RudyH Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I was listening to various features on the current and back issues of the Guitar World CDs that come with the magazine. This month, Lamb of God and Slipknot are featured. The sign of agedness for me is that literally every song they play is virtually identical. I must just be hearing a small subset of what would constitute an entire show. Is there more variety in the music than I have been perceiving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yes, I think that for genres which you aren't into, it is difficult to perceive the variety. And I'm not sure it has to do with age; youngsters frequently think all the oldies rock or all operas etc. is the same. For genres that you like, you will attain a trained ear and easily hear and appreciate the variety. Music is a subtle thing... DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 The sign of agedness for me is that literally every song they play is virtually identical. I must just be hearing a small subset of what would constitute an entire show. Is there more variety in the music than I have been perceiving? I know the feeling. Gone (seemingly) are the days when most heavy-rock bands were more than capable of mixing-up the styles of songs on any one album. Zep's 'Four Symbols' is a case in point - Heavy rock; er, Rock anr Roll (literally!); English folk tradition; 'Stairway...' defies just one classification etc...etc...and that's just side one! Then again, my parents didn't like my choice of music and I doubt that, in about a dozen years time, I'll end up liking my daughter's taste either. What does seem to be interesting is that, as we grow older-and-up, we learn to appreciate the difference between what is 'good' music and 'bad' music regardless of era or genre. The finest music will continue to be played whether it's a 14thC Gregorian Chant or 21stC Thrash metal....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrJustice Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Pippy has some good points. However, I'm not sure exactly what the metrics for 'good' and 'bad' music is (I do have opinions, though!). Thinking one step further, even within a genre the effects refered to by RudyH can be seen, regardless of age. E.g. in classical rock, you may get The Stones but not Creedence, thinking the one or the other has a lack of variety or is bad even. Right now, I know relatively little about Clapton (really, that is possible ;-) and his music seem to have a sameness to me, but it's not unthinkable that I'll get into his music sometime in the future, learning to appreciate the finer points of Claptonism. In the meantime I choose to be careful about blatantly labeling or disregarding him. There are more varieties of music and artists than a person can assimilate in a heap of lifetimes. This is great; it makes for a lifelong journey of musical discovery. DJ -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I'm not sure exactly what the metrics for 'good' and 'bad' music is (I do have opinions' date=' though!)/quote'] Yes, that's exactly why I put the brackets around the words 'good' and 'bad'- we all have our own views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 However' date=' I'm not sure exactly what the metrics for 'good' and 'bad' music is (I do have opinions, though!).There are more varieties of music and artists than a person can assimilate in a heap of lifetimes. This is great; it makes for a lifelong journey of musical discovery. DJ --[/quote'] Yes; I agree totally. That's exactly why I put the brackets around the words 'good' and 'bad'- we all have our own views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Allen Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 What does seem to be interesting is that' date=' as we grow older-and-up, we learn to appreciate the difference between what is 'good' music and 'bad' music regardless of era or genre. The finest music will continue to be played whether it's a 14thC Gregorian Chant or 21stC Thrash metal....... [/quote'] Good point, Pippy. I might not like a certain type of music, but if it is played well, with good technique, etc. I'll admit it. However, I do have to agree with RudyH. A good portion of what I'm hearing in a lot of the music today sounds exactly the same as all the others of any certain genre. But, that's what makes those who do go against the grain so appealing. Those occasional musicians that dare to be different and actually be GOOD musicians/songwriters are good on the ears against all the crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pippy Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 against the grain Is this a subliminal message for us all to check out the early albums of the late, great Rory Gallagher, as seen in your avatar? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I don't think it is necessarily age, I agre with pippy that if you are not into that genre you will not perceive the differences. Lets say you heard Slayer 25 years ago, if you where not into that kind of music you probably would think they all sound the same but that was 25 years ago... To flip this around, a metal fan may tell you all country picking sounds the same to him.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichCI Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 I always felt that if your parents don't hate it, it's probably not very good rock and roll - and I include myself as an aging rock and roll fan in that statement. As to what StiffHand just wrote, I used to be really into bands like Slayer, Megadeth, Anthrax and the like when I was younger and I still listen to them once in a while. But, these days, I prefer music with less velocity to it; I think that's at least in part to mellowing with age but also due to still discovering tons of older music that I overlooked when I was younger. I started buying Rolling Stones and Beatles CDs only maybe 5 or 6 years ago and get a real thrill out of hearing songs by them that I've never heard before - it's new to me; I always liked those bands but just never dug very deep into their catalogs until fairly recently and there are so many gems that I've discovered for myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riffster Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Yea, I too have expanded my music tastes over the years. I have listened to the Beatles from the beginning though, I actually got into metal later. In the 80's I listened to the Rolling Stones and other bands because of my brother in law and his awesome vynil collection. When I used to house sit for them I used to just sit in the room where he had his records and listen to all sorts of stuff from the 70's. He trusted me with his records because he taught me how to handle vynil. I remember one day listening to all of Led Zeppelin records from beginning to end. I never got into the Blues much, I liked it but did not dig deeper until a guy here at the office, (my mentor at the time) started telling me all about it. I borrowed some CDs and I've been hooked since. This was only 10 years ago. I mix things quite a bit, I go from Metallica to Oasis to Elmore James the same day. I also get on kicks, I will listen to all the 80's metal bands for a couple of weeks , I do the same with the Beatles or Surf Music. As for guitar playing I prefer the slower stuff with a good tone and feeling. Good for me 'cause I cannot play like James Hetfield or any shredder out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milod Posted March 16, 2009 Share Posted March 16, 2009 Okay... from a reeeeeally old guy. <grin> I personally think we're going to see a lotta modern stuff go bye bye - and not because I'm old and don't like a lot of the current stuff - although there's more than a little truth to that, too. Here's the point from music history over the past century of recorded music: A lot of material that was stylistically popular at a given point in time is currently not nearly as likely to be heard as other stylistic bits today. Glen Miller remains "popular" but Bea Wain's singing with the Larry Clinton orchestra is almost unheard - and yet there were a number of "number one" hits. (Check Youtube for the Wain-Clinton version of "heart and soul" or "Deep Purple" from 1939 - then try to find Miller or other arrangements with more orchestral depth to see why.) So what "we" like "today" may be less popular in the future than what "we" figure is "not really up there" today. What is? Well, take Wagner's Ride of the Valkyries. Although the writer unfortunately is colored with some "pollitics," that's likely to remain a true "classic," whether it's "classical music" or not. Misty has been done a thousand ways, and likely will be for a long time. In "Blues," Stormy Monday. "House of the Rising Sun" can be blues, folk, country, rock... In short, I question that the concepts will be as much "band specific," but rather whether the music itself has a tune and "lyricism" that "catches" whether there are words to it or not. Let's repeat that: "A tune that catches." I've done "Jesu, Joy of Man's Desiring" even in "folkie" venues and unless it's recognized as "Bach," most figure it's just nicely lyrical as a tune. The "largo" of Vivaldi that was even used in the old John Wayne movie "The Cowboys" on guitar is another example. And it's "pre-baroque" written for lute. Note also how a lotta old rockers end up doing stuff from the 30s through the 50s. Why? It's lyrical. It's more complex and yet "simple" enough to hear the tune in your head for a long time. Why is BB ongoing popular as a bluesman? Because... he is lyrical and complex and you can hear "BB" lines in your head whether you can reproduce them easily or not. (Just like some bits of Bach and Wagner...) My personal prejudice is that I doubt there's the lyricism to a lot of today's music to "catch" the strand of history some 20-50 years hence. Another reason I doubt a lot of today's music will "make it" in a historic sense is stylistic fragmentation that puts technically good musicians into such ongoing stylistic niches that it'll be hard to dig them out of those niches due to super-niche style. It's the same thing with the Wain-Clinton version of "Deep Purple" compared to a more "thick" and complex instrumental backing on even the same piece. Yet one more example from music history: The song "Blue Moon" made it big as a 50s do-wop piece, but most who play it nowadays, do so with the earlier "swing" style. Ask yourselves what current stuff could be played in another style of music and sound good. That's likely the stuff that will last, at least if it does find itself being done in different styles. If the "song" only sounds good in one style, I'll wager it doesn't make the 50-year cut. Okay. I'll be quiet now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thundergod Posted March 19, 2009 Share Posted March 19, 2009 They all sound the same to me (the new bands)... maybe because they are all over produced and over compressed over and over again till they fit the Ipod standard... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.