The Christian music industry is dead. Cornerstone Festival announced this is its last year. (link) When I was younger I wanted to go to Cornerstone. I never did and I have no desire to go now, but I'm still sad to see it go.
I grew up in the 90s in the evangelical Christian sub-culture. Back then, a lot of Christians wouldn't listen to secular music, but they listened to Christian music. The Christian music industry thrived thanks to this. There were lots of charts listing Christian bands as “Christian alternatives” to secular bands. The bands themselves hated this, except for the few who saw themselves as the “safe” versions of secular musicians. The charts were pretty far off base too.
As a result, Christian artists gained a reputation as cheap knockoffs of secular artists. Sometimes this was true, but it often wasn't. There were a lot of bad bands from my childhood, but there were some good ones too. I still listen to some of them. And it ruined my musical taste forever.
Why did this happen? In the late 80s, popular music was very dirty. Your average rock album from 1989 is way dirtier than your average rock album from 1969 or 2009. This was the era of the Parents Music Research Council, the Parental Advisory sticker, etc. Parents want to protect their children. So we got an entire music industry designed as an alternative to one that some people think went off the deep end.
The Christian music industry did convert a lot of the more fundamentalist Christians who believed all popular music was evil. They had music with evil drum beats and guitars, but they're singing about Jesus! Nice things too. What do they do now? Some people bashed the Christian bands, but I think it made a lot of them more tolerant.
What killed it? One thing was commercial acceptance of Christian bands in the mainstream market. A few had big hits before, but not like the breakthru in the mid-00s. Another was that mainstream rock music got a lot less dirty after Marilyn Manson took shock rock as far as the mainstream would let him. By the way, Marilyn Manson was a marketing genius. All the parents complained about him, so he was one of the few secular artists I knew of when I was a kid. All the church kids knew: If you want to rebel, listen to Marilyn Manson. Back to the main topic...
Also, Christian music stopped being “safe” sometime in the past few years. Musicians start ed swearing and singing about controversial topics, e. g. Derek Webb. Christian music wasn't all G-rated any more. It wasn't all Focus on the Family approved any more. You couldn't be sure you'd agree with everything the music said.
Christian musicians will survive. We'll have new Christian musicians in all styles, but they won't be part of a separate market. I hope some of them better ones, such as House of Heroes, get the attention they deserve. I'll miss having Cornerstone around, but there's no need for a separate music market any more.
What I want to know is why almost all “heavy” Christian bands do hardcore or metalcore. There are so many styles of heavy music but Christian bands always go for -core music. Maybe they want to fight the image that Christian music is always mellow and pretty, so they scream over everything. Maybe there's less bias against Christianity in the -core world than in power metal or thrash metal. Maybe none of them can play guitar solos. Maybe it's like how third wave ska was huge in the Christian world for way longer than the secular world. The Christian music industry was usually a few years behind the secular music industry, but they were right on the ball with ska.
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Showing posts with label music. Show all posts
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Monday, April 30, 2012
The World's Most Hated Bands
I read the article A Night With the World's Most Hated Bands by Chuck Klosterman. Pretty good article. A little snobby, but he does well considering he's a rock critic.
Klosterman says there's five bands it's "okay" to hate for no reason: Bush, Hootie and the Blowfish, Limp Bizkit, Creed, and Nickelback. He saw the last two of them play live the same night and dissected the reasons people hate them. He boils down the Creed hate to people thinking they were Pearl Jam ripoffs. He says Nickelback's hate is just because; there's no reason.
My take on the Nickelback hate: They're the most popular of a lot of similar bands. A lot of these bands are worse than Nickelback. Hinder, for one. Also Puddle of Mudd. Some of these bands are better - such as Shinedown. When people say they hate Nickelback, they mean "I hate post-grunge music". I don't like Nickelback, and I don't even care for Shinedown apart from a few songs. But I like Foo Fighters and Switchfoot. Before I got into Muse I thought they were another post-grunge band and now they're one of my favorites. I can't dismiss the whole genre.
I don't like Nickelback, but some of my friends do. I also don't like the Velvet Underground or the Pixies and some of my friends do. I'll leave any room where the Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" is playing, but some of my friends like it. I don't know why, because it sucks and I hate it. But people have different tastes. I won't judge somebody based on that.
I also like a lot of music the critics hate. I like a lot of prog rock, which many music nuts dismiss with the wave of a hand. However, prog rock gets a lot more respect than Nickelback or Creed on sites like Rate Your Music.
Klosterman says there's five bands it's "okay" to hate for no reason: Bush, Hootie and the Blowfish, Limp Bizkit, Creed, and Nickelback. He saw the last two of them play live the same night and dissected the reasons people hate them. He boils down the Creed hate to people thinking they were Pearl Jam ripoffs. He says Nickelback's hate is just because; there's no reason.
My take on the Nickelback hate: They're the most popular of a lot of similar bands. A lot of these bands are worse than Nickelback. Hinder, for one. Also Puddle of Mudd. Some of these bands are better - such as Shinedown. When people say they hate Nickelback, they mean "I hate post-grunge music". I don't like Nickelback, and I don't even care for Shinedown apart from a few songs. But I like Foo Fighters and Switchfoot. Before I got into Muse I thought they were another post-grunge band and now they're one of my favorites. I can't dismiss the whole genre.
I don't like Nickelback, but some of my friends do. I also don't like the Velvet Underground or the Pixies and some of my friends do. I'll leave any room where the Verve's "Bittersweet Symphony" is playing, but some of my friends like it. I don't know why, because it sucks and I hate it. But people have different tastes. I won't judge somebody based on that.
I also like a lot of music the critics hate. I like a lot of prog rock, which many music nuts dismiss with the wave of a hand. However, prog rock gets a lot more respect than Nickelback or Creed on sites like Rate Your Music.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Maximalist Rock and Minimalist Rock
Zaragon, an Internet music critic, says there are two main "camps" in rock music, maximalism and minimalism. If you got a few minutes, read thru this link from his blog. If you got a bit longer, try this one. These two articles he wrote explain the differences between maximalism and minimalism. If his writing style confuses you, the maximalists build on the basic elements of rock while the minimalists deconstruct them. In short, it's the difference between the Beatles' Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and the Velvet Underground's The Velvet Underground and Nico. Both albums pushed the boundaries of rock, but they did it in very different ways.
As you can tell, Zaragon's biased toward maximalist bands. I would complain, but most rock critics are biased toward minimalism. I share his bias anyway. Here's his list of minimalist bands:
Most of those are critics' favorites. And he really hates Nirvana. I kind of like them but I won't push the matter either. It's a diverse group but there's something a lot of those artists have in common. A lot of indie fans have that taste. Now look at his list of maximalist bands:
Most of these are bands critics hate. There's progressive rock, hard rock, jazz-rock/fusion, and the technicolor pop the Beatles launched, along with a handful of new-wavers that critics also hate. And U2. A lot of prog fans like the non-prog artists on this list.
I used to wonder why punks went into singer-songwriter territory and metal bands went into progressive territory. This explains it. Most singer-songwriters are minimalists and most metal is maximalist. With lots of exceptions of course.
Where I disagree with him is he thinks maximalism ended in the 1980s. It's alive and well today. Modern maximalists include: Radiohead, Muse, Coldplay, The Smashing Pumpkins, The Flaming Lips, Blur, Porcupine Tree, Sigur Rós, The Mars Volta, Dream Theater, and Faith No More among many others. Some of these are questionable but so are some of Zaragon's picks.
I like a few minimalists like Kraftwerk and Brian Eno, but most rock artists I like are maximalist. There's more possibility there. There's more emotion. There's more extremes of beauty and ugliness. There's more power. There's a lot more color - the minimalists are so gray-toned. I like complex things better than simple things.
It's a simplistic view of rock music. A lot of artists fit in both categories. A lot fit in neither. But it makes sense to me. And if "maximalist" artists between the mid-60s and mid-80s interest you, check his Rate Your Music page. It includes best album lists for every year from 1967 to 1985. Be warned: He hates modern music. He ignores 99% of everything made after the mid-80s. He dismisses lots of albums solely based on their release date. If you can deal with that, check it out.
As you can tell, Zaragon's biased toward maximalist bands. I would complain, but most rock critics are biased toward minimalism. I share his bias anyway. Here's his list of minimalist bands:
The Stooges, The Shaggs, The New York Dolls, T.Rex, Jonathan Richman & the Modern Lovers, Neil Young, Graham Parsons, Nick Drake, Leonard Cohen, Tom Waits, Faust, Can, Patti Smith, The Ramones, Pere Ubu, James Chance & the Contortions, The Buzzcocks, Joy Division, The Smiths, Wire, Bauhaus, Gang of Four, AC/DC, Nerdvana (sic), Violent Femmes, Suicide, Throbbing Gristle
Most of those are critics' favorites. And he really hates Nirvana. I kind of like them but I won't push the matter either. It's a diverse group but there's something a lot of those artists have in common. A lot of indie fans have that taste. Now look at his list of maximalist bands:
Led Zeppelin, King Crimson, Yes, Genesis, Emerson Lake & Palmer, The Who (post-1968), Jethro Tull, Chicago, Earth Wind & Fire, Deep Purple, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, Mike Oldfield, PFM, Tangerine Dream, Magma, Harmonium, Supertramp, Al Stewart, Boz Scaggs, Rupert Holmes, Queen, Electric Light Orchestra, Steve Harley, 10cc, Styx, Kate Bush, The Stranglers, Ultravox, Magazine, Japan, U2, Simple Minds
Most of these are bands critics hate. There's progressive rock, hard rock, jazz-rock/fusion, and the technicolor pop the Beatles launched, along with a handful of new-wavers that critics also hate. And U2. A lot of prog fans like the non-prog artists on this list.
I used to wonder why punks went into singer-songwriter territory and metal bands went into progressive territory. This explains it. Most singer-songwriters are minimalists and most metal is maximalist. With lots of exceptions of course.
Where I disagree with him is he thinks maximalism ended in the 1980s. It's alive and well today. Modern maximalists include: Radiohead, Muse, Coldplay, The Smashing Pumpkins, The Flaming Lips, Blur, Porcupine Tree, Sigur Rós, The Mars Volta, Dream Theater, and Faith No More among many others. Some of these are questionable but so are some of Zaragon's picks.
I like a few minimalists like Kraftwerk and Brian Eno, but most rock artists I like are maximalist. There's more possibility there. There's more emotion. There's more extremes of beauty and ugliness. There's more power. There's a lot more color - the minimalists are so gray-toned. I like complex things better than simple things.
It's a simplistic view of rock music. A lot of artists fit in both categories. A lot fit in neither. But it makes sense to me. And if "maximalist" artists between the mid-60s and mid-80s interest you, check his Rate Your Music page. It includes best album lists for every year from 1967 to 1985. Be warned: He hates modern music. He ignores 99% of everything made after the mid-80s. He dismisses lots of albums solely based on their release date. If you can deal with that, check it out.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Exploring Music
I have about 250 albums in my music collection. When I open iTunes I realize how much I have. I can't decide what to listen to half the time. I got some genre playlists I put on shuffle. Sometimes something comes up and I decide to play the whole album. Sometimes I get in the mood for one artist and play everything I got. Sometimes I play the same album every 2-3 days for a month. I shuffle my music collection enough that I rarely go more than a few months without hearing an artist.
There's a wide world of music out there to explore. I got music I want to buy. There's a lot of stuff I want to explore someday. But I won't have the time to listen to it all. I got a lot of time to listen to music now. It won't be like this all my life.
On the other hand I don't want to go too fast and burn myself out. Usually it depends on money and free time. If I have a lot of both, I buy lots of music. I usually have one or the other.
There's a lot of artists I listened to when I got their music but I rarely listen to them now. Sometimes I get back into them for a while and sometimes I don't. It depends on my mood. I don't buy music I know I won't play much. However, I always listen to my favorite artists. I'm sure I've played some songs over 300 times in my life. If a song's good enough I never get sick of it.
The problem: How much more should I explore? I got a lot of music I want to get, but how much will I listen to it a year after I get it? I only play a handful of artists on a regular basis. Only a few in each genre. I like a lot of others but I don't play them as much.
There's a wide world of music out there to explore. I got music I want to buy. There's a lot of stuff I want to explore someday. But I won't have the time to listen to it all. I got a lot of time to listen to music now. It won't be like this all my life.
On the other hand I don't want to go too fast and burn myself out. Usually it depends on money and free time. If I have a lot of both, I buy lots of music. I usually have one or the other.
There's a lot of artists I listened to when I got their music but I rarely listen to them now. Sometimes I get back into them for a while and sometimes I don't. It depends on my mood. I don't buy music I know I won't play much. However, I always listen to my favorite artists. I'm sure I've played some songs over 300 times in my life. If a song's good enough I never get sick of it.
The problem: How much more should I explore? I got a lot of music I want to get, but how much will I listen to it a year after I get it? I only play a handful of artists on a regular basis. Only a few in each genre. I like a lot of others but I don't play them as much.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Stairway to Heaven
If there's one song I wish I liked, it's Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven". It's one of the most revered rock songs ever. I've tried to like it so many times. I like a lot of other Led Zeppelin songs. Most people who attack "Stairway to Heaven" attack everything it stands for - long songs, guitar solos, etc. which are all things I like. I don't like the Velvet Underground either, but I'm not a punk/alternative/indie fan so it doesn't cause me problems. "Stairway to Heaven" is my kind of music and I'm supposed to like it, but I don't.
The first part is boring and lasts way too long. There's no hook to the melody. The drums come in too late and too loud. It reminds me of one of Genesis's weaker songs - the early Genesis with Peter Gabriel. Then everybody told me it got REALLY HEAVY at the end - it doesn't. After about five minutes of dull folk-rock it turns into a nice mellow ballad with LOUD DRUMS. There are lots of songs that start quiet and end loud. "Stairway to Heaven" is not one of them. It stays quiet and mellow thruout apart from the LOUD DRUMS. It isn't even heavy for its era or its album. Lots of stuff in 1971 was way heavier. I love Jimmy Page's guitar solo tho. I'm sick of hearing how it turns into this hard rock song because it doesn't.
Plus their drummer John Bonham is overrated. He's a very good drummer but he's the most overrated drummer in rock music. I don't know why people hold him up as the ultimate rock drummer. He never played quiet. After the first album or two he quit using lots of cymbals and I like cymbals and open hi-hats. After a while he played the same on every song. I already hate te drumming on "Stairway to Heaven", but "Kashmir" is another song with drumming that doesn't fit. Most of his drum parts are boring and a lot of them don't fit the music. I like a few of his drum parts, like "When the Levee Breaks", "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You", and "Communication Breakdown". But most of them don't work. I'd play them very different.
Bonham's still a good drummer. He's better than about 90% of rock drummers. He could play way better than I can. But he's not as good as Bill Bruford (Yes, King Crimson), BJ Wilson (Procol Harum), Stewart Copeland (The Police), Ginger Baker (Cream), or even Keith Moon (The Who). Bonham had a great sense of groove, but he had no sense of dynamics or fitting the music. So a lot of songs have drums that are way too loud or too quiet. Too bad everyone else thinks he's the best ever. If you say John Bonham is overrated, 5,000,000 Led Zeppelin fans attack you for blasphemy. This is why everyone considers him the god of drums when he's not. Nobody is. They don't want Led Zeppelin fans to kill them.
Now that I've pissed everyone off, I say King Crimson's "Starless" takes everything "Stairway to Heaven" does and does it better. Better melody, better lyrics, an awesome quiet-to-loud build-up, and some of the best drumming ever courtesy of Bill Bruford. There's no normal guitar solo, but there is an awesome sax solo and a guitar noise solo during the loud heavy part. And I get way more feeling from "Starless" than I ever did from "Stairway to Heaven".
The first part is boring and lasts way too long. There's no hook to the melody. The drums come in too late and too loud. It reminds me of one of Genesis's weaker songs - the early Genesis with Peter Gabriel. Then everybody told me it got REALLY HEAVY at the end - it doesn't. After about five minutes of dull folk-rock it turns into a nice mellow ballad with LOUD DRUMS. There are lots of songs that start quiet and end loud. "Stairway to Heaven" is not one of them. It stays quiet and mellow thruout apart from the LOUD DRUMS. It isn't even heavy for its era or its album. Lots of stuff in 1971 was way heavier. I love Jimmy Page's guitar solo tho. I'm sick of hearing how it turns into this hard rock song because it doesn't.
Plus their drummer John Bonham is overrated. He's a very good drummer but he's the most overrated drummer in rock music. I don't know why people hold him up as the ultimate rock drummer. He never played quiet. After the first album or two he quit using lots of cymbals and I like cymbals and open hi-hats. After a while he played the same on every song. I already hate te drumming on "Stairway to Heaven", but "Kashmir" is another song with drumming that doesn't fit. Most of his drum parts are boring and a lot of them don't fit the music. I like a few of his drum parts, like "When the Levee Breaks", "Babe I'm Gonna Leave You", and "Communication Breakdown". But most of them don't work. I'd play them very different.
Bonham's still a good drummer. He's better than about 90% of rock drummers. He could play way better than I can. But he's not as good as Bill Bruford (Yes, King Crimson), BJ Wilson (Procol Harum), Stewart Copeland (The Police), Ginger Baker (Cream), or even Keith Moon (The Who). Bonham had a great sense of groove, but he had no sense of dynamics or fitting the music. So a lot of songs have drums that are way too loud or too quiet. Too bad everyone else thinks he's the best ever. If you say John Bonham is overrated, 5,000,000 Led Zeppelin fans attack you for blasphemy. This is why everyone considers him the god of drums when he's not. Nobody is. They don't want Led Zeppelin fans to kill them.
Now that I've pissed everyone off, I say King Crimson's "Starless" takes everything "Stairway to Heaven" does and does it better. Better melody, better lyrics, an awesome quiet-to-loud build-up, and some of the best drumming ever courtesy of Bill Bruford. There's no normal guitar solo, but there is an awesome sax solo and a guitar noise solo during the loud heavy part. And I get way more feeling from "Starless" than I ever did from "Stairway to Heaven".
Monday, November 7, 2011
Emotion in Music
When I was a teenager I didn't think there was much emotion in music. A few songs stirred feelings in me, but I thought people exaggerated when they said music made them cry. People said some music was emotional, but I either hated "emotional" music or it left me cold. Some music made me feel something, but nobody called it emotional so I didn't see it as emotional.
Then I bought Yes's Close to the Edge, one of the best albums ever. Most people have to warm up to it because it's weird and complex – I loved it the first time. I discovered something new in music. Close to the Edge has a huge scope of emotion, but they don't do it in typical ways. Nothing sounds like power ballads or adult contemporary. The lyrics are weird but they fit the music well. The crazy thing is a lot of people, including some "Yes fans", think their music is all logic and no heart. If you say you're a fan and you don't get any feeling from their music, you're missing a lot. Getting into Yes helped me enjoy other music more.
What triggers my emotions is different from other people. I don't care much about lyrics. I pay attention to lyrics. They can change my opinion of a song. But they come second to the music. To many people songs are lyrics with music attached. Also, blues music leave me cold. It uses the most neutral chord structures. The blues scale sounds neat but it also sounds neutral. I can enjoy blues with my head, but not with my heart. I don't like the DIY punk ethic either. I hate the idea that if you sing well or play well, it makes your music "fake". Bad singing/playing keeps me from getting emotion from music.
What triggers feelings in me? Great songwriting. Beautiful melodies are one of the best ways to get to me, especially with complex/dissonant harmonies. Good arrangements are another way. I like weirdness, but I hate weirdness for the sake of weirdness – it has to be natural weirdness. Great playing can take a good song over the top. I usually like complexity, but not always – some simple music is just as good. Tension and release dynamics are awesome. So is unpredictability. A lot of my favorites are mellower than most of what I like. A lot of my favorites are heavier than most of what I like. I get something from some sad music, but also from happy music, angry music, scary music, energetic music, peaceful music, and a lot of music that's hard to pin down.
Artists who are good at emotion include Yes, King Crimson, Procol Harum, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, (early) Chicago, Stevie Wonder, Dream Theater, Muse, House of Heroes, Eisley, Cocteau Twins, Brian Eno... Good genres for me include progressive rock, some hard rock/metal, some mood music/ambient, and the more complex side of pop. Some classical music works well too, especially the Baroque and Romantic eras.
Then I bought Yes's Close to the Edge, one of the best albums ever. Most people have to warm up to it because it's weird and complex – I loved it the first time. I discovered something new in music. Close to the Edge has a huge scope of emotion, but they don't do it in typical ways. Nothing sounds like power ballads or adult contemporary. The lyrics are weird but they fit the music well. The crazy thing is a lot of people, including some "Yes fans", think their music is all logic and no heart. If you say you're a fan and you don't get any feeling from their music, you're missing a lot. Getting into Yes helped me enjoy other music more.
What triggers my emotions is different from other people. I don't care much about lyrics. I pay attention to lyrics. They can change my opinion of a song. But they come second to the music. To many people songs are lyrics with music attached. Also, blues music leave me cold. It uses the most neutral chord structures. The blues scale sounds neat but it also sounds neutral. I can enjoy blues with my head, but not with my heart. I don't like the DIY punk ethic either. I hate the idea that if you sing well or play well, it makes your music "fake". Bad singing/playing keeps me from getting emotion from music.
What triggers feelings in me? Great songwriting. Beautiful melodies are one of the best ways to get to me, especially with complex/dissonant harmonies. Good arrangements are another way. I like weirdness, but I hate weirdness for the sake of weirdness – it has to be natural weirdness. Great playing can take a good song over the top. I usually like complexity, but not always – some simple music is just as good. Tension and release dynamics are awesome. So is unpredictability. A lot of my favorites are mellower than most of what I like. A lot of my favorites are heavier than most of what I like. I get something from some sad music, but also from happy music, angry music, scary music, energetic music, peaceful music, and a lot of music that's hard to pin down.
Artists who are good at emotion include Yes, King Crimson, Procol Harum, The Beach Boys, The Beatles, (early) Chicago, Stevie Wonder, Dream Theater, Muse, House of Heroes, Eisley, Cocteau Twins, Brian Eno... Good genres for me include progressive rock, some hard rock/metal, some mood music/ambient, and the more complex side of pop. Some classical music works well too, especially the Baroque and Romantic eras.
Friday, September 23, 2011
Mohs Scale of Rock and Metal Hardness
Mohs Scale of Rock and Metal Hardness on TV Tropes
This is a great idea. The scale goes from 1 to 11, of course. Go to the page for more detail, but here's a quick overview:
1. Acoustic rock
2. Slightly lighter rock
3. Average rock
4. Slightly harder rock, lighter punk
5. Hard rock, punk
6. Heavier hard rock, lighter metal
7. Classic metal, power metal, hardcore punk
8. Thrash metal, heavier classic/power metal, metalcore
9. Lighter death/black metal, heavier thrash metal
10. Most death/black metal
11. Extreme death/black metal, grindcore
The page goes into more detail on what makes some songs heavier than others. Distortion, speed, instrumental solos, vocal styles, etc. I don't agree with where they put a lot of songs. Metal fans want to put metal ballads at 1 when they should be 3 or 4. On the other hand, the Beach Boys page claims they get up to 5. And there is no way Muse's "New Born" is heavier than "Stockholm Syndrome". You'll disagree with some of the others. The web site can't agree with itself on some songs. The Mohs Scale main page has Metallica's "Battery" at 8, but it's a 9 on the Metallica page.
They say it's hard to place rock bands who don't use guitars. I don't know where Kraftwerk or Depeche Mode would go, but they're barely rock to begin with. Ben Folds Five and Van der Graaf Generator are two rock bands without guitars and they both get to at least 4. Of course they distort other instruments. Ben Folds Five had distorted bass and VDGG had distorted organ.
I say drumming has a lot to do with it. Songs with loud drums will score higher than bands with quiet drums, drum machines, or no drums. There are exceptions. Some extreme metal bands use drum machines.
It's a useful way to think about rock music. A final warning: TV Tropes will suck you in for hours.
This is a great idea. The scale goes from 1 to 11, of course. Go to the page for more detail, but here's a quick overview:
1. Acoustic rock
2. Slightly lighter rock
3. Average rock
4. Slightly harder rock, lighter punk
5. Hard rock, punk
6. Heavier hard rock, lighter metal
7. Classic metal, power metal, hardcore punk
8. Thrash metal, heavier classic/power metal, metalcore
9. Lighter death/black metal, heavier thrash metal
10. Most death/black metal
11. Extreme death/black metal, grindcore
The page goes into more detail on what makes some songs heavier than others. Distortion, speed, instrumental solos, vocal styles, etc. I don't agree with where they put a lot of songs. Metal fans want to put metal ballads at 1 when they should be 3 or 4. On the other hand, the Beach Boys page claims they get up to 5. And there is no way Muse's "New Born" is heavier than "Stockholm Syndrome". You'll disagree with some of the others. The web site can't agree with itself on some songs. The Mohs Scale main page has Metallica's "Battery" at 8, but it's a 9 on the Metallica page.
They say it's hard to place rock bands who don't use guitars. I don't know where Kraftwerk or Depeche Mode would go, but they're barely rock to begin with. Ben Folds Five and Van der Graaf Generator are two rock bands without guitars and they both get to at least 4. Of course they distort other instruments. Ben Folds Five had distorted bass and VDGG had distorted organ.
I say drumming has a lot to do with it. Songs with loud drums will score higher than bands with quiet drums, drum machines, or no drums. There are exceptions. Some extreme metal bands use drum machines.
It's a useful way to think about rock music. A final warning: TV Tropes will suck you in for hours.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Friday, September 16, 2011
Kill the Heretic!
It's human nature. If someone disagrees with you, they're evil and you should kill them. You should destroy their writings. You should shut them up at all costs. If you're good enough at it, nobody will know what they stood for in the first place.
One example is the medieval church. I'm a Christian and I'm fine with doctrinal purity, but the church went to extremes in the old days. We only know about a lot of heresies from books arguing against them. People destroyed heretical books. During the Protestant Reformation the church/government killed reformers. For years Christians oppressed Jews, even tho Jesus and His first disciples were all Jewish.
Oppressive governments do the same thing. The Nazis and Communists killed lots of people for disagreeing with the party. Not for doing anything. They killed people for other reasons too. Nazis hated Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a bunch of other groups. They didn't do anything to the Nazis apart from existing.
We don't kill people or destroy their books any more in the Western world. Now we insult people, call them names, make fun of them, etc. It may not kill people but it hurts their careers. Here's a form of oppression in the music world:
Most rock critics praise genres like rockabilly, garage rock, 70's punk, post-punk, and early alternative. They trash genres like progressive rock and metal that don't fit their narrow view of rock.
When I was younger I didn't like progressive rock apart from Pink Floyd because things I read told me not to. People said it was "pretentious" and "self-indulgent" and it "violated the spirit of rock'n'roll". Then I discovered Procol Harum, who led me to Yes, who got me hooked on other progressive rock like King Crimson, early Genesis, Dream Theater, etc. Now I know rock critics are full of crap because those bands made great music. In the standard history of rock, punk "destroyed" progressive rock, like how grunge "destroyed" glam metal. Progressive rock bands and glam metal bands didn't do anything to offend punk and grunge bands. The rock purists killed the rock heretics in a heroic act to restore standard forms of rock.
Disco had a worse backlash from rock fans in the late 70s. There was a disco record demolition in 1979. That's real oppression.
I'm not the only one who sees a connection. John McFerrin says "I like a lot of punk rock and post-punk, but the punk "revolution" was really an inquisition." Nile Rodgers from disco/funk band Chic compared the anti-disco movement to Nazi book-burning.
The worst part is most rock critics hate religion. They embrace rock music like it's an alternative to religion that lets them do whatever they want. They probably say "religion kills so avoid it" like most anti-religious people do. But they still got the "kill the heretic" instinct because it's human nature.
One example is the medieval church. I'm a Christian and I'm fine with doctrinal purity, but the church went to extremes in the old days. We only know about a lot of heresies from books arguing against them. People destroyed heretical books. During the Protestant Reformation the church/government killed reformers. For years Christians oppressed Jews, even tho Jesus and His first disciples were all Jewish.
Oppressive governments do the same thing. The Nazis and Communists killed lots of people for disagreeing with the party. Not for doing anything. They killed people for other reasons too. Nazis hated Jews, homosexuals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and a bunch of other groups. They didn't do anything to the Nazis apart from existing.
We don't kill people or destroy their books any more in the Western world. Now we insult people, call them names, make fun of them, etc. It may not kill people but it hurts their careers. Here's a form of oppression in the music world:
Most rock critics praise genres like rockabilly, garage rock, 70's punk, post-punk, and early alternative. They trash genres like progressive rock and metal that don't fit their narrow view of rock.
When I was younger I didn't like progressive rock apart from Pink Floyd because things I read told me not to. People said it was "pretentious" and "self-indulgent" and it "violated the spirit of rock'n'roll". Then I discovered Procol Harum, who led me to Yes, who got me hooked on other progressive rock like King Crimson, early Genesis, Dream Theater, etc. Now I know rock critics are full of crap because those bands made great music. In the standard history of rock, punk "destroyed" progressive rock, like how grunge "destroyed" glam metal. Progressive rock bands and glam metal bands didn't do anything to offend punk and grunge bands. The rock purists killed the rock heretics in a heroic act to restore standard forms of rock.
Disco had a worse backlash from rock fans in the late 70s. There was a disco record demolition in 1979. That's real oppression.
I'm not the only one who sees a connection. John McFerrin says "I like a lot of punk rock and post-punk, but the punk "revolution" was really an inquisition." Nile Rodgers from disco/funk band Chic compared the anti-disco movement to Nazi book-burning.
The worst part is most rock critics hate religion. They embrace rock music like it's an alternative to religion that lets them do whatever they want. They probably say "religion kills so avoid it" like most anti-religious people do. But they still got the "kill the heretic" instinct because it's human nature.
Monday, September 12, 2011
10 Genres of Metal in 3 Minutes
Raz Ben Ari plays 10 genres of heavy metal in 3 minutes. It's very good apart from him calling glam metal "glam rock". You can hear the differences between the styles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)