are played on pop radio, which basically means Top 40.

    "Paranoid" falls into that category as well.

    No, it's not a pop song, but it's been accepted into the pop arena. For that matter, more and more we're seeing formerly underground music come into that fold. I went for a haircut in the local unisex salon that I go to (you know the one where they cut everyone's hair from old ladies to little kids), and freakin' Ride the Lightning was playing!! And nobody batted an eye. I'd have NEVER thought when I first got that album in 1984 that it would be played in a hair salon! It just goes to show how things change, and how quickly what was once unacceptable socially becomes the social standard. I think it also shows that labels ultimately little more than a corporate contrivance that has everything to do with marketing and nothing to do with whether something is good or bad on its own merit.

    Leave a comment:


  • mythology
    replied
    I agree with your sentiments, but you are factually incorrect.

    You say gansta rap is an abomination and then go on to list artists you like that actually are gansta rap.

    Some might find gansta rap morally repugnant, but the same people have no problem watching the Godfather trilogy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ashley Dalby
    replied
    As I wrote before if you are a musician or vocalist... It does not matter what genre of music you end up lumped into, you are a musician/vocalist first.

    As a creator your only limitations should be what you set for yourselves, there should be no rules for what genres you sample or take on. All doors should be able to opened unless you simply do not have the skill to do so.

    Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
    But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.
    I am hoping you are referring to the abomination known as "Gangsta Rap" and not "Hip Hop" because there is nothing wrong with the latter.

    There was talent and respect amongst the early rap artists and most of it was easily enjoyable. Heavy D and the Boyz, Gheto Boyz, Run DMC, Public Enemy, Twista, Grandmaster Flash and The Furious Five, Melle Mel, Big Daddy Kane. More importantly, there are a few rappers or rap bands who deserve extra credit for being quite talented at what they do like: Snoop Dogg, Too Short, Cypress Hill, Tupac and most of all, Bone Thugs-N-Harmony.

    I saw Bone Thugs in concert at a festival and was quite stunned by how talented and entertaining they were.

    Rap has come a long way and I will agree that Gangsta Rap is a useless sub-genre of music, there is certainly nothing wrong at all with Hip-Hop. If you need to know how far Rap has come, Listen To This! - NWA - Automobile or Listen To This! - Too Short - Blowjob Betty
    Last edited by Ashley Dalby; 11-16-2009, 08:03 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • devilmaycare
    replied
    Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
    But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.
    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    But I agree. The sooner that that hip hop and rap are eradicated from the world, the better!
    What bollocks! Why does the type of music YOU like have any more right to exist than another? Rap - like any other type of music - when done well, can be exhilarating, awe inspiring & every bit as legitimate as any kind of rock music.

    As for it passing into the memory... Don't hold your breath.

    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    You don't just do "variety" for the sake of it, like Zeppelin did occasionally do. It sounds ridiculous. You stick to your genre of music and do a variety of music appropriate to that genre. Bluegrass and country are not appropriate to a metal band as you propose.
    I don't think Zeppelin did anything 'for the sake of it"... I think as talented musicians bored with the endless droning & riffage that some of their less educated & tolerant "fans" expected of them, they decided to try their hands at other stuff they enjoyed. Just 'cos you're in a "ROCK" band doesn't mean you have to attend to the needs of the great unwashed mindless masses ALL the time.
    Last edited by devilmaycare; 11-16-2009, 07:40 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mythology
    replied
    Originally posted by thesithempire View Post

    But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.
    That's the kind of narrow-minded rubbish I'd expect from a rock fan.

    You've obviously listened to a couple of Black-Eyed Peas songs (which are terrible beyond belief) and decided that this is hip-hop.

    Anthrax and Aerosmith had the right idea. Mix it up a bit and you get something different and creative. Check out some Eric B & Rakim for top-notch creative hip-hop. If anything is formulaic it is Heavy Metal!!

    I'm glad Sabbath didn't take this approach; no blues, no jazz, no psychedelia, etc, etc.

    Leave a comment:


  • WheelsOfConfusion
    replied
    Originally posted by thesithempire View Post
    Well, I don't consider Sabbath a metal band (nor do they), even if they did create the genre, but "St. Vitus' Dance" is a good example of 'heavy bluegrass' or 'country metal'!

    And the alternate version of "Lord of this World" with steel guitar is almost another example of the merging of those forms.

    As far as doing a "pop" song, that term is broad, but "Looking for Today" is a pretty close analogue, as was "Evil Woman". And "Rock 'n' Roll Doctor" is pretty much a classic rock song with honky tonk elements.

    But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.

    Well, I personally think that you're being highly creative in stretching the defintions of pop, country, bluegrass etc in attempting to claim that "St Vitus Dance" and other Sabbath songs branched out into those genres. Just because a song has elements of a genre, doesn't mean it is that genre.

    A song could have an element of pop in it. Songs like "Looking for Today" (as you suggested ) or the much more radio friendly "Am I Going Insane" and "Never Say Die". But in the end, they are still not pop songs even though they have an element of pop in it.

    In the end, "Am I Going Insane" and "Never Say Die" and "Looking for Today" are not full blown pop songs like "Show me the Way" from Peter Frampton. So you have to differentiate. Does a song have an element or influence only from a particular genre or is it a full blown version of that genre?

    Example. Listen to Deep Purple's "Anya" with that harpsichrod intro. It has elements of classical/folk/medieval. But it is not a full blown classical/folk/medieval song like something from 'Blackmore's Night'.

    But I agree. The sooner that that hip hop and rap are eradicated from the world, the better!

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
    The problem with the whole "never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own" is the absence of ANYTHING once that well runs dry. What happens when you find a well and continue draining water from it without doing anything to replenishing it?
    The well runs dry and you’ll be lucky to get your spit back from it.

    As long as you have established a core foundation that you can always return to for safety, why not try to replenish your well? As long as the foundation is solid then the incessant adding of ingredients will never be able to crack it. Even your band’s most loyal fan base eventually ends up broadening and if your stuck with one formula then your highlight reel will be on VH1’s “Where Are They Now?” tv show, and who wants that?
    Not quite true. Songwriting styles and other aspects of musicianship are not exactly finite resources, like oil/water wells or produce on grocery store shelves etc...Luckily, too many of these guys never seem to run out of killer new riffs, you know..and the dizzyingly cool drummers I admire don't cease to amaze with the stuff they do, over their careers. So, the 'wells' of ideas and cool musicianship seem to me to be far from spent, just yet. Fact is, there are a bevy of metal bands that have managed to innovate, improvise, merge and execute their own musical ideas, whether old or new, in whatever small or bigger ways they choose to. My point was that I never much minded the fact how many of my own favourite metal bands could tinker with their sound, adeptly alter and innnovate on certain things in their music, without ever really drifting too much away from their core musical intent and style. So no, I actually love the fact that an act like Cannibal Corpse, for instance, while actually changing a whole lot in many ways, between their two eras, never compromised on the very intrinsic nature of their music. Their very identity as musicians. That's who they are, and that's what they do musically. Same with Slayer. To my ears, they have certainly changed and adopted a few different ideas to their sound and playing, from album to album. They can't be fairly accused of being the 'same old' throughout their career. The only constant 'sameness' about Slayer is their relentless thrash sensibilities and musical onslaught. I can't think of anybody, fan or not, that even remotely expects these bands (or most bona fide Metal bands) to suddenly begin flirting with hard rock and country and other styles (let alone if they could convincingly pull if off even if they had tried)----so that they could garner whole new audiences. Do you expect country stars to show some bravado and take a stab at playing heavy rock/metal for a change, at a gig, on an album, on their next 'hit' single? Could they possibly do it? Would they even want to? Do their biggest fans even expect or want it? This is pretty crazy, Ashley, and I reckon you know it too.

    So, I can bet my bottom dime, that the likes of CC and Slayer and tons of their ilk aren't destined to be featured on some 'Where Are They Now' flick. They have been heavy-hitting at their game for twenty years and more, and we fans will always know where they've been and where they are at----even when they pack it in and retire. It's called LEGACY. These guys have that all sewn up, by now.

    You mentioned a curse with experimentation and this does hold true, my second favorite band is a great example of that. Just like Led Zeppelin did a few years before them with General Rock, they stapled the same approach to Metal, which is to include softer moments. Right in the middle of this bands album that is full of Thrash Metal there is a Waltz song that sounds like it could have been recorded by the Carpenters. Call it a conversational piece if you wish but I love discovering a song or two in a collection of tracks that leaves me scratching my head and thinking “Where did that come from?”
    Oh no, if I ever heard a proper thrash act throw in a 'waltz' tune out of the blue, or god forbid, something akin to the Carpenters, as you suggest, I'd torch their homes, raze their studios, and the fans would flood the blogosphere with ample abuse---and it would all be deserved.

    Look, I'm not opposed to 'experimentation' per se---I guess every rock/metal band actually do that, to whatever extents. It's just that I hate it when some bands do stuff seemingly just for the novelty of it--and what's worse, when their needless experimentation goes awry, I can't help but lament the results of that effort. There are occasions when experiments work out nicely enough, and the records are the better for it. It's a risk worth taking----only when you have the 'right' ideas in mind and can execute it expertly. I knew you would refer to my known passion for death metal----and I'd tell you that plenty of dm bands know how to incorporate musical ideas from other genres, include 'softer' slower passages to contrast with the otherwise brutal and heavy nature of their music..and there's more to it than I'd care to detail here now. But no, I'd unabashedly confess to wanting no such wacko surprises on a death metal album, as a sudden burst of an operatic song, or the strains of spanish guitar solos, or the sound of divas wailing and other assorted abominations---that simply do not belong in death metal, let alone Metal, itself. If that somehow sounds like closed-minded snobbery, then I'll plead no defence for that attitude.

    No I am not kidding or winding you up, I simply asked a question which I will ask again: why cant a Metal band do other styles of music?
    I cannot say that you are unable or unwilling to see a Country/Metal fusion as a success because your tastes in Metal are literally, EXTREME. I enjoy Death Metal as much as the next person, who does, and can still appreciate a Metal song mixed with a genre that is far from their norm.
    I cannot speak for you but in my beginning years as a Metal fan it was surrounded by a Metal band that actually DID do a Country/Metal song, so maybe that is why.

    No offense sir but are you suggesting your beloved bands are not talented enough to do something EXTREME and throw a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?
    A Metal band can feel free to do whatever they wanna-----but regardless of fans' opinions, how many metal bands can you honestly think of that would ever even contemplate cooking up a Metal-Country fusion album or horror of horrors, throw in "a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?" ...This is honestly beyond bizarre, Ashley and I'm far from alone in feeling that way. It's not about my favourite bands being "talented enough" or not, to do this sort of thing. I gotta wonder whether they'd ever be that insane enough to even wanna try. Sure, metal bands, even death metal bands have always merged and devised various rock-metal formulas to their sound, but the stuff you're suggesting is wayyyy off base---artistically, aesthetically, and yes, even commercially---to say nothing of the inevitable, legitimately hostile fan reception. I have to stress that this has little to do with my tastes in Metal being 'extreme'---of course they are.. But I listen to and love traditional Rock/Metal, and the Blues too, for example. These are 'fused' into Metal structures, pretty often. Heck, even Rap has been toyed with by the nu-metal bunch. And that's been a total disgrace. But what you're suggesting here is far stranger and sillier.

    Certainly you are entitled but Pink Floyd being “boring”? You give away why you think Floyd is boring though in what album you quote as being one you enjoy, Animals, which is probably their most Metal-ish record to date. Is it because there is little to no crunch of heaviness to their sound? Their ever-changing approach every Gold-Mine they find. You wrote that I baffled you with esotericism, well now it is me who is baffled by the mystery. Certainly only you can explain this sir, but how in any sane person’s mind is Pink Floyd, the masters of experimentation, boring?
    Well, I wouldn't say Animals was really some sort of 'Metal-ish' record, really. But it was pretty classy, overall, and certainly the best that I ever got from Pink Floyd.

    To me, and trust me, Ashley, I'm SO healthy and sane than you'd know, the "masters of experimentation' sucked with what they did, most of the time. Let's just say, I easily tired and grew weary of Floyd's psychedelic, spaced-out, pretty lame prog-rock tendencies, and found their records (heard 7 of them through, plus random other songs) downright dull and boring, pure and simple. Dave Gilmour could play some stirring solos sometimes, but his singing is atrocious, and Floyd's vocals, in fact, were always one of their worst aspect to their music, to my mind. Floyd usually sounded too dour, lethargic and would grate on my patience. So, while it may seem a mystery to you how anybody can find Pink Floyd 'boring', I know I sure do, and I hope that I unravelled some of it here. But hey, I did enjoy a few tunes on the Division Bell album---even the one that you used to lovingly praise in the forums, in the past.
    Last edited by RLP4ever; 11-16-2009, 01:54 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • thesithempire
    replied
    Originally posted by WheelsOfConfusion View Post
    But I'm sorry, what you're proposing is utterly ridiculous. A metal band doing bluegrass/country? You shouldn't be coming up with songs with "variety" just for the sake of variety. The fact is, country and bluegrass don't gel with metal/hard rock. Sure, have variety. But it has to be sensible. If you're a metal band, you just don't do country, bluegrass, hip hop, pop etc.
    Well, I don't consider Sabbath a metal band (nor do they), even if they did create the genre, but "St. Vitus' Dance" is a good example of 'heavy bluegrass' or 'country metal'!

    And the alternate version of "Lord of this World" with steel guitar is almost another example of the merging of those forms.

    As far as doing a "pop" song, that term is broad, but "Looking for Today" is a pretty close analogue, as was "Evil Woman". And "Rock 'n' Roll Doctor" is pretty much a classic rock song with honky tonk elements.

    But I vehemently agree that hip hop has no place in the catalog of any self-respecting proponent of genuine music, and the sooner that repugnant, formulaic abomination passes into bad memory, the better.

    Leave a comment:


  • WheelsOfConfusion
    replied
    Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post




    No offense sir but are you suggesting your beloved bands are not talented enough to do something EXTREME and throw a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?

    Certainly only you can explain this sir, but how in any sane person’s mind is Pink Floyd, the masters of experimentation, boring?

    Firstly, I have to say that I also fnd Pink Floyd boring beyond belief. Songs that drag on for 20 minutes plus without really going anywhere. I can definately do without that. Not all their albums though. "Wish You Were Here" is fantastic as it' tight. But so many of their other albums just have no direction and are more like one long jam.

    And as far as this business of experimentataion, I both agree and vehemently disagree with you. I love variety-but it has to be sensible and reasonable and with credibilty.

    If you're a hard rock/ metal band, then I love a good variety of rock/metal songs. Some songs fast/thrash, some songs slow, some short songs, some long epic songs, some songs with quick solos, some with long solos. You can do instrumentals, you can do softer/ballad type songs, you can do some acid/psychadelic tracks.

    Look at Sabbath. There's the epic 16 min track from their first album with a long, elaborate solo. There's quick, more commerical friendly songs like "Paranoid". There's a variety of instrumentals. There's softer songs like "Changes" and "She's Gone". There's a hippy influence with "The Straightener". There's the somewhat psychadelic "Planet Caravan". There's a heap of really long songs and a heap of short songs.

    But I'm sorry, what you're proposing is utterly ridiculous. A metal band doing bluegrass/country? You shouldn't be coming up with songs with "variety" just for the sake of variety. The fact is, country and bluegrass don't gel with metal/hard rock. Sure, have variety. But it has to be sensible. If you're a metal band, you just don't do country, bluegrass, hip hop, pop etc.

    What's the most odd thing Sabbath ever did? That utter piece of crap with Ice T on the 'Forbidden' album. And most Sabbath fans hate it. I hate it. That sort of "variety" just doesn't suit Sabbath. Could you imagine 'The Carpenters' tryng their hand at some acid rock? I'm sure you wll agree it would sound ridiculous.

    Or Metallica doing some disco? What about AC/DC trying their hand at some folk music. Yeah, I'm sure that would sound good-NOT. Or Rainbow trying to do some punk. Look at Zeppelin trying their hand at "funk" with "The Crunge". An easily forgettable track. Or Zeppelin trying their hand at country with the laughable "Hot Dog". Ugh!

    So sure, any band should have variety. But stick to variety that's suitable. Not all styles of music are suitable for any band. You don't just do "variety" for the sake of it, like Zeppelin did occasionally do. It sounds ridiculous. You stick to your genre of music and do a variety of music appropriate to that genre. Bluegrass and country are not appropriate to a metal band as you propose.
    Last edited by WheelsOfConfusion; 11-16-2009, 01:39 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ashley Dalby
    replied
    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
    The talk of CONSISTENCY always makes me want to hurl. There is nothing worse than any band who tries to be consistent.

    You are a MUSICIAN first and foremost, before you ever decide which music you desire to make. It should be an obligation of any musician, no matter their ability, to go out of their way to make their path as difficult as possible.

    Greatness, thus respect for it, should only be measured by how hard you make it on yourself. So a Metal band makes a metal record? Big Deal. How about trying to make a country album. And even if you do not want to branch out to other styles, at least make every record as inconsistent as possible.

    Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?
    Well, I'd argue 'consistency' can cut both ways for a band. I never had a quarrel with bands (and this includes some of my own favourite bands) that are sometimes, rightly or wrongly, 'accused' of being 'formulaic' and mocked by carping critics and fickle fans for allegedly making records that are too similar in style and content. Bottom line is, I can live happily with a band that maybe never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own, BUT is 'consistent' in the top-drawer quality of their albums----unlike say, a post-Ozzy Sabbath that was mainly 'consistent' in its deflating, exasparating all-round mediocrity. LOL
    The problem with the whole "never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own" is the absence of ANYTHING once that well runs dry. What happens when you find a well and continue draining water from it without doing anything to replenishing it?
    The well runs dry and you’ll be lucky to get your spit back from it.

    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    So, in the world of music and bands, I reckon that 'consistency' can be both a 'virtue' or a 'curse', as indeed can be the much-vaunted route of 'experimentation' that a lot of fans appear to always enthusiastically extol.
    As long as you have established a core foundation that you can always return to for safety, why not try to replenish your well? As long as the foundation is solid then the incessant adding of ingredients will never be able to crack it. Even your band’s most loyal fan base eventually ends up broadening and if your stuck with one formula then your highlight reel will be on VH1’s “Where Are They Now?” tv show, and who wants that?

    You mentioned a curse with experimentation and this does hold true, my second favorite band is a great example of that. Just like Led Zeppelin did a few years before them with General Rock, they stapled the same approach to Metal, which is to include softer moments. Right in the middle of this bands album that is full of Thrash Metal there is a Waltz song that sounds like it could have been recorded by the Carpenters. Call it a conversational piece if you wish but I love discovering a song or two in a collection of tracks that leaves me scratching my head and thinking “Where did that come from?”

    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    But, Ashley, your other remarks are bafflingly sort of esoteric, and well.... rather amusing. Gosh, lemme tell ya that the lives and fortunes of too many of my own (metal) musical heroes have been rather tough and trying enough already, without their having to themselves strive to "make their path as difficult as possible" And you appear to demand that every self-respecting band oughta dabble in myriad different styles in order to warrant the real, true 'respect' from the fans. I don't know about others, I'd rather be caught dead or day-dreaming about nothingness than ever expect a 'metal' band, of all things, to try out country, (jazz, pop, reggae, too? LOLOL) to become worthy of our admiration?? You gotta be absolutely kidding me and winding me up, Ashley, eh?
    No I am not kidding or winding you up, I simply asked a question which I will ask again: why cant a Metal band do other styles of music?
    I cannot say that you are unable or unwilling to see a Country/Metal fusion as a success because your tastes in Metal are literally, EXTREME. I enjoy Death Metal as much as the next person, who does, and can still appreciate a Metal song mixed with a genre that is far from their norm.
    I cannot speak for you but in my beginning years as a Metal fan it was surrounded by a Metal band that actually DID do a Country/Metal song, so maybe that is why.

    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    But hey, I'll grant you this much, though; i.e maybe all you seem to really wish for, is an ever-changing musical approach and style in any given band's successive releases. Fair enough...but I beg you please don't hold that (the refusal to do that) against the Cannibal Corpses, or Slayers of this world. Hahaha.
    No offense sir but are you suggesting your beloved bands are not talented enough to do something EXTREME and throw a Bluegrass tune right in the middle of their Death or Thrash styles, respectively?

    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
    Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?
    Oh damn, I did......I should have mentioned that they, too, almost always (excepting assorted songs and the Animals album) bored me to distraction. And while Floyd get a lot of universal kudos for their "originality" (especially when pitting a particularly specious argument against Led Zeppelin ), all I can say is yea, Pink Floyd were perhaps THE 'original' Boring Band I had encountered, in my musical journey, so far. Fact remains, nobody, not Deep Purple, not Rainbow, not Pink Floyd were Zeppelin's equal, ever. Sabbath was the only challenger, and the jury is still out on that.
    Certainly you are entitled but Pink Floyd being “boring”? You give away why you think Floyd is boring though in what album you quote as being one you enjoy, Animals, which is probably their most Metal-ish record to date. Is it because there is little to no crunch of heaviness to their sound? Their ever-changing approach every Gold-Mine they find. You wrote that I baffled you with esotericism, well now it is me who is baffled by the mystery. Certainly only you can explain this sir, but how in any sane person’s mind is Pink Floyd, the masters of experimentation, boring?

    Leave a comment:


  • RLP4ever
    replied
    Originally posted by Ashley Dalby View Post
    The talk of CONSISTENCY always makes me want to hurl. There is nothing worse than any band who tries to be consistent.

    You are a MUSICIAN first and foremost, before you ever decide which music you desire to make. It should be an obligation of any musician, no matter their ability, to go out of their way to make their path as difficult as possible.


    Greatness, thus respect for it, should only be measured by how hard you make it on yourself. So a Metal band makes a metal record? Big Deal. How about trying to make a country album. And even if you do not want to branch out to other styles, at least make every record as inconsistent as possible.
    Well, I'd argue 'consistency' can cut both ways for a band. I never had a quarrel with bands (and this includes some of my own favourite bands) that are sometimes, rightly or wrongly, 'accused' of being 'formulaic' and mocked by carping critics and fickle fans for allegedly making records that are too similar in style and content. Bottom line is, I can live happily with a band that maybe never strays much from a songwriting and sonic style of their own, BUT is 'consistent' in the top-drawer quality of their albums----unlike say, a post-Ozzy Sabbath that was mainly 'consistent' in its deflating, exasparating all-round mediocrity. LOL

    So, in the world of music and bands, I reckon that 'consistency' can be both a 'virtue' or a 'curse', as indeed can be the much-vaunted route of 'experimentation' that a lot of fans appear to always enthusiastically extol.

    But, Ashley, your other remarks are bafflingly sort of esoteric, and well.... rather amusing. Gosh, lemme tell ya that the lives and fortunes of too many of my own (metal) musical heroes have been rather tough and trying enough already, without their having to themselves strive to "make their path as difficult as possible" And you appear to demand that every self-respecting band oughta dabble in myriad different styles in order to warrant the real, true 'respect' from the fans. I don't know about others, I'd rather be caught dead or day-dreaming about nothingness than ever expect a 'metal' band, of all things, to try out country, (jazz, pop, reggae, too? LOLOL) to become worthy of our admiration?? You gotta be absolutely kidding me and winding me up, Ashley, eh?

    But hey, I'll grant you this much, though; i.e maybe all you seem to really wish for, is an ever-changing musical approach and style in any given band's successive releases. Fair enough...but I beg you please don't hold that (the refusal to do that) against the Cannibal Corpses, or Slayers of this world. Hahaha.


    Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?
    Oh damn, I did......I should have mentioned that they, too, almost always (excepting assorted songs and the Animals album) bored me to distraction. And while Floyd get a lot of universal kudos for their "originality" (especially when pitting a particularly specious argument against Led Zeppelin ), all I can say is yea, Pink Floyd were perhaps THE 'original' Boring Band I had encountered, in my musical journey, so far. Fact remains, nobody, not Deep Purple, not Rainbow, not Pink Floyd were Zeppelin's equal, ever. Sabbath was the only challenger, and the jury is still out on that.


    Originally posted by Wicked Cricket
    Couldn't agree more with your statement RLP4, I've always had BS, ZEP and Purple as my "Holy Trinity" (or un-Holy) of rock. Those 3 bands and particularly ZEP & SAB were the foundation of all that would be and has followed in hard/heavy rock. Zep more popular because of the sex appeal to women with rock "god" Plant out front. Sabbath was mainly a teen boy/male band with their female appeal coming from women who wanted to "mother" or "nuture" lil' Ozzy, the lost little boy who looked like he needed that. Zep was far more commercially succesful and acceptable to the mainstream public and radio than Sabbath. But staure wise, these 2 bands Zep and Sab were equals in the eyes of the die hard fans who worshipped them.
    Yea, buddy, all of that you say here and the fact that Zeppelin and Sabbath were clearly far more dissimilar, than they were ever similar bands. I'd go further and say that had Sabbath, to their misfortune, not been such a woefully managed band (unlike Zeppelin, who luckily were actually expertly managed all the way) AND had Sabbath not been so spuriously associated with a 'Satanic', poorly-represented public profile, I reckon Sabbath would have been at least as massively popular as Zeppelin always were, during that unforgettable decade in Rock. Of course, the inner turmoil in the band also frequently tripped them up. Besides, for all their awesome musical gifts and undoubted innovative flair, Zeppelin seemed to be slightly more rooted in a 'traditional' turf regarding their musical craft and direction than were Sabbath with their crushingly ton-heavy, lumbering, deliriously downtuned, doomy sound and style AND the utterly mostly dark, bleak lyrical palette that placed them firmly in the counter-culture and almost an anti-thesis to anything 'mainstream' in music. Of our 'Un-Holy Trinity' Sabbath were obviously also the only genuinely 'metal' act, and pretty much a standout pioneer, for their time. So, I'd say that Zeppelin's greater 'accessibility' and phenomenal popularity among mainstream rock fandom and the press, definitely had something to do with their rather less 'subversive' sound (and lyrics) and the apparent diversity and depth to their overall songwriting through their career.

    Ultimately, on most days, Sabbath and Zeppelin, on my card, return a split decision (with Zeppelin occasionally winning by a TKO, Hahaha). Nobody else, from the '70s, was even a contender against this magnificent duo.
    Last edited by RLP4ever; 11-15-2009, 03:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Ashley Dalby
    replied
    The talk of CONSISTENCY always makes me want to hurl. There is nothing worse than any band who tries to be consistent.

    You are a MUSICIAN first and foremost, before you ever decide which music you desire to make. It should be an obligation of any musician, no matter their ability, to go out of their way to make their path as difficult as possible.

    Greatness, thus respect for it, should only be measured by how hard you make it on yourself. So a Metal band makes a metal record? Big Deal. How about trying to make a country album. And even if you do not want to branch out to other styles, at least make every record as inconsistent as possible.

    Originally posted by RLP4ever View Post
    ...As for the other bands of that era, my opinion is that a lot of them were actually patently second-rate, some were undoubtedly (unevenly) very good, but none ever threatened to match the greatness of a Led Zeppelin or Black Sabbath, through the '70s. So, I stand by my belief that Zeppelin were almost indisputably atop the pantheon of rock gods of that decade.
    Sir, are you forgetting Pink Floyd?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X