Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivist Bands

Rate this topic


realitycheck44
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I used the term "mass production" in the same sense that I believed (though I could certainly be wrong) minorsevenflat5 used it, to mean something along the lines of a Britney/Xtina/Backstreet Boys kind of thing. I don't mean that even their music is completely devoid of any quality whatsoever, but my point is that I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that such music is made primarily to be consumed in mass quantities by people with money to spend, as opposed to break new musical ground, introduce new and challenging ideas, build on old ones, or even do much else of anything other then be "dance-able" to and/or to be used as marketing tools to sell products other than music (Pepsi, whatever). Not that I even have a problem with any of that! My only problem is people lumping ALL of the artists in a given genre into the lowest common denominator and making generalizations based on that.I'm not knocking the capitalist system, not at all. I'm knocking the idea that ALL rock/pop music is necessarily of the same quality as Britney, etc.
In that case, I agree with you 100%.

More later when I get time.

Sounds awesome.

Merry Christmas to you! And to everyone in the forum!

Ditto. Hope everyone has a safe and fun holiday season. :dough:

Peace on earth and good will to those that deserve it :worry::confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rock vocabulary is the musical vocabulary used to make rock music. I don't see what is so hard about this.

What I find hard about it is your elusiveness on the subject. What vocabulary are you talking about? Are you saying it has a set category of keys, scales, chords, instruments, arrangements, progressions-what? And what is the delimitation of the term "rock" for you? If there is a music form that is unrestrained by a vocabulary "rock" would be it. Whether that has been utilized and/or realized is a different matter all together.

The "chasing ass" comment does not apply to me nor to anyone on this board. It applies to the large majority of people who listen to rock music. Most importantly, pop/rock/hiphop is mass produced, simple music that philistines can listen to while doing other things.

A large majority of people who listen to rock music are "ass chasers"? Not denying there are some, but isn't this the same as me saying that men who watch sports are pot-bellied beer guzzlers reliving their vanguished dream of sports stardom?

Or, in other words, an induction from simple enumeration. Or, a generalization by a rationalistic method ungrounded to observed data.

Philistines? Is this not the music you said you still loved a few posts back? So, you are not an "ass-chaser", but, at the least, a part-time philistine?

It is all mass produced, so I don't think you are pegging it in any essential way here. Call it the "clone factory". And the two clauses of your sentence do not connect. Let me paraphrase it: "Coke is mass produced, a simple drink that philistines can drink while doing other things."

And, yes, this philistine does exactly this with rock music. Have you ever tried listening to classical music in a kitchen at rush hour? Impossible. Half of it is gone in the noise. And(oh my gosh I can't believe I'm going to confess this! :confused: ) sometimes a rock piece will even earn its right to be heard for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. Have you ever heard of the term "acapella?" :P

Normally when one thinks of acapella...they think of jazzy/pop-like Motown type songs being sung by barbershop quartets. That isn't necessarily the case.

If you have vocal ability and you take a rock song and sing it without any accompaniment while in the shower, are you telling me that it lacks melody, rhythm, harmony, etc?

Lyrics aren't just written words that are poetic or pretty. They are written words that are vocally expressed. This is known as singing for the uninitiated. :D What you are telling me is that you don't see the human voice as adding anything "musical" to music. Have you ever heard of opera?

Dude...even check this guy out and tell me you aren't impressed by the human voice: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/beatbox.html

This is interesting coming from an Objectivist. Why is mass production a BAD thing? Great pieces of art work are reproduced all of the time. Go to Cordair.com and you can buy gliclee reproductions of an artist's work.

If Cordair was the biggest art gallery in the U.S would you bitch about their art being "mass produced" as well?

I thought Objectivists were supposed to be into that crazy thing called capitalism :D . I would have thought that the site of hundreds of CDs being pressed to go to sale would make one HAPPY and not all angsty and bitter.

My girlfriend wrote me something interesting about this: "It's harder to write short, memorable music, than long, hard-to-remember stuff. It's like the difference between a Rach. prelude and a Bruckner symphony. Never heard of Bruckner? My point exactly."

I've heard of acapella - I'm in college; acapella bands are a dime a dozen. The human voice is an instrument. I never said it wasn't. I was talking about lyrics, words to the uninitiated. Not the melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. Just the words.

Mass production isn't a bad thing. Record companies should try to make as much money as possible. The problem is that most people simply don't value quality in music, for one reason or another. Record companies, in order to make the greatest profit, have to produce huge quantities of crap music for consumption of the masses, since they represent the largest market. I'm not damning the record companies for doing so. I'm condemning popular taste. It makes it impossible for someone who wants to produce (mass or otherwise) quality music to make any kind of living. Since such a musician probably wants to live, he has to devote more time to making money in other ways. Does this diminish the quality of the artform as a whole? Possibly; I don't know. I do know such a possibility unsettles me.

Tryptonique: Bruckner is fantastique. Not that "rach" isn't. The reason nobody knows Bruckner is political. He was victimised irrationally by the Viennese press who were devoted to Brahms, and detested Wagner - who was very influential on Bruckner - who both were also great.

I also thought that you didn't value music based on how hard it is to make. Her comment suggests that Rach preludes are better than Bruckner's symphonies because they are somehow "harder" to write. I'm not even going to ask how she knows Rach toiled harder in composition of preludes than Bruckner did in writing his symphonies. Also, plenty of difficult composers are well-known, Alban Berg, for instance, and this notoriety does not make him good. As objectivists reject atonalism, most of you would hate him.

I will posit that it is harder to write a piece of music that has depth and something new to offer upon each listen than it is to write a catchy little melody, throw a drumbeat under it, and some moaning, whining, screaming lyrics on top.

Jazz and classical are examples of music that offer depth. Good, real jazz performances consist of individuals each striving to create original, great-sounding music as a band. As each individual is extemporaneously composing to his maximum ability, and at the same time interacting with other members of the band to make it sound as good as possible, the performance is therefore stuffed with musicality and richness.

The composer of a symphony does the same thing, albeit on a much longer timescale. He is trying to make the music sound as good as possible, taking into consideration texture, melodic and harmonic motion, themes and variations, etc. The longer timescale makes more refined music, and though much of the spontaneity is lost, I value classical more highly than I do jazz.

Both jazz and classical have immense musical palettes with which to create music. Rock and pop do not. This dichotomy is plainly evident when considering harmony. Classical composers devote their lives to studying vertical and horizontal relationships of harmony. Jazz musicians similarly seek out new and inventive ways of voice leading between chords. Some of these sound good, some don't, but that's not the point. These increased harmonic possibilities provide these musicians with tools to create rich, great-sounding music. Wagner's Tristan prelude comes to mind as an excellent example.

You will find that the musical prime movers are jazz or classical musicians - JSBach, Mozart, Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg; Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Ornette Coleman. They are the ones whose overflowing powers of insight and creativity profoundly influenced music for the better. The only rock musicians I can think of who even compare to these men are Frank Zappa and Steve Vai. All others you might cite - the Beatles, Beach Boys, Satch/Malmsteen/Johnson, are all using musical tools that are derivative those of the prime movers.

Rock and pop musicians either do not possess or at least do not use such an elaborate harmonic vocabulary. In rock and pop you will never, for example, hear the b13 of a V chord resolve to the 9 of the I in a minor key, much less in a major key. Yet this is one of my favorite sounds in music. Another thing you will never hear in pop/rock is an augmented sixth (a minor seventh that resolves outward to the uninitiated), another beautiful sound, when done properly, gone to waste. 99% of rock tunes use fewer than five chords none of which are extended beyond the seventh, cheesy unprepared modulations (Living on a Prayer, for example), and pentatonic (at most adventurous, mixolydian) solos and melodies. This does not make them bad, but it cripples them; it makes them necessarily less interesting and satisfying than jazz/classical.

Imagine trying to paint a masterpiece with three primary colors. The more tools you have at your disposal, the better able you are to communicate effectively and accurately. Likewise in language. You can read supermarket trash, simple, easy, instantly gratifying, or you can read great literature, which may be more difficult, but ultimately more rewarding. The great writers were able to write great literature because they were masters of their craft.

I stand by everything I've said about this paragone except the chasing ass comment, which was stupid.

By the way, I'm don't consider myself an objectivist, though I do agree with her ethics and pretty much anything derivative thereof. I've read the scathing attacks on pseudo-objectivists by Peikoff et al. and understand their ire. I've never studied her metaphysics or epistemology, and though I plan to, I currently can't consider myself an AR devotee for want of this knowledge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... I'm not sure if I agree with all that you stated. I mean, yes, classical and jazz have as much depth and chilling harmony as could be. But I guess that is all in the ear of the listener. "Likeable" music is only likeable to those who like it -does that make any sense? I happen to enjoy jazz, I even played the trumpet for 6 years.

I agree with you about the foundations of modern music. Music in general stems from many places and I like having so many varieties to choose from. But who is to say which genre is more rewarding than another? To the valley girls out there, Britney Spears is rewarding. For those who are going through a hardship and turn to a "higher being", praise songs may be good.

Who knows? But I do know that I like what I like and other people like what they like for many reasons other than why I love music.

Anyway, thats just my POV. :D

P.s.-I can't figure out the quote things yet. I'm new to this posting stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm condemning popular taste. It makes it impossible for someone who wants to produce (mass or otherwise) quality music to make any kind of living. Since such a musician probably wants to live, he has to devote more time to making money in other ways. Does this diminish the quality of the artform as a whole? Possibly; I don't know. I do know such a possibility unsettles me.

There is definitely a "Wynand" type of mentality in the music/entertainment industry. There is much of a "let's sell swill to the lowest common denominator & make a fortune" approach by some people that should know better. I know; I've met them years ago when I was a making a meager living as a working musician.

But...

I also know the vast majority of people that make "pop" music are truly making music they love to the best of their ability (the artists & the record co. people).

And I would never have it any other way. The only way that I can even afford a home studio full of gear & some free time (away from my day job) to make my own music is because of the glorious remnants of capitalism in our economy.

Most of the people I know that buy, own, use digital audio/sequencing software & rack mounted synths don't know the difference between an augmented 6th chord & a screwdriver. But if there weren't enough of them buying equipment to make their simplistic techno/house/rave stuff I wouldn't be able to afford the equipment I use to make more "complex & difficult music" that I love.

There will always be "mass produced music serving popular taste"; & there will always be a "lowest common denominator". They do not necessarily have to coincide but even when they do...who cares? What are you gonna do about it? Regulate? Limit freedom? Nobody is allowed to buy Celine Dion, Brittany Spears or "gansta rap" CDs? I am not saying that you are suggesting/implying this. I am merely taking this to an absurd extreme to make my point.

Why worry about it? Just be happy there is music you love.

I will posit that it is harder to write a piece of music that has depth and something new to offer upon each listen than it is to write a catchy little melody, throw a drumbeat under it, and some moaning, whining, screaming lyrics on top.

It depends on how much skill you have & what you are trying to accomplish.

Not every one is a Hank Reardon or a John Galt; some people are Eddie Willers. Meaning that even if they are only capable of creating or loving music up to a certain level of difficulty & not beyond that they can still be moral in their choice of what music to create/listen to.

Jazz and classical are examples of music that offer depth...

Both jazz and classical have immense musical palettes with which to create music...

You will find that the musical prime movers are jazz or classical musicians...

Sorry to simply extract comments, but, I wanted to agree with them! These are all true statements but they don't make honest, rational choices by people that don't like classical or jazz "wrong" in not valuing Beethoven more than the Beatles.

It sounds like you are have a great degree of musical knowledge (& perhaps skill? are you a musician or a music student?) & you speak well of the things you value.

Christopher Schlegel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Green Day has an awful view on politics. It is horrible that bands mess in things they don't know enough about. That said, I have to say I do still listen to their music and quite like it. From their new album I have found Boulevard of Broken Dreams to be extremely helpful in helping me cope with my recent divorce. The music, the lyrics, and his voice all come together splendidly. They convey a message that yeah he walks alone in life but that there is not necessarily anything wrong with being alone.

I'd like to thank Concerto for his Postal Service recommendation. I started listening to them after reading his post and can't get enough of "Such Great Heights" and "Against all Odds". Also, I was fortunate enough to have seen the Killers play live for New Years Eve here in Los Angeles. They were absolutely awesome!!! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you like the Postal Service, definitely check out Snow Patrol. I went out and bought it, it is really good. Thanks for understanding where I'm at. See, it all just kind of climaxed at the Green Day concert, but I'm somewhat over it now. The lyrics are not that importants, but I did find some good bands (ie Postal Service, Death Cab for Cutie, Snow Patrol), that are life-affirming. And, yeah, the Killers rock. They played close to where I live, but I wasn't able to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, this is my first post. I'm not English and so, be patient if I commit some mistake ;)

If you're looking for individualism in modern rock, try with Bjork. She's not objectivist at all (and I don't like her when she speaks about politics), but she's REALLY individualist, especially when she declared: "I don't believe in God, I believe in myself". In her lyrics there's a lot of love for modern world and technology, she hates any form of "luddism".

I don't know if there is some objectivist band. Probably only Prodos, from Australia and 2112 by Rush.

Usually I really like electronic music, because it's music that come directly from the mind of a musician.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Realitycheck,

Have you checked out "Rush" yet? Their music definitely portrays a romantic sense of life and the lyrics litterally come right out of Ayn Rand's novels. One side of the whole album of "2112" was a story that retold "Atlas Shrugged". If you happen to check some of it out, please post a reply: I'd like to see what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Realitycheck,

Have you checked out "Rush" yet? Their music definitely portrays a romantic sense of life and the lyrics litterally come right out of Ayn Rand's novels. One side of the whole album of "2112" was a story that retold "Atlas Shrugged".

2112 is based on "Anthem." The album is dedicated "to the genius of Ayn Rand." Of course, the flip side of the album has an ode to pot smoking ("Passage to Bangkok"), so don't expect complete consistency with Objectivism.

Some of their songs are directly inspired by or explicitly refer to Ayn Rand's novels and philosophy, but the band have said over the years that they are NOT Objectivists. Neil Peart (the drummer and lyricist) described his own political views a few years back as "left-leaning libertarian" -- whatever that is.

They have their moments, but an explicitly Objectivist band they are not.

I first heard of Ayn Rand through reading a biography of the band. I wonder how many other Objectivists did as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ya know, its on my "To Buy" list (along with a car and a new pair of skis), so I'm sure you know how that goes. I will buy it soon, hopefully. I looked at iTunes, but they only have 30 second samples of each song, which isn't very helpful in a 20 minute song. I'll get it and let you know how I like it. :D

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hey all-

Great posts, and a perfect opportunity for me to add a little self-promo.

I'm an objectivist MC (yup)/guitarist/trumpeter working on a self-produced rap CD that is positive sense of life/pro-reason throughout. I just finished the first single, 20,000 volts, which you can check out at my website: www.exaltron.com - you can also find the lyrics on the homepage as well (right-hand column). Here's a small sample of the lyrics:

Underhanded bandits got their hands in my pocket

fingers in the socket tryinna drain my flow

but they can't tap the source cuz they know not whence

and now they're comin up against an electric fence

stolen concepts tapped to the limit

circuit breakers gonna trip any minute

the context droppin and mind-stoppin brutes

mow down the orchards but they still want the fruits

Jack-booted thugs in cahoots with the looters

the roots provided by intellectual polluters

and they shoot down any threat to their self-deception

reject the concept of natural selection

I've been playing and producing instrumental electronica for about 10 yrs and just recently have decided to get serious about doing lyrics. It's been a blast so far- I just did my first major performance over New Year's to an objectivist crowd (some of whom may be on here) and the response was overwhelming. I had assumed that Oist hip-hop would be a very difficult sell, but apparently it's not hip-hop per se that objectivists hate, but the vast majority of hip-hop that's out there that is to varying degrees anti-life.

at any rate, I would love to hear what people think of it.

ad gloriam,

exaltron (aka scott)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey BlackSabbath, I am a new fan of NIGHTWISH. You must also know about SYMPHONY X? It's funny, with all the styles that Objectivists listen to these days, I keep coming across the occasional prog or prog-metal fans. Still, there's very little mention of that type of music here... in an Objectivist forum!!! What gives? :thumbsup:

I LOVE KING CRIMSON and other bands of that sort. You have _got_ to check out Lana Lane and AYREON!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond:)

I have been enjoying my winter break as long as possible and am now back at the salt mines (aka school...he he).

mkay...here we go:

I've heard of acapella - I'm in college; acapella bands are a dime a dozen. The human voice is an instrument. I never said it wasn't. I was talking about lyrics, words to the uninitiated. Not the melody, harmony, rhythm, etc. Just the words.
Lol...well technically you were VERY imprecise. Earlier you asked:

Question: Isn't instrumental music the purest form of music as such? If you take away all of which instrumental music consists (melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.) from pop/rock, aren't you left with poetry at best?.

I'm saying NO. If you simply strip away the instruments, you still have melody, harmony, rhythm, etc...just in a different form. It doesn't bring it down to the level of simple poetry though, which is what you are implying.

I mean...sure, if you just look at words on a paper (linear notes to the further uninitiated :P ) you won't have an reference to HOW it is musical. It doesn't mean that the musical qualities they possess must automatically be due to instruments though...which is why I am thoroughly confused by the fact that you insist that instruments are the purest form of music.

They AREN'T. Go back to my point concerning how instruments derive their musicality from nature and ultimately from man. If you strip away instruments you might or might NOT end up with poetry at best depending on whether or not any musical elements are present in the way the lyrical content is delivered. I'm sure with *SOME* bands, you could strip away the instruments and all you get is basically a poetry reading with words said in a monotonous fashion with a cadence similar to poetry or simply talking. The music I enjoy doesn't fit that pattern. The music I enjoy (based on my criteria for what makes music enjoyable) DEMANDS that vocals have a musical quality all their own for me to take notice and not get extremely bored.

The problem is that most people simply don't value quality in music, for one reason or another.

There we go again with the arbitrary value judgments. Just because something is incredibly technical and difficult to play doesn't automatically give it quality. You might not like it, but it is hasty as hell to assume that most people are "philistines" who don't value musical quality.

They might simply value DIFFERENT qualities in music over others (like lyrics delivered musically...aka singing over instruments alone).

You show ZERO reasons why I (or anyone) should accept your paradigm as intrinsically valuable in any sort of relevent way.

I'm condemning popular taste. It makes it impossible for someone who wants to produce (mass or otherwise) quality music to make any kind of living. Since such a musician probably wants to live, he has to devote more time to making money in other ways.
You are right, it is about supply and demand...yet you once again give ZERO reasons why classical musical inherently has more "quality" than non-classical. What if I value social commentary or something that actually SAYS something? I'm going to be more likely to appreciate even a dumbface commie band like Rage Against the Machine than Beethoven, because they SAY something.

I personally don't have that as my dominant value (social commentary, that is)...but if I did, what makes me wrong for having that view? You can say that the artist's job is not to provide social critique or commentary, but if an artist decides to do just that and ADOPTS that job by his own voluntary will and Person X decides that he likes it and is willing to pay for it, what gives you the moral authority to declare with certainty that it ISN'T the artist's "job."

It seems like you have a very constrained view of what "quality" is. That is fine. Call it elitism, call it picky, call it "constrained." It doesn't really matter. The only thing is, you can't justify it logically or in any meaningful sense. Thus, you seem like a moralizer pointing the finger at "philistines" for not seeing your point of view.

Sure, the classical musician might not be in high (or ANY) demand right now. That might discourage some people from going that route. It also might not. I would never demand that a musician be an aesetic and shrug off all material wants. It comes down to a scale of value. What do you want more...your art or weath? If you value producing Beethoven/Rachmaninov quality pieces, you will produce them even if it means you don't end up rolling in dough.

The fact is, last time I checked Pavarotti wasn't panhandling at the corner of 4th and Vine. He might not have 10 porches, 10 million dollar houses, and the ability to own a sports team....but he isn't anywhere near the poverty line.

He probably *conservatively* has at least 10 million stashed away in various places.

What about Yanni or Yo Yo Ma? Are they poor? Of course not. Lets say they only make 1 million (which isn't that much by today's standards) in net profit. They can invest in other things and have quite a nice life by most people's standards.

Maybe not in comparison to how Britney Spears can live. Once again though, it is about supply and demand. How badly did Yo Yo Ma want to become insanely rich? I'm guessing that wasn't his primary motivator.

I also thought that you didn't value music based on how hard it is to make.Her comment suggests that Rach preludes are better than Bruckner's symphonies because they are somehow "harder" to write. I'm not even going to ask how she knows Rach toiled harder in composition of preludes than Bruckner did in writing his symphonies.

1) Not at all. She doesn't suggest that a Rach prelude is better than Bruckner's symphonies. The whole point of her telling me that (in a whole different conversation) was to make the point that in some ways, writing stuff that is characterized as simple and catchy can actually sometimes be more difficult. That was all. It doesn't automatically make simple and catchy and better than difficult and non-memorable. The statement she made was value neutral.

2) I believe she was coming from the perspective of: "If you sit down with the idea that you are going to create two pieces of classical music and you want one of them to be simple and catchy/memorable and the other one to be difficult and not-so memorable....it would probably be harder to come up with the simple and catch piece of music." (the quotes are me paraphrasing).

She wasn't saying on a case by case basis that Rachmaninov actually toiled harder writing a prelude than Bruckner did on his symphony. Just that simple/catchy music requires an element that reaches out and touches a wide demographic of people and stimulates a certain part of who we are (whether it is some part of our brain or our emotional centers) enough so that we remember it and WANT to remember it. This is in contrast to something that can be really difficult but not possessing that element. If you string together a bunch of stuff that is fast/touch to play or simply musically complex it doesn't make it automatically "desirable" to a good number of people. Thus, your chances of being able to achieve your pupose is probably numerically greater on the side of "diffcult and non-memorable" as that type of composition requires less in terms of elements you must incorporate.

will posit that it is harder to write a piece of music that has depth and something new to offer upon each listen than it is to write a catchy little melody, throw a drumbeat under it, and some moaning, whining, screaming lyrics on top.
That is pretty impossible to write such a piece considering that each piece has a finite number of elements (notes, rhythm, etc) and a finite time..but whatever.

Jazz and classical are examples of music that offer depth. Good, real jazz performances consist of individuals each striving to create original, great-sounding music as a band. As each individual is extemporaneously composing to his maximum ability, and at the same time interacting with other members of the band to make it sound as good as possible, the performance is therefore stuffed with musicality and richness.

The composer of a symphony does the same thing, albeit on a much longer timescale. He is trying to make the music sound as good as possible, taking into consideration texture, melodic and harmonic motion, themes and variations, etc. The longer timescale makes more refined music, and though much of the spontaneity is lost, I value classical more highly than I do jazz.

Depth in some elements and a lack of depth in others (refer back to the post in which I make it pretty clear that the depth found in classical and other instrumental is dependent upon the way you internalize it and not based on a sort of tangible quality one can necessarily put their finger on-unless you just straight up intellectualize your music as in "I like this piece because writing so and so chord followed by this time signature change HERE and this key change HERE is meaningful because of it's technical difficulty".

Both jazz and classical have immense musical palettes with which to create music. Rock and pop do not. This dichotomy is plainly evident when considering harmony. Classical composers devote their lives to studying vertical and horizontal relationships of harmony. Jazz musicians similarly seek out new and inventive ways of voice leading between chords. Some of these sound good, some don't, but that's not the point. These increased harmonic possibilities provide these musicians with tools to create rich, great-sounding music. Wagner's Tristan prelude comes to mind as an excellent example.

Horse puckey.

The same palletes are available to rock musicans.

Take Metallicas "S&M" live album which utilizes the San Franciso Philharmonic orchestra to remake some of the old Metallica songs.

Or even take the fact that many musicians utilize different instruments other than the "traditional" ones (such as Linkin Park's "Nobody's Listening" which uses a shakuhachi).

Sure...Metallica or LP aren't complex AT ALL musically speaking, but they have the same pallette to draw upon. I value artists that can do so sucessfully.

Sure, most rock musicians don't dedicate their lives to the intellectual study of musical theory prior to actually composing their works. That doesn't mean that they CAN'T or that it is impossible for them to do so. It just means that they haven't up until now (at least not with great prevalence). The pallete is there if someone decides to pick it up and work with it.

The technical depth that rock/pop music lacks isn't inherent to the actual form itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got "In Love and Death" by The Used for X-mas. I recommend it, though I don't like it as much as their self-titled album. I find it more pop sounding and not composed with as much care as the first one, though producer John Feldmen shows his great talents once more on this album.

If you like self-titled, check this one out:).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got The Postal Service's album and it's been in my CD player non-stop while I sit at my computer. Generally, I don't listen to lyrics anymore but these were very life-affirming, clear and optimistic in a way. It sounds a bit like a band I listened to in high school called "Prozak", except Postal Service is much more mature and grounded.

Just some favorites:

"I'll be the waterwings that save you if you start drowning; In an open tab when your judgement's on the brink; We'll cut out bodies free from the tethers of this scene, Start a brand new colony" - Why I think of Dangy and Francisco, I don't quite know.

"I feel must interject here you're getting carried away feeling sorry for yourself. With these revisions and gaps in history. So let me help you remember. I've made charts and graphs that should finally make it clear." - Sometimes we don't think quite clearly when our judgement is clouded on love issues. We need someone (maybe a third party) to point out things because we rationalize too much.

All together, just beautiful

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got "In Love and Death" by The Used for X-mas. I recommend it, though I don't like it as much as their self-titled album. I find it more pop sounding and not composed with as much care as the first one, though producer John Feldmen shows his great talents once more on this album.

If you like self-titled, check this one out:).

Agreed, all the way. Definitely check out The Used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, I love music. I listen to it constantly, even when I do homework because it helps me concentrate.

My FAVORITE band is MetallicA. I went to their concert in August and it was one of the coolest experiences of my life.

Lyrics aren't of the utmost importance to me, but I enjoy songs much more if I can identify with them or agree with their meaning. Here are some of my favorite new songs I love to hear on the radio:

"Alive" by Kenny Wayne Shepherd (Great positive sense of life song)

"Scars" by Papa Roach (I can personally identify with this song completely), and

"So Far Away" by Crossfade (Great new band!)

Shinedown is probably my favorite new band. One listen to that CD and I bought it right away. Pretty much anything really hard is great, like Damage Plan (RIP Dime), Godsmack, Korn, and Slipknot (especially when I'm working out!) If it rocks, I'm there, pretty much regardless of the lyrics. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! Crossfade is awesome! I saw them open for Smile Empty Soul once and they put on an awesome live show. On Feburary 4th I'm seeing them on the Winterfresh SnoCore tour with Chevelle (I have seen Chevelle twice before too..lol).

If you like Crossfade and don't have their album, check out some of their songs here:http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewProfile&friendID=2781992&Mytoken=20050121130457

I really like the song on the player called "No giving up."

That song is really really good in my opinion. I love the chorus and I love what this song says in the lyrics.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I got Rush's 2112 and, sorry to those who recommended it, but I don't especially care for it. It's not bad, but I don't like it nearly as much as I thought I would. I can't really understand the lyrics and, frankly, I just didn't think it was that great. Anyway, I said I would let you guys know how I like it. Thanks for the recommendation, it didn't pan out, but whatever. I did find a really good band called Daphne Loves Derby. They are kind of soft like the Postal Service/ Death Cab and Snow Patrol.

Zak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...