Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: spdalton Jun 10 2007, 08:45 AM

<rant>
So today was the heats for my area for New Zealands Rockquest highschool band competition.
50 bands competed for a spot in the regional finals with 14 other bands, and then national finals. (600 bands entered, nation wide)

Each band plays 1 original song.
Our band went in with reasonable hope that we might have chance at getting through (bluesy classic rock). We knew that there was some strong competition as well.

So after 7 hours of uncomfortable seats the judges came and told us the finalists.
It shocked everyone really, they picked bands that were unoriginal, predictable but bands that play the type of music that has become so common place on radios today (think greenday type of music).

Now obviously this opinion is biased, but they ignored many other bands that had a really awesome, unique sound.

It's no wonder rock is slowly dieing when competitions like these are effectively breeding generic music.
</rant>

Posted by: fkalich Jun 10 2007, 10:58 AM

better to be pleasantly surprised when something of true merit is appreciated, rather than to expect it. it happens, but if you expect it, you will be disappointed more often than not.

i believe that in general, if one is truly accomplished, it will be appreciated. however, one may have to be patient up to the point that occurs.

Posted by: FretDancer69 Jun 12 2007, 12:02 AM

i agree, but its still so sad how good music, hard work and practice means nothing today. Its really dissapointing

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 01:07 AM

I think this generation (of which I'm a part) is still waiting for some kind of musical revolution to come along. There really hasn't been anyone truly innovative and original to come along since the 90's. Not to say there aren't any good new bands. IMO of course.

Posted by: FretDancer69 Jun 12 2007, 01:17 AM

yea you are right, but the problem is, are we (this generation) going to live enough to see and experience that revolution? or better yet..is it our purpose to create that musical revolution?

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 01:28 AM

Well, I think with our generation generally being teens to mid to upper 20's, I'd say we'll probably be making it. Good luck!

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 01:37 AM

the reason there is no unqiue sound is because everybody has heros...AND THATS THE TRUTH..now let me explain why..its good to have heroes and want to be just like them..but thats the problem...you want to be JUST LIKE THEM....me personally i have no heroes..jsut people that i like..and that have a good unqiue sound...which the people that i have found that are unqiue..woudl be rusty cooley...Paul Gilbert..well thats all i can think of because a lot of Rockstars...arent all teh unqie either dont get me wrong or nohting..but ANDY TIMMONS KICKS MAJOR YEAAAAAA...but well he sounds so much like jimi hendrix especially in his song...Electric Gypsy...ITS NOT EVEN FUNNY..very good song..but but not unqiue......you kinda get what im saying...ahveing heroes is good..but is also bad.........if you really think about it..its true!!!!!!

Posted by: Kaneda Jun 12 2007, 01:40 AM

Heh, it's funny (in a sad way) to read you discussing this. I guess when you say "this/our generation", you mean "teenagers in this decade"? (I have no idea about the age of people here).

Mainly funny in that sad way, because I've been complaining the same way about the music of the 00's (and also a lot about the teens of the 00's) for years.

And it makes me feel like some old, dusty relic (being a teen in the early nineties). Plus, I tell myself it might just be because I'm becoming settled like those annoying old folks in my teens. Maybe I just can't understand new music or teenage behaviour

I do think most new bands are generic. There's a Muse thread in another area of the forum, and Muse is probably the last "big" new band I became a fan of - that was in 1998. Since then, if I've really liked a new band, it'll be a small "local" band.

And that's probably it. Either the good stuff is just not appreciated anymore, as you say, so the good bands stay small. Or the culture is so varied by now - lots of subcultures - that any good band will never appeal to an entire generation.

Or postmodernism has reached its climax and "new" music can't do anything at all except appropriate from the music of the past. Or something big happens soon. Or I'm missing the point of this generation

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 01:46 AM

lol...it will always repeat...over and over again..just different lyrics and licks..but all sounding closly related....unless you just stop..trying to be like other people..and just be yourself...

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 02:32 AM

I disagree. Having heroes is not a bad thing, because you can never sound exactly like them. If you try to sound exactly like someone, you're not being an artist, not being original etc, so yes if you do try to emulate someone that's bad, but then again I wouldn't consider you an artist either. Having heroes and trying to be like them is kind of an immature thing that you pick up as a kid and eventually grow out of, meaning you'll probably always love their music but you will grow up and realize that to be a real musician emulating them isn't good enough. So you'll take what they did and put your stamp on it (thats what I mean by growing out of it). Thereby you won't sound exactly like them. Most great musicians have been like that.



I disagree once again! You're correct about our culture becoming more diverse and therefore we can't please everyone, but take a look at hendrix. Cited as one of the most influential musicians ever, he did revolutionize his generation. However there's plenty of people of that generation who do not like him, he didn't appeal to everyone. On the other side of the coin, he did reach across genre lines. I know a lot of guys into hip hop etc who revere hendrix too. So I think it's possible to cross genre boundaries. CCR topped the soul and rock charts simultaneously if I recall. I would also have to say there's been a fair amount of good bands to come about since the millenium.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 02:43 AM

and i disagree with you....takeing some1 elses work..and making it your own....makes..you..semi-original..and not unqiue......to be original..youc ome up with yoru own stuff.....and not change what other people have made.and to be unqiue..you dont take anybody elses sound..rythem...sense of style....or anything..you put yourself into......so puting your stamp on it...you wont sound exaclty like them...but you still sound somewhat like them!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 03:08 AM

Inevitably if you listen to something that you like you'll incorporate it into your own style. If you didn't, most people would be one trick ponies. Incorporating other people's styles and diversifying your own is a great way to reach a new sound. You can go off and try to be original yourself, but then again, you might as well stop using all those scales as well. After all, that's what everyone else does! And while we're at it, since everyone else plays guitar, maybe you should think of a new instrument as well. My point is, there is going to be similarities even between two completely original and independent things.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 03:14 AM

ok were talking about sound....not about the instruments......and just to let you konw...i dont use scales.......i like the freedom i get when i dont think ok this is what i can use..adn this is waht i cant use.....so it lets me be more original and unqiue, adn i have no restrictions in composing wehn not using scales or any keys or anything...i jsut play.....and yea i guess listening to other people you will pick up some things....efeyrobyd does..but taking other people songs..and rythems..and everything...makes you not original at all...and yes life is full of simliatrites between 2 things.....of course..because no matter what...there will always be somethign there..iether...its gonna be 1 note....or a artifical harmonic....of course...but full riffs..and licks...i dont think so..

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 04:18 AM

Well, I gather from what you're saying, people who have guitar heroes always copy riffs and licks from their heroes? I guess we just have a disagreement on what the definition of having a hero is. Cause to me, having a hero does not imply that you will copy what they do, only that you look up to them and are inspired by them. For example, many people regard the firefighters at the WTC in 9/11 as heroes (I don't know, I wasn't there, they probably did some heroic stuff) and if I were to think that then I would be inspired by what they did, but it wouldn't mean I was going to go be a firefighter and rush into burning buildings, just that I would aspire to be as brave as them, in my own way. Or whatever.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 04:26 AM

ok i see where your coming from...now see theres people like that..but a lot of people.are always..like..i want to be just like them..and actually turn out JUST LIKE THEM......so i guess its just a misunderstanding

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 04:35 AM

Yeah we're on the same level I think

I have a philosophy though, it makes sense to me that learning and using scales can indeed be very limiting, but if you think about it, some of the greatest creativity comes when you limit yourself. I mean, give an engineer all the materials in the world and he'll build something probably the "normal" way, because he's given access to the normal materials, and it's easy, proven, and works well. Give the guy a limited amount of materials and he will quite literally have to "get creative". I hope I'm not pushing all of these analogies too far

But anyway, even knowing the scales, you will always have the option of doing whatever you want. So to me the options are: not learn the scales. You have freedom to do whatever you want. OR, learn the scales. You still have the freedom to do what you want (all it takes is a little willpower to break out of the norm now and then), but you also have these guidelines, and are capable of "forcing yourself" to get creative anytime you want (by limiting yourself through scales etc). I hope that made sense

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 04:59 AM

made perfect sense and totatlly understand..you....hmm and thats a good way to thinik of it..BUT..well thats yoru way..and my way is my way..so i guess thats how its gonna stay....but very good thinking and analgies by the way!!!

Posted by: fkalich Jun 12 2007, 05:16 AM

as issac newton said (to paraphrase) i only was able to accomplish so much because i stood on the shoulders of giants.

there is nothing new under the sun. it is how you put the parts together. i think attitude is really the necessary ingredient. willingness to let yourself be original. people are under a great deal of pressure to conform today, because of the media. used to be that a person was under pressure of his family, church, local community. but you could escape that. not the mass media, it is everywhere, and pretty much in control.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 05:18 AM

yea!!

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 05:18 AM

Sad state of affairs.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 12 2007, 05:43 AM

you play a tele? nice guitar. and they really have nice sustain. i have one. ipage played one in the early zeppelin era.

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 05:50 AM

I prefer it to the strat actually. A lot of greats have played the tele! Keith Richards, Joe Strummer, Danny Gatton, John 5, Springsteen, etc.

Posted by: spdalton Jun 12 2007, 06:02 AM

I would have to agree that just because you have a guitar hero it doesn't mean you will sound like them. I would consider Randy Rhoads to be my guitar hero, but the music I come up with, along with the band, is very different to anything Randy ever did. He is more the source of inspiration.

There certainly are some great bands of our generation, such as Muse and the chillis, but there has certainly been a decline of bands like those that came from the 60/70/80s. Music created from feeling and a love of music, rather than as a means to get rich or famous.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 12 2007, 06:31 AM

always the best. hopefully what you do makes you rich, but a person should always do something they enjoy, just do it well.

Posted by: Kaneda Jun 12 2007, 10:36 AM

We agree, really. When I say "appeal to an entire generation", I don't mean "please everyone", I mean "capture the 'zeitgeist' of that generation". It will never please everyone - never did in the entirety of human history.



Subcultures doesn't equal genres, though. Of course you can (mostly "should") cross genre boundaries. What you mostly can't do is make a sound that tries to capture the culture/spirit of all subcultures at once. If you do that, that's when it becomes generic - and defines nothing.



Good bands, sure. Bands I'll remember in 10 years? Can't come up with any at the moment

As for the discussion of "everything repeats", you spared me a lot of writing there, JVM We totally agree. I'd just add that it's a popular belief that "everything repeats over and over", but taken to the extreme of "nothing is original", it's turned into something so simplistic as to be total and utter nonsense (and I say that, having been saturated with postmodernist thought over the course of 5 years of film/media studies). You've already explained why it's nonsense

And as for "being yourself", there's plenty of examples of people so bent on "being themselves" that they end up not being anyone at all. Mistaking "being yourself" for "being totally and utterly different from everyone else". That's not the way to define the human condition - won't make you an artist, just a self-observing hermit isolated from your species

In a more general perspective, I don't believe in "being yourself", but rather "molding yourself" - you're not a rock formed and finished at birth.

And yes, I totally agree with JVM's philosophy that limitation => creativity. When Arnold Schönberg decided to make all 12 tones in western music equal, he still enforced a new set of rules. As did his pupils - different sets of rules, but still rules.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 11:24 AM

but i still like the freedom of no scales..and just play what appeals to you adn everything....i can get quite creative like that..but never when i use scales..it jst limits my abilities...to bcome an accomplished guitarist!!

Posted by: fkalich Jun 12 2007, 12:06 PM

you are describing people who are not individuals in the sense i think it. these are people are are still adapting themselves in a way that they feel gives them a sense of comfort. they are just as socialized as anyone else, just taking it from a different angle. rather than doing what others are doing, they look at what others are doing, and do something that is contrary. But they still are not being individuals. they are still trying to fit in, but fitting in by being oblong.

Real individuals really don't care. They don't give a shit. They may look as normal as anyone else. They might not stand out on the street, you might never notice them. In fact, i think that is very common, people who really think for themselves often try to really blend in in a general public sense, not stand out. But they really don't give a shit what you think. It does not matter a rat's ass to them. They understand the basic fact of reality, we came in alone, we go out alone.

Posted by: Andrew Cockburn Jun 12 2007, 02:07 PM

I also have to chime in for limitation being a useful tool (but a tool nonetheless).

All of music theory is a limitation of course, or we would end up with a mishmash of random notes that pleased noone - music theory has evolved over the years to put in place a framework (set of limitations) that generally speaking produce pleasant results, althouth it is also true that we grow up with this framework and apply the reverse reasoning that anything in the framework must be pleasant by definition.

However, I would advocate going further than that - try and build a tune around 4 or 5 notes only. Limit the lengths and timing of notes you use, or the number of chords. What that does is really focus your creativity, so that you are forced to work with what you have and really make it count. If you can make someone cry with only 5 notes, image what you could do with 10, or more.

I would liken this to food (since we have so many food professionals on this site, second only to the computer guys!). A number of the great cuisines have come from very simple peasant cooking in which the cooks didn't have access to many or good quality ingredients, and were forced to make the simplest ingredients taste good - you can do the same by limiting your options and forcing yourself to excel within narrow limits.

Posted by: fkalich Jun 12 2007, 02:41 PM

Posted by: fkalich Jun 12 2007, 02:59 PM

again, as always, very sensible response Andrew. All good stuff.

Posted by: Kaneda Jun 12 2007, 07:34 PM

Exactly. The problem is, a huge amount of people who say "be yourself" do just what I - and you - describe. When I say "hermits" I don't mean socially. I mean, some people will get so bent on being different that they stop relating to anyone. Their art becomes solely about, by, and for themselves.



Yes, I guess I changed the point from one sentence to the next. The point of the first sentence of that paragraph was just to agree with JVM on limitation without expanding on it (I'm trying to make my posts short ). The point of the following sentences was mainly that even when breaking traditional tonality completely, the extremely insightful musician (that Schönberg was) still knew that art is nothing without limitation. I completely agree that we can - and should - go much further than those limits.



The point is, scales - and theory in general - are tools for musical understanding, not tools for guiding your expression. You should understand the theory, not follow it as if it's the One Way. That being said, if a person feels scales limits his/her abilities, it's usually because his/her abilities are limited in the first place. If you can't write a good, original tune in straight C major, then leaving C major is just a way to compensate for your lack of ability, rather than working on improving it.

It's totally fine to not think in scales when composing/improvising - most accomplished musicians don't. But the theory will never limit your expression if you actually understand it. On the contrary, in addition to telling you what you "can't" do (which is never a rule set in stone), more importantly it tells you those things you can do which would rarely occur to you if you just went with "instinct". It should inform your creativity, not limit it.

And finally, a succesful example of musical limitation:

Some guy sits down at the piano. He picks the A minor pentatonic scale, writes an entire melodic line for a modern aria in it, adds a single note outside of it knowing for certain that he couldn't possibly get the effect he needs by sticking to the 5 notes of the pentatonic all the way through - actually knowing that sticking to those 5 notes for the rest of the song makes the effect.

70 years later, that severely "limited" song is probably the most covered song in modern music history - with more than 10000 recordings made in those 70 years. "Summertime" by George Gershwin.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 07:50 PM

you kwno i typed 6 or 7 different things on here..to try and find somethign to say......and i couldnt other than this..but well.....theory...does open up possibilitys..like say modal pentatonics....or modes....but well....if you do it that way..it still gives you guidlines to follow..now if you didnt think of scales..ro theoretical..then you have the whole fretboard..and if you have good ears..adn can look at the 6th fret..ont he high E string..and know what that sound is gonna be before playing it...then you ont need the scales adn everythign....you already have all you need!!!

should i explain further on what im tryign to say??

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 08:31 PM

I agree with you there, it's just that knowing the scales etc is just a tool to make that easier. Theory is a means to an end, but not the end itself, it's something to help you get there.

It's kind of like having a bunch of legos, and building whatever you want out of them. Or, with theory, the legos are divided into different groups based on their shape so that it makes it easier for you to find the exact piece you need at any given time.

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 08:41 PM

and i agree with yoyu on that also....

Posted by: Andrew Cockburn Jun 12 2007, 09:26 PM

Yes, I was sure you got that, I was expanding the point on your behalf, because it mirrored the exact point I was trying to make (Maybe you didn't write enough this time!). And as usual you came up with a great example to drive the point home.

@Ryan, I get where you are coming from - and would reiterate Kanedas other point - theory (scales and everything else) is a set of guidelines. The genius is in breaking the rules and getting away with it. The risk is that you break the rules and don't. Be like Gershwin

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 09:36 PM

but see thats where practicing comes in handy ...and after a while..just using the whole fretboard..you get used to it..and then..you have no risks..because you know how to use it....PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE!!!

Posted by: Kaneda Jun 12 2007, 10:07 PM

Theory is a means to an end, as JVM says, but that end isn't just "finding the notes you need" or "sticking to rules" (which you should never do at the expense of expression).

Just as listening closely to/analyzing your guitar "hero" isn't about emulating him.

It's about expanding your possibilities and ideas beyond what you think sounds "right" at this moment. It's about evolving as musician, rather than sticking with preconceived ideas, which are rarely (whether you believe it or not) expanded by way of "experimenting on the fretboard".

What sounds "wrong" will sound "wrong" until you hear someone do it right (in some cases, you even have to hear it countless times to "get it"). And/or until you understand why it sounds right. After that, it's just another word in your vocabulary.

After 20 years of playing and meeting musicians from all over the world, the most generic players have been ones who think they'll be more "unique" by steering clear of listening closely to what others did before them. Those who just do "what feels right", because they heard Keith Richards say that in an interview once. Some of them are great musicians, but that's much MUCH rarer than the ones who aren't.

Yet both the great and the mediocre will generally agree that they're sooooo much better than the ones who "have to be taught and stick by rules". They rarely even consider that neither is true. I could play the piano before anyone taught me; I hated music theory with a vengeance for the first five years of my classical education and yet played fairly well; and I never consider rules (except self-imposed limitations at times, like the ones Andrew mentioned) when composing or improvising.

In the meantime, the "natural elitists" are sticking by unwritten rules "taught" through years of superficial listening - without even realizing it.

Personally, I prefer the freedom of knowing what I'm doing, even if I don't think about it when doing it In other terms, learn and understand the physics and technique of controlling a motorcycle, and the point where things turn "risky" goes up - meaning you can push yourself and the bike a good deal further. Not talking about just speed here - neither on the bike, nor the guitar.

To be fair, the most boring players I've heard are "theory nuts" who never got what music is about either. Who think they can "mathematically" churn out a great work of art, but really have nothing to say. Don't let those give theory a bad name

And the moment you have no risks, you stop making music and turn into predictable sound machine repeating yourself over and over again. I know that's not exactly how you meant it, sorry. I couldn't resist

Posted by: Ryan Jun 12 2007, 10:16 PM

hahahhahaa no prob dude....i get what your saying.but..see i love music...with MORE THAN..a passion..i woudl die w/out it.....snd repeating..well...no....welll..i hope not lol .

Posted by: JVM Jun 12 2007, 10:37 PM

Yeah, lemme edit that, I meant that as: Theory IS a means to and end, but not the end itself.