The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones

[16steps]

continue believing the myth--your buddy "John" would think your a fool for defending the artist integrity he was desperately searching for but never ultimately found.

john lennon:

http://www.dvblog.org/movies/03_2007/erection.mov

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

do i win?

[malaesthetique]

john lennon:

http://www.dvblog.org/movies/03_2007/erection.mov

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

do i win?

nope. I love how you cite merriam webster for support. we are discussing modern art, or art proper, not "artsy crafty" bull shit.

[landho]

That doesn't mean they are allowed to throw in their 2 cents? There is a difference between living and experiencing. I lived during 9/11 yet did not experience it on the same level as somebody who happened to be working in one of the towers or was on duty at that time. You are really taking the point I was trying to make with my mother a little far. Of course she is not qualified but she was part of Beatlemania and not just around during the time. But everyone is entitled to their opinion on a matter and that opinion is one of the criteria I decided to base my judgement on. Deal.

When you say that your mother said that the Beatles' music was "commercial music slammed down her throat via marketing techniques," that implies a whole series of value judgments that simply aren't correct. You can weasel out of the discussion by saying that clearly the Beatles' music was commercial because it sold so many records, but there is a certain perjorative connotation associated with the term "commercial music," the implication being that it is fluffy and without weight. The Beatles' music is certainly neither of those.

Now, if you had simply said, "My mother doesn't like the Beatles music" or even "My mother, despite growing up during the height of Beatlemania, has grown tired of listening to the Beatles," then there would have been no additional discussion. Instead, you tried to lend your mother additional credibility for having being born at a certain time. Because she listened to the radio and saw the Beatles on TV during the peak of their popularity doesn't make her an expert, nor does it even make her judgment any more valid. So we'll agree that your mother doesn't like the Beatles. That's fine. But when your mother dismisses the Beatles' music as simply "commercial music slammed down her throat via marketing techniques," it

suggests a certain lack of knowledge about pop-music history and about pop music in general. That's all.

[eplsoccer7]

1st off I never said she directly used those words of it being commercial. Based off things she has told me I formulated my own thoughts on that. And where do you come off saying a bunch of garbage about how she saw them only on the tele and heard them on the radio? What makes you think she wasn't at the venues? Would her credibility be raised when I told you she saw Hendrix at the Marquee club on Wardour St.? Considered to be some of his best performances and some of rocks most influential. You can throw your fancy words around all you want but don't make outlandish statements about what she did in her times there. You're really taking away from the discussion of the two bands.

[landho]

1st off I never said she directly used those words of it being commercial. Based off things she has told me I formulated my own thoughts on that. And where do you come off saying a bunch of garbage about how she saw them only on the tele and heard them on the radio? What makes you think she wasn't at the venues? Would her credibility be raised when I told you she saw Hendrix at the Marquee club on Wardour St.? Considered to be some of his best performances and some of rocks most influential. You can throw your fancy words around all you want but don't make outlandish statements about what she did in her times there. You're really taking away from the discussion of the two bands.

I will just answer your question really quickly. Yes, her credibility would still be questioned. It would be questioned even if she attended the original performance of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony. Simply being at a place when something amazing and historical happened is again no basis for someone's credibility. Her credibility took a serious hit when you said that she thought very little of the Beatles' music. And obviously, there are many music critics and historians right now who were born after the Beatles disbanded, so having seen them live is no criterion for understanding pop-music history.

Look, I assume that your mother loves music and listens to a lot of music and knows quite a bit about music. But on this specific matter, she is wrong.

[DDML]

my mom sucked beatles and stones cock

the beatles cocks tasted like onions strawberries and tangerines

the stones cocks tasted like ash anus and vaginas

[Francis Xavier]

so you are in fact an idiot.

I'll take this opportunity to say a few more words about the beloved Beatles. Their songwriting is quality from a biological perspective. They capitalize well off the archetypal melodies and sounds that human beings as creatures have adapted to responding to. But these structures are not to be conflated with modern art, properly speaking, which has more demanding criteria. The Beatles were just pop stars who indulged in the fashions of their day (including shallow revolutionary political theory) while making music that had enough of these hooks to keep their conditioned followers stimulated.

Quality from a biological perspective? Hmmm... If we're going to explore the hereditary nature of psychoacoustics, the beatles are an interesting place to start, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...

Let's not bring stuffy, overinflated, makeshift, over-conceptual mediums of egotistical compensation (jk, jk) like modern art into this as an example. We've all experienced some exhaustingly pretentious and boring exercises in futile stylistic exercise in modern art that were in no way reflective of the human experience aside from the morning BM (completely process-based). Because of that, I don't think modern art is where we should start with a conversation in this regard concerning psychoacoustics and the beatles. Right? Seriously though. That is beyond corny. If you'd like to indulge us with the relevance of psychoacoustics to pop music then by all means go ahead but do it in another post. I'm not kidding, I would really like to gab about that sort of thing.

I think that particular concept, "popular" music of mass appeal and why so many are attracted to it, can be summed up with: Group think is easier to force-feed when you're pounding a simple and familiar 4/4 into somebodies head with a heavy dose of cliche as to not make the listener feel alienated or, god forbid, reflective.

Oh, so you've seen Jesus?

20 Billboard # 1 hits. a record

Every list issued by music publications names numerous Beatles songs and albums in their "top lists"

One week in 1964 the Beatles held the first 5 postilions on Billboards top 100

They made 2 full length feature films and 1 full length animation

They made short films (videos) 40 years ago

20 of the 28 tracks that comprised The Beatles first 2 albums were overdubbed, albeit a rudimentary form of overdubbing known as "superimposition"....they were the first to use the technique

They began the modern long hair trend and molded fashion for years they didn't indulge in the fashion of the day, they helped forge it.

that's why Yesterday is the most covered song of all time...and their whole catalog is covered, even today.

I get it, if you ain't Merzbow , you ain't an artist.

they introduced alternative instruments not normally heard in pop music

the fuckin' list is endless and I'm tired of typing

You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant

I have no problem with anyone preferring The Stones to The Beatles. I have a serious issue with anyone that completely discounts the artistry of The Beatles.

I'm done but please feel free to continue to post.

"You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant"

Dude, then stop championing the beatles for "doing things differently" while slamming somebody for being "esoteric". If you wanna talk shit with a contender, don't contradict your own argument.

My. Oh. My.

Where to start?

All of these studio techniques you say that the beatles "invented" (get real) were probably invented first by highly ambitious white men who weren't cool enough to sell to the general american and british public-tards. Some of the big names being Stockhausen (who's pictured on the sgt pepper album cover), Henry, Schaefer, Raymond Scott, Meyer-Eppler, Reich, etc are to thank for the overwhelming majority of what we used then and today.

Rock acts are simply too stupid to invent anything aside from the bimbo and your daughter's illegitimate child. Whenever one uses a technique that no other bland rock act has used they get credit for "revolutionizing" music. Like how hip-hop feels that it invented sampling and looping and crap. The real credit should go to the squares, who's music is most likely far more honest and expressive than anything some dandy with a stupid haircut and a circumcised cock in his mouth could ever muster no matter how much blow you shove up his nose to keep him working.

Oh, and don't namecheck Merzbow. Merzbow sucks crap. You should be able to do better. Even if he was lucky enough to cut an excruciatingly dull 40 minutes with the sometimes great Tietchens (Even Tietchens admits in an interview that the beatles are "perfect music", but c'mon!), he still makes for a silly namecheck in that scenario.

I chose the Beatles, too. Fuck, I love the beatles. But between your muscle-bound ghostbusters outfits and this crap, I'm going to have to flush you before I even take a whiff.

Thread = Dead.

[owl]

Oh, and don't namecheck Merzbow. Merzbow sucks crap.

Now thats a whole different thread.

[eplsoccer7]

I think you are missing the whole point of my story. I am trying to get the point across that when she was young she was a fan, and over the years she has grown to no longer like them, not that she thought very little for their music. She has related to the Stones better over time then the Beatles. It doesn't matter what she does or does not know about pop music history (which apparently you majored in). Most people discussing aren't really qualified to be commenting on either according to what you're preaching (nor am I), yet we do.

And to back up some things I have been saying I'll quote a credible source for a change of topic " The Beatles didn't unilaterally cause these societal and music-industry changes. However, their massive communication and marketing technologies, allowed them to transmit their musical, lyrical, and cultural messages to more people than ever before. And, because of the Beatles' status as cultural deities, young people listened and, much of the time, believed." - Rock and Roll: A Social History by Paul Friedlander

[sonicvoodoo]

"You're just a wannabe esoteric who needs to be different

In other words, you're ignorant"

Dude, then stop championing the beatles for "doing things differently" while slamming somebody for being "esoteric". If you wanna talk shit with a contender, don't contradict your own argument.

My. Oh. My.

Where to start?

All of these studio techniques you say that the beatles "invented" (get real) were probably invented first by highly ambitious white men who weren't cool enough to sell to the general american and british public-tards. Some of the big names being Stockhausen (who's pictured on the sgt pepper album cover), Henry, Schaefer, Raymond Scott, Meyer-Eppler, Reich, etc are to thank for the overwhelming majority of what we used then and today.

Rock acts are simply too stupid to invent anything aside from the bimbo and your daughter's illegitimate child. Whenever one uses a technique that no other bland rock act has used they get credit for "revolutionizing" music. Like how hip-hop feels that it invented sampling and looping and crap. The real credit should go to the squares, who's music is most likely far more honest and expressive than anything some dandy with a stupid haircut and a circumcised cock in his mouth could ever muster no matter how much blow you shove up his nose to keep him working.

Oh, and don't namecheck Merzbow. Merzbow sucks crap. You should be able to do better. Even if he was lucky enough to cut an excruciatingly dull 40 minutes with the sometimes great Tietchens (Even Tietchens admits in an interview that the beatles are "perfect music", but c'mon!), he still makes for a silly namecheck in that scenario.

I chose the Beatles, too. Fuck, I love the beatles. But between your muscle-bound ghostbusters outfits and this crap, I'm going to have to flush you before I even take a whiff.

Thread = Dead.

Hey Franny, where da fuck did I say The Beatles invented anything?. The fact that they were innovative does not make them esoteric....and name dropping Merzbow was done ffor my esoteric friend....yeah they are crap..my point exactly

Flush away but be careful of the back splash

[eplsoccer7]

Just curious why you did choose the Beatles? Unless I missed it.

[landho]

I think you are missing the whole point of my story. I am trying to get the point across that when she was young she was a fan, and over the years she has grown to no longer like them, not that she thought very little for their music. She has related to the Stones better over time then the Beatles. It doesn't matter what she does or does not know about pop music history (which apparently you majored in). Most people discussing aren't really qualified to be commenting on either according to what you're preaching (nor am I), yet we do.

And to back up some things I have been saying I'll quote a credible source for a change of topic " The Beatles didn't unilaterally cause these societal and music-industry changes. However, their massive communication and marketing technologies, allowed them to transmit their musical, lyrical, and cultural messages to more people than ever before. And, because of the Beatles' status as cultural deities, young people listened and, much of the time, believed." - Rock and Roll: A Social History by Paul Friedlander

I certainly misunderstood your statement. There's nothing at all arguable in what you're presenting there. I drew some conclusions from your original statement based on the way it was phrased that weren't intended at all.

Oh, and I chose the Beatles for all the usual reasons--more influential, not only musically but also with regard to their recording techniques, a wider musical palette, greater talent individually (several solo Beatles albums are bona fide classics, while no Stones ones are), more innovations in music, etc., etc. I love the Stones and some of their songs are among my favorite of all time, but I don't think there is anyone in the annals of pop music that can come close to what the Beatles accomplished.

[Francis Xavier]

Hey Franny, where da fuck did I say The Beatles invented anything?. The fact that they were innovative does not make them esoteric....and name dropping Merzbow was done ffor my esoteric friend....yeah they are crap..my point exactly

Flush away but be careful of the back splash

Oh, I'm sorry! You made the mistake of saying that they used them FIRST! Kind of like the guy who invented the Flowbee Haircut. He must have tried it on his kid first.

When there's something strange

In the neighborhood.

Who you gonna call?

Dawson Crying.

RLgI-qbrWVo

PS- Merzbow isn't a band.

[sonicvoodoo]

yeah the Flowbee dude probably did butcher his kids first........somebody invents and somebody uses the invention....

stop tryin' to be an aloof asshole and make a point

*ETA* they should've been typed he

[Francis Xavier]

yeah the Flowbee dude probably did butcher his kids first........somebody invents and somebody uses the invention....

stop tryin' to be an aloof asshole and make a point

My point is...

YOU AIN'T NEVA GOIN' PLATINUM.

[eplsoccer7]

I certainly misunderstood your statement. There's nothing at all arguable in what you're presenting there. I drew some conclusions from your original statement based on the way it was phrased that weren't intended at all.

Oh, and I chose the Beatles for all the usual reasons--more influential, not only musically but also with regard to their recording techniques, a wider musical palette, greater talent individually (several solo Beatles albums are bona fide classics, while no Stones ones are), more innovations in music, etc., etc. I love the Stones and some of their songs are among my favorite of all time, but I don't think there is anyone in the annals of pop music that can come close to what the Beatles accomplished.

I was actually asking Francis his thoughts. But I can agree with some of your statements regarding the Beatles. I wish the poll wasn't just the band vs the band because you can argue the Stones are more rooted in rock and the Beatles are good clean fun with their pop sound. The Beatles had the moment and team to help them explode onto the scene. Any other time or minus Epstein, we may not be having this discussion. The Stones on the other hand are rooted in blues and R&B. Jagger wanted to be black for crying out loud. To be honest neither is really original. In all music people are taking ideas or creating their own sound based on previous acts. I chose the Stones because this whole time I was thinking who is the better rock band not the most influential, popular etc.

[malaesthetique]

Quality from a biological perspective? Hmmm... If we're going to explore the hereditary nature of psychoacoustics, the beatles are an interesting place to start, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut...

Let's not bring stuffy, overinflated, makeshift, over-conceptual mediums of egotistical compensation (jk, jk) like modern art into this as an example. We've all experienced some exhaustingly pretentious and boring exercises in futile stylistic exercise in modern art that were in no way reflective of the human experience aside from the morning BM (completely process-based). Because of that, I don't think modern art is where we should start with a conversation in this regard concerning psychoacoustics and the beatles. Right? Seriously though. That is beyond corny. If you'd like to indulge us with the relevance of psychoacoustics to pop music then by all means go ahead but do it in another post. I'm not kidding, I would really like to gab about that sort of thing.

I think that particular concept, "popular" music of mass appeal and why so many are attracted to it, can be summed up with: Group think is easier to force-feed when you're pounding a simple and familiar 4/4 into somebodies head with a heavy dose of cliche as to not make the listener feel alienated or, god forbid, reflective.

You've actually misunderstood me and we are in total agreement about the Beatles. I tried to be a little forgiving (and also condescending) however by admitting that they do seem to be quite good at tapping those universal melodies and other musical structures that transcend cultural fads and trends, which is why they are still able to reach such wide and even conservative audiences. even their lyrics deal with archetypal concepts such as God, the individual vs the group, etc. I even mentioned their indulgence in the philosophical and consumer fashions of their day, which represents the other commercially successful element of familiarity.

So why are you tripping when i contrast that with modern art? unless you have already dismissed it as a some sort of bohemian hoax only pursued by self absorbed and hypocritical narcissists (which we are, aren't we? after all this is a fashion forum).

[ken shinoda]

The beatles for their songs. The Stones for their swagger.

[cjbreed]

wow there are too many arguments going on here. And malaesthetique i have no interest in perpetuating a ridiculous argument with you.

but ....the reason i didn't get into the whole "define art" conversation is because it is undefinable, and for the two of us it has very different meanings, therefore the argument cannot be resolved easily and within the intended purpose of this thread. My point is that you should just loosen your grip a little. Don't take music (especially rock music) so seriously. The beatles just don't deserve the hate. Its a fact. You don't have to love them. You don't even have to like them. But you have to respect them. For a long time when i was in college (attending a music school) I didn't like them. Partly because they were so mainstream that as a self proclaimed supergenius I felt a natural aversion to them. And partly because the music was just too simple and too familiar. But i have come to learn that that is part of the genius of the beatles. It is familiar because it can be recognized everywhere in the music of so many other bands...

And i pointed out the appeal of the beatles to critics and musicians alike not because it proves that it is art, but because it builds a case for the beatles legitimacy to reference the opinions of those that are generally agreed upon to be great or knowledgeable on the subject. Jimi Hendrix was a massive beatles fan (he covered sgt. pepper live a day after it was released.) And no one can dispute Hendrix's greatness

just look at this poll: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3570869.stm

A panel of acclaimed musicians has named The Beatles as the greatest rock and roll stars of the last 50 years. Bruce Springsteen, U2's The Edge, Chrissie Hynde and Moby were on the 55-strong panel to vote for the 50 most influential musicians.

say what you want about Rolling Stone magazine, but these are the actual people that put together this list. NOT Rolling Stone magazine

the voters

here is what elvis costello has to say about the beatles. Please take the time to read the entire article.

the beatles by elvis costello

and here is a brief summary of the band by the BBC

The Beatles are one of the most commercially successful and critically acclaimed bands in the history of popular music, selling over a billion records internationally. In the United Kingdom, The Beatles released more than 40 different singles, albums, and EPs that reached number one, earning more number one albums (15) than any other group in UK chart history. This commercial success was repeated in many other countries; their record company, EMI, estimated that by 1985 they had sold over one billion records worldwide. According to the Recording Industry Association of America, The Beatles have sold more albums in the United States than any other band. In 2004, Rolling Stone magazine ranked The Beatles number one on its list of 100 Greatest Artists of All Time. According to that same magazine, The Beatles' innovative music and cultural impact helped define the 1960s, and their influence on pop culture is still evident today.

This is basically my point. No intelligent person can dismiss the power and influence of this band. And you cannot become this powerful and influential by sucking, or by ripping off other people, or by being a more well funded version of the monkees. It is impossible. And to claim otherwise is to insult many of the greatest musical minds of this century. And the only real reason a person would continue to pursue that argument so vehemently is to position himself as an intellectual elitist with an uncompromising and independent perspective that is beyond the grasp of the average (and even the highly educated) person, for whom he feels such pity and disdain.

My secondary point is that that type of argument has, in my experience, usually been associated with a person that is intelligent and knowledgeable about the subject, but lacks maturity and experience. You can use big words (like pragmatism, which you used / misused a few times already) and put together philosophy paper style sentences and drop names and reference obscure factoids. But the truth of the matter is so much simpler than that. Just look around man. Talk to real musicians. Those that make a life out of rock and roll. They will tell you. But most importantly, just go listen to the albums. Listen to the albums. With an open mind. I believe that eventually you'll see...

man it is too early in the morning for this shit

[Francis Xavier]

wow there are too many arguments going on here. And malaesthetique i have no interest in perpetuating a ridiculous argument with you.

but ....the reason i didn't get into the whole "define art" conversation is because it is undefinable, and for the two of us it has very different meanings, therefore the argument cannot be resolved easily and within the intended purpose of this thread. My point is that you should just loosen your grip a little. Don't take music (especially rock music) so seriously. The beatles just don't deserve the hate. Its a fact. You don't have to love them. You don't even have to like them. But you have to respect them. For a long time when i was in college (attending a music school) I didn't like them. Partly because they were so mainstream that as a self proclaimed supergenius I felt a natural aversion to them. And partly because the music was just too simple and too familiar. But i have come to learn that that is part of the genius of the beatles. It is familiar because it can be recognized everywhere in the music of so many other bands...

This is a good post. I'd like to add a few things... There are a lot of conversations going on here, but this is a good thread. People are going to call us pretentious or stupid for letting this conversation build and build into more more heady philosophical debates but I like where it is going and I don't think that we should necessarily stop because "it's just pop music." With that said...

I agree that rock music should not be taken seriously. It's a numbing agent and a stimulator at the same time. It numbs our minds and stimulates our cocks. The problem is similar to another proble that I, personally, am having with my beloved internet porn. I look at it so much that it's taking me forever to find something worth jerking off to now. It all just feels like the same empty cliche of what was once mindless and fun.

On a sidenote, music in general should be taken very seriously as long as you remember to keep feeling. Music and architecture are very similar, but the advantage music has over architecture is that music can be extremely flawed in structure and form and not come crashing down to the ground. There are no real-world repercussions to what we choose to emphasize in music and visual art minus the occasional political extremist. When we try to make sure that our music is "right" as opposed to "wrong" we lose the point. I think that's another thing that modernism sought to destroy in traditional western composition but because so many were puritanical about it, they perpetuated the thing that they sought to destroy thus making them... Hypocrites (like John Cage).

You've actually misunderstood me and we are in total agreement about the Beatles. I tried to be a little forgiving (and also condescending) however by admitting that they do seem to be quite good at tapping those universal melodies and other musical structures that transcend cultural fads and trends, which is why they are still able to reach such wide and even conservative audiences. even their lyrics deal with archetypal concepts such as God, the individual vs the group, etc. I even mentioned their indulgence in the philosophical and consumer fashions of their day, which represents the other commercially successful element of familiarity.

So why are you tripping when i contrast that with modern art? unless you have already dismissed it as a some sort of bohemian hoax only pursued by self absorbed and hypocritical narcissists (which we are, aren't we? after all this is a fashion forum).

C'mon now. I liked your posts. I was poking fun and not even directly at you. I even told you that I agreed with you so, well... Calm down. I thought I made that rather obvious. I didn't "trip" when you contrasted pop music with modern art. I simply attacked the concept of intentional modernism in art as easy and ill-conceived and tried to throw in a dash of bad humor. A lot of the worst modern art is a bolshevik-styled zeitgeist lacking depth or foresight. I also made sure not to lump every corner of modern art music into the group of hateful, reactionary know-nothings that the new elite have come to canonize simply for being anti-western and albophobic in their reactions to what they saw as "traditional" western art music. I do feel, however, that the more intelligent, expressive, and honest corners of modern art were able to liberate us from certain restraints and built upon the more expressive elements of traditional composition while opening doors to new forms honestly without being driven by hate, instead being driven by truth and ambition. What I mean is, for the most part, fuck the new york school minus Feldman even if he was Cage's most gifted "protege." For instance, I feel that Cage is highly regarded not for his music, but for the politics of his music. He was decidedly anti-western. The kind of overrated hackjob that's the Susan Sontag of the music world. The establishment at that time was experiencing a changing of the guard, and cage was a perfect poster-child for legitimizing certain sectors of the [well-intentioned but eventually hijacked] modern movement's desire to [ethnically] cleanse academic music. Not that they succeeded per se, because plenty of die-hard traditionalist conservatives maintained and still maintain a firm grasp of musical academia.

So to sum up this rant, that's the stab I was taking at "modern art" in regard to academic music. I wasn't "tripping" over anything that you said, simply muttering to myself on this forum. It was meant to be a low-brow stab at the various hacks found within modern composition because I love attacking the attackers so sorry if this post went on for too long.

On that note: Listen to more Morton Feldman. I'd start with Rothko Chapel. Try it on a relatively low volume when you're trying to sleep. It's a great example of what more of a movement should and could have been.

Oh, and to answer your question elpsoccer7, I love the beatles because, simply, I feel the beatles more than I feel the stones. Because of the nature of both musics, I can't really explain it much further

[sonicvoodoo]

You see Franny, ya really can engage in a thoughtful ,intelligent discussion. Nice job. I agree with everything you and cjbreed said...especially the part about feeling. Rock music should evoke visceral responses. It should touch you in your core.I get goosebumps every fuckin' time I hear the opening of Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower"..and I've heard it over 1000X The Who's "Young Man Blues" immediately makes me play air guitar...I think I once ejaculated to the Stooges "No Fun"

The Beatles, well, they make me smile,

[Francis Xavier]

You see Franny, ya really can engage in a thoughtful ,intelligent discussion. Nice job. I agree with everything you and cjbreed said...especially the part about feeling. Rock music should evoke visceral responses. It should touch you in your core.I get goosebumps every fuckin' time I hear the opening of Hendrix's "All Along the Watchtower"..and I've heard it over 1000X The Who's "Young Man Blues" immediately makes me play air guitar...I think I once ejaculated to the Stooges "No Fun"

The Beatles, well, they make me smile,

Hendrix is hendrix. There's no cheap dior knockoff with hendrix because it would be too easy to spot the fake. His brushstroke was flawed in a way that you can immediately identify his presence. It's like an Italian Cold Cut from Palmisano's down the street. I can get a coldcut with the same ingredients anywhere else, but fuck man, that shit isn't going to taste nearly as good even if they do use shitty, cheap bread.

[malaesthetique]

This is a good post. I'd like to add a few things... There are a lot of conversations going on here, but this is a good thread. People are going to call us pretentious or stupid for letting this conversation build and build into more more heady philosophical debates but I like where it is going and I don't think that we should necessarily stop because "it's just pop music." With that said...

I agree that rock music should not be taken seriously. It's a numbing agent and a stimulator at the same time. It numbs our minds and stimulates our cocks. The problem is similar to another proble that I, personally, am having with my beloved internet porn. I look at it so much that it's taking me forever to find something worth jerking off to now. It all just feels like the same empty cliche of what was once mindless and fun.

On a sidenote, music in general should be taken very seriously as long as you remember to keep feeling. Music and architecture are very similar, but the advantage music has over architecture is that music can be extremely flawed in structure and form and not come crashing down to the ground. There are no real-world repercussions to what we choose to emphasize in music and visual art minus the occasional political extremist. When we try to make sure that our music is "right" as opposed to "wrong" we lose the point. I think that's another thing that modernism sought to destroy in traditional western composition but because so many were puritanical about it, they perpetuated the thing that they sought to destroy thus making them... Hypocrites (like John Cage).

C'mon now. I liked your posts. I was poking fun and not even directly at you. I even told you that I agreed with you so, well... Calm down. I thought I made that rather obvious. I didn't "trip" when you contrasted pop music with modern art. I simply attacked the concept of intentional modernism in art as easy and ill-conceived and tried to throw in a dash of bad humor. A lot of the worst modern art is a bolshevik-styled zeitgeist lacking depth or foresight. I also made sure not to lump every corner of modern art music into the group of hateful, reactionary know-nothings that the new elite have come to canonize simply for being anti-western and albophobic in their reactions to what they saw as "traditional" western art music. I do feel, however, that the more intelligent, expressive, and honest corners of modern art were able to liberate us from certain restraints and built upon the more expressive elements of traditional composition while opening doors to new forms honestly without being driven by hate, instead being driven by truth and ambition. What I mean is, for the most part, fuck the new york school minus Feldman even if he was Cage's most gifted "protege." For instance, I feel that Cage is highly regarded not for his music, but for the politics of his music. He was decidedly anti-western. The kind of overrated hackjob that's the Susan Sontag of the music world. The establishment at that time was experiencing a changing of the guard, and cage was a perfect poster-child for legitimizing certain sectors of the [well-intentioned but eventually hijacked] modern movement's desire to [ethnically] cleanse academic music. Not that they succeeded per se, because plenty of die-hard traditionalist conservatives maintained and still maintain a firm grasp of musical academia.

So to sum up this rant, that's the stab I was taking at "modern art" in regard to academic music. I wasn't "tripping" over anything that you said, simply muttering to myself on this forum. It was meant to be a low-brow stab at the various hacks found within modern composition because I love attacking the attackers so sorry if this post went on for too long.

On that note: Listen to more Morton Feldman. I'd start with Rothko Chapel. Try it on a relatively low volume when you're trying to sleep. It's a great example of what more of a movement should and could have been.

Oh, and to answer your question elpsoccer7, I love the beatles because, simply, I feel the beatles more than I feel the stones. Because of the nature of both musics, I can't really explain it much further

i wasn't championing academic musical modernism but more so modernist inspired movements occurring from within popular/rock music itself--namely punk in its various forms and other independent movements of affinity. Rock music became an established orthodoxy (and so too did punk in its initial articulation) thanks to Beatle's legions of imitators and followers (sonicvoodoo & co) who elaborated on and sedimented the elements they popularized. I like stuff that deliberately disobeys the meaningless rock pantomime and denies the overinflated value of its prime movers.

but i do agree with what was said about rock music being primarily about feeling. the music has to resound indeed at a visceral level, but over time this capacity of music does diminish. There is no perfect form with an eternal lifespan. Having heard the Beatles' greatest hits my entire life and hearing everyone tell me how much they love them my natural reaction is to say i don't like them, and honestly their music doesn't move me. I think they are extremely overrated and i prefer music that is more honest about what it is (like the stones) and doesn't try to be something explicitly political or spiritually profound.

[christianjustin]

back to the original topic.

no contest, stones+++

[sonicvoodoo]

Hendrix is hendrix. There's no cheap dior knockoff with hendrix because it would be too easy to spot the fake. His brushstroke was flawed in a way that you can immediately identify his presence. It's like an Italian Cold Cut from Palmisano's down the street. I can get a coldcut with the same ingredients anywhere else, but fuck man, that shit isn't going to taste nearly as good even if they do use shitty, cheap bread.

ahhhh, Jimi....JMH epitomized all that is RnR. He was the rare combination of explosive showman and master musician.Clapton and Townshend feared their careers were over after hearing Jimi play in London. Nobody ever wanted to follow Hendrix on stage..they knew they couldn't. He bent notes like no other...fuck, he invented notes. He played with such ferocity and pure emotion that it was/is impossible not to feel his music in your soul. I urge anyone who hasn't seen the "Live at Monterey" DVD to view it.....immediately....and while watching it, keep in mind that the performance was done under the influence of mega doses of some of the strongest acid Owsley ever made.

but i do agree with what was said about rock music being primarily about feeling. the music has to resound indeed at a visceral level, but over time this capacity of music does diminish. There is no perfect form with an eternal lifespan

this does not apply to Hendrix. I feel it as strongly today as I did the first time I heard it....many, many.......many years ago....probably before you were born.

Of all the past acts in rock history, deceased or disbanded, I miss JMH the most. I shudder to think of the music he would be making today given modern technology. It makes me sad...very sad.

[Francis Xavier]

ahhhh, Jimi....JMH epitomized all that is RnR. He was the rare combination of explosive showman and master musician.Clapton and Townshend feared their careers were over after hearing Jimi play in London. Nobody ever wanted to follow Hendrix on stage..they knew they couldn't. He bent notes like no other...fuck, he invented notes. He played with such ferocity and pure emotion that it was/is impossible not to feel his music in your soul. I urge anyone who hasn't seen the "Live at Monterey" DVD to view it.....immediately....and while watching it, keep in mind that the performance was done under the influence of mega doses of some of the strongest acid Owsley ever made.

this does not apply to Hendrix. I feel it as strongly today as I did the first time I heard it....many, many.......many years ago....probably before you were born.

Of all the past acts in rock history, deceased or disbanded, I miss JMH the most. I shudder to think of the music he would be making today given modern technology. It makes me sad...very sad.

I think what we're missing here is that Hendrix was a player. He wasn't a virtuoso like a lot of people think that he was, he was a player. What separates the two are emphasis. Hendrix placed emphasis on expressionism, sometimes in the abstract.

He would have loved Cluster.

[sonicvoodoo]

With Hendrix,it was never about technique. It was 'bout emotion, raw and unfiltered and dirty. It's as if he willed sound outta his guitar...and his restrung right handed guitar gave him a unique bottom heavy sound. It was about distortion and wah and feedback

As trite as it sounds, it was about love and SEX Hendrix was sexy..chicks wanted to fuck him and guys wanted to be him

[broneck]

your posts make me fucking angry. your avatar is irritating after two runs through. you sound like the most fucking cliched idiot of all time...worse than that maybe, you sound a little bit like a 14 year old who is just learning to play guitar and is like "FUCK man HENDRIX! sex drugs rock and roll dude! oh man listen to that WAH pedal!!"

[sonicvoodoo]

FUCK YOU

I've seen Hendrix play live 3X..I've seen almost every band mentioned in this thread numerous times.....yeah, that's right I'm an old fucking man....and you're a fuckin' snot nosed asshole

I lived through the 60s and 70's and I'm still here to talk about..sometimes I wonder how

Cliche? I was part of the cliche dickhead.

[Guest jmatsu]

FUCK YOU

I've seen Hendrix play live 3X..I've seen almost every band mentioned in this thread numerous times.....yeah, that's right I'm an old fucking man....and you're a fuckin' snot nosed asshole

I lived through the 60s and 70's and I'm still here to talk about..sometimes I wonder how

Cliche? I was part of the cliche dickhead.

the reason that clopek (probably) and many others (myself included) think you're a fucking bozo is because nobody really cares about how many times your old decrepit ass saw hendrix. the way you voice your arguments is just boring and irrelavent. irrelavent because other individuals of your era have voiced similar opinion long b4 you, not to mention with more coherency/logic. just because you are a old man doesn't mean that you gained or retained any wisdom of past. you have this typical cliche kinda og mentality yet do not have the intelligence to make it a viable factor.