| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Jez" |
| Date: |
04 Apr 2005 07:30:04 AM |
| Object: |
OT: How To Tell Good Music From Bad Music |
How To Tell Good Music From Bad Music
by Neil Slade
http://www.neilslade.com/Papers/good.html
Overview
What is good music? Who is a good musician? What makes "Musician A"
great, and "Musician B" merely adequate? These are questions which both
casual listeners and consumers, as well as professional critics must
accurately answer with consistancy. Why? Music costs energy and money,
as well as time. If one spends energy and time living with mediocre
music, when one could be dining on fabulous music of all types, it is
like eating all your meals at McDonalds; a ridiculous use of time,
money, and ultimately bad for you. A steady diet of greasy hamburgers
will rot your stomach. A steady diet of junk music will rot your brain.
What this brief report will do is: 1) show how most consumers come to
perceive commercial popular music, and 2) outline what exactly good,
bad, and great music is, using a simple rating system. The rating system
and its definitions of each category will allow you to make a more
accurate appraisal of the value of the music you are hearing, and what
you can expect in terms of "musical nutrition" from the artist and music
over time.
How We Percieve Music
Accurate musical appreciation and perception is a valuable skill. This
is because as much as ever, our perception of music is not based upon
real musical worth, but based and manipulated by heavy commercial
marketing, and often misleading critical evaluation of music in print,
radio, and television media sources.
For example, we see and hear "The Giant Banana Clones" on the cover of
Rolling Stone, and Spin magazines; we see them on David Letterman, MTV,
and Saturday Night Live; we hear their songs on our car radio; and
finally we encounter lifesize cardboard replicas and multimedia
exhibitions of "The Giant Banana Clones" at our local music store. We
are conveniently offered a large portion of "Banana Clones" through
music and information sources we habitually turn to.
Mass marketing and production gets certain music RIGHT IN OUR FACE. More
often than not, this sheer repetition of exposure produces the false
notion that "The Giant Banana Clones" are a great group, or at least,
very good and deserving of all the attention they are getting. If a
musician or group is good enough to be on the cover of Rolling Stone, or
on Saturday Night Live we automatically assume "They must be among the
best". Unfortunately nothing could be further from the truth, and quite
the opposite is true. Most record buying consumers make the easy mistake
of confusing popular and well-advertised music with what is truly good
in music.
Who Is Popular In Music and Why
These days, unlike the era when even groups like the Grateful Dead and
The Mothers of Invention got exposure and record deals, almost all music
groups that acheive widespread exposure in major media and become
"popular" and sell millions of records do so adhering to two UNBENDING
RULES OF POPULARITY:
POPULARITY RULE #1) Popularity is BOUGHT. Musicians BUY their way into
the hearts and minds of the public, in exactly the same way politicians
buy their voluntarily elected political positions: with tons of money.
In the case of music, this is done with the artist's record company's
enormous capital investment, which of course the artist must pay back
out of record royalties or they are dropped like a hot potato. As in
politics, the general public's ability to discriminate between baloney
and substance is not very great. If the ads and image look good, the
public can be sold almost anything. Whoever spends the enough money,
will likely get elected "King of Music".
Record companies go to extraordinary measures to lobby for their groups'
exposure. The groups and musicians that get the most money are the ones
whom the record company feels best fit the critieria of what is
currently "The Big Thing". First, the companies must invest very large
amounts of money producing a material product that will be available on
shelves in thousands of music stores across the nation. Second, they
invest tens of thousands of dollars, or much more in the case of "major"
artists, producing television music videos (really commercials). Then
the companies spend more money in shmoozing and contacting radio
stations so that their artist will be heard and seen on the airwaves and
in print. Finally, huge in store displays and other advertisements are
created as a last front line assault on the consumer.
What the record company is hoping for is market saturation, and a
musical chain reaction, so that everybody is talking about their group.
Then, when 5 million people walk into Blookbuster Music with $15 to
spend, they walk out with "The Giant Banana Clones Eat Chicago" CD. Not
because it is particularly good music, but because it is a safe bet for
the consumer. The record company has brainwashed the consumer's taste
and perception of music with money. The consumer's brain automatically
registers:
"The Banana Clones are good because they are EVERYWHERE".
Chances are 99 to 1 that the "Banana Clones" are merely mediocre. Why?
POPULARITY RULE #2) POPULAR GROUPS ARE AS A GENERAL RULE NOT VERY
ORIGINAL OR INNOVATIVE. This is simple to understand. Vanilla ice cream
is the most popular. The lowest common denominator is bland. Everyone
likes plain water.
As we recongnize, millions of records are sold not because of innate
talent or creativity, but because they are heavily advertised. So if you
are a record company executive with millions of dollars to potentially
lose, are you going to gamble all that money on something nobody has
heard before that goes against the grain? Are you going to spend a
$50,000 on a music video for a group of weird looking guys who play
lyrics and scales that nobody is used to hearing?
Almost always, no. The record company will go with a safe bet. They will
spend their money on a group of pretty and attractive guys and gals who
look good from any angle, who appeal to consumers the same way that the
guys and gals on Baywatch appeal to TV viewers. And/or they will give a
half million dollar advance to the group the looks and sounds just like
the last success story. Thus, for the past five years we have been
listening to "Nirvana #2" and "Nirvana #3", and #4, #5, up through
"Nirvana #1,658". A common variation recently has been "Nirvana With
Pretty Girls". The amount of musical sameness that is being mass
marketed in 1996 is at a higher level than ever. Consumers are being
sold and listening to an alarming number of twentyish something
non-musical fashion models (whatever the current "look" is) with
guitars. The black rap and music market is no better in it's lack of
variety and invention. It is frightening.
The Billboard Charts are filled with group after group after group of
CLONES. Originality is as rare as the original Nirvana. When original
expression does happen, and it does once every ten years or so, it does
so because the record buying public has become so totally bored with the
regurgitated slop the music industry has fed it for so long that people
demand a change of menu out of starvation. Unfortunately, record company
executives are not so much accurate judges of musical value as they are
practical businessmen. As Frank Zappa has said "Most people wouldn't
know good music if it bit them on the *****." This may be especially true
of record industry businessmen who have large sums of money at risk.
Original, stimulating, and thought provoking musicians do exist, and a
very few, by sheer determination or plain luck do manage to break the
barriers and are recognized by the masses. But this is sadly a very rare
exception. The Beatles were literally turned down and rejected by every
single record company in England before educated music arranger George
Martin heard them and gave them a chance. Once they showed how big they
could be, it spawned "The British Invasion" and hundreds of Beatles
clones were the result, the vast majority of which we have long since
forgotten.
So, after examining "popularity" we can safely conclude that it is
generally only an indicator of heavy advertising and average musical
expression. Truly exceptional, inspiring, and innovative popular musical
artists are exceedingly rare by the very nature and methods by which
musicians now become popularly accepted.
One final question: Must a musician in fact offer something new and
original to qualify as a "good" musician? Absolutely. There is certainly
room for "classic" tunes and familiar styles, old friends we know and
love. But music is like air. It must change or it becomes stale, and you
suffocate. If you don't replace your body's old cells and grow, you die.
If you keep playing and listening to the same old thing over and over
again, your ears will eventually fall off.
What Is Worth Listening To?
Once you finally begin to ignore the overwhelming barrage of mass
marketed mediocre music, you can begin to listen and evaluate music on a
more honest and aware level. This is infinitely more rewarding and
exciting than blindly following the latest trend.
Every type of music has its intrinsic value. The elementary school band
concert with its out of tune clarinets and out of time drums can be
appreciated in its own context. We don't expect to have exciting shivers
run up and down our spine at such a performance. And we don't expect the
perfect beauty of refined musical technique. It's just a bunch of kids
having fun, and it can be a good time for all. But it is BAD music.
Similarly, the most repetitive Top 10 popular hit can also be
appreciated in its place, perhaps like a large order of greasy and
indigestible but yummy musical french fries. It has a beat and maybe you
can dance to it.
However, the rarified air of inspired GREAT music is an aquired taste,
and for the most part the guardian angel of appreciation will only let
those pass who can discriminate between a few crucial parameters of
aural content.
This is not about style. Punk rock is not automatically good or bad.
Classical music is not automatically good or bad. The ultimate true
perception of music and extracting the most from it, regardless of
style, depends on knowing what is what, and what to expect from what.
BAD music can be compared to junk food; good only in small doses, not
much there to keep you alive. GOOD music can be compared to real whole
foods; it gives you lots of energy and power, and keeps you going for a
long time.
The ability to accurately hear musical energy and utilize it well is a
skill dedicated musicians aquire with thousands and thousands of hours
of musical practice. The following guide and rating system will easily
help a non-musician and beginning musician discriminate between
different levels of music in the same way. The result: you have more fun
listening to music, because you know what to expect, when to stay put,
and when to get up and leave.
The Real Music Five Star Rating System
* One Star (Really Bad)
One star musicians and their music is the least complex, with no hidden
musical vitamins to speak of. You can listen to one star music for the
briefest amount of time (unless you are learning how to play music
yourself). The longer you listen to it, the more annoying it becomes,
usually within a matter of minutes or even seconds. Examples would be a
4th grade beginning saxophone student playing a solo on "Back To School
Night". Or a twelve year old guitarist doing a bad rendition of
"Stairway To Heaven".
Many music hobbyists fall into this catagory, people who practice their
instrument five minutes a week during the commercials of their favorite
TV show. One star musicians are nice to listen to no more frequently
than once every six months, and then, only if you've had a couple of
drinks first. Then it is funny.
** Two Stars (Pretty Bad)
Two star musicians are not nearly as common as one star musicians, but
unfortunately, they are a lot more visible. These people have begun to
accumulate a "repetoire" of sorts, they know a few tunes by heart. You
can find two star musicians all over the place, more than you care to.
Two star musicians frequent music stores trying out new music gear. The
will play the two or three songs they can remember, pretending to the
clerk that they may actually be interested in buying that new $1,200
Gibson guitar. Two star musicians can be seen in many open stages at
bars and clubs around town. Their timing and pitch is not very good.
They write tedious and boring songs devoid of melody. They "jam" a lot.
Occasionally, more advanced two star musicians learn up to ten songs and
then they form a band. They then will play at your local bar and turn
their amplifiers up, and you can't tell how bad they really are because
all you can hear is your ears ringing. They may xerox flyers and post
them up outside record sores on telephone poles, and pretend they are
really hot stuff.
If they have a really big allowance or a steady job, two star musicans
may even produce their very own CD that even looks like a real record.
But upon hearing, you immediately realize that they still have bad
timing, no pitch recognition, no melodic sense, and absolutely nothing
original to say.
Again, two star music can be tolerated for periods longer than one
minute ONLY if: 1) you are in some way moderately intoxicated; 2) you
are having a conversation with a very attractive member of the opposite
sex, or; 3) you are friends with somebody in the band.
All two star musicians imagine themselves as famous if they only get a
good break.
*** Three Stars (Stuffing)
Three star musicians make up the bulk of popular music as we know it
today. They create the most often consumed, attention getting music in
western American culture. The Billboard Charts, and practically every
other rating scale/chart/poll/award consist 99% of three star musicians
and their music. These musicians have achieved the ability to sing in
tune most of the time, and to keep a steady beat... as long as it is 4/4
time. They are great mimics, and can emulate other musicians with
uncanny accuracy. They hallucinate that they are being unique. They may
want to be like the best artists, but deep down, their interest in their
art is equalled or surpassed by their interest in being popular and
making money.
Three star musicians take someone else's idea and juggle it around just
a little, like making a milkshake; Take known safe ingredients, mix and
pour. Take guitar, drums, bass, 4/4 time, add some lyrics that fit the
mold, record at a fancy studio, and VOILA!.....a predictable three star
musical milkshake.
Three star musicians play the same song with minor variations over and
over again, until everyone gets bored. Then they have to look for a real
job.
Many three star musicians get a hit record, the fodder of the music
industry. This is the result of a fluke mutation of their habitual
musical patterns that causes people to temporarily pay attention to this
unusual sound. They may accidentally create a decent piece of music in
this way. With proper marketing, this song becomes a "hit". This hit is
immediately followed by endless attempts to clone this one song into
more hits. Unfortunately, the record company and the three star musician
are completely unaware of the accidental nature of the songs'
composition, and they are unable to recreate the initial excitement of
the first accident. After several more hit songs of diminishing quality,
the three star musician fades away only to return fifteen years later on
a reunion tour.
Again, three star musicians can only regurgitate mild variations of
other more creative musicians work. The sure sign to tell if you are
listening to common three star music is if you can answer the question
"Where have I heard this before?" in three seconds or less.
Three star music makes fine backround music for when you are driving and
cannot be too distracted that you run over a dog with your truck. It is
good to listen to when you are cleaning your bathroom. It is good music
when you don't want to offend anybody. Simetimes it is better than
silence, but other times it IS NOT. Three star music makes a good
present for someone you don't know very well, or as a present for a
lawyer. Examples of three star music: Yanni, The Dave Clark Five, Blur
and about a million other groups.
**** Four Stars (Pretty Good)
This is a small group of musicians and their music. Several superstars
of musicdom fall into this category, although many more superstars are
simply three star musicians with a big advertising budget, and a
willingly hypnotic audience. Example: Madonna is a three star musician
who dances hard in front of four star stage sets. True four star
musicians are mostly dedicated to the narrow field of music. They have
either: A) unusually well developed technique on their chosen
instrument, or: B) a superior sense of form and construction of elements.
Four star musicians and their legions of fans may think there is nothing
better than the music they make. But there is a fair amount of
nearsighteness in this perception, encouraged by the amount of media and
critical hype many three and four star artists command. Four star
musicians retain a certain amount of conservatism, and do not really
push the boundries of their art, though they may be experts at what they
do. They are not particularly creative or innovative composers, a
requirement to be considered a five star musician.
Fame is no indicator of four star music. In fact, many four star
musicians gain no public recognition at all. These
unknown-in-their-lifetime artists may not have the ability or the desire
to promote themselves much. They may not live in Los Angeles. They may
play instrumental music, in which case they are almost guaranteed
obscurity and only death will likely bring them widespread acceptance.
And then, only among a small group of educated listeners to which the
music has slowly filtered down to after many years.
Four star musicians care more about their music than marketing. They
would play no matter what. In contrast, three star musicians quit when
the wife gets pregnant and there are no more hit records on the horizon.
Many outstanding classical, or world musicians belong in this group,
people who have devoted entire lives to perfecting their craft. You can
name many of them, but there are many, many more you will never know
even exist unless you get up off your lazy ***** and look.
***** Five Stars (Genius Great)
This is the rare of the rare, the cream of the cream of the crop. Extra
extra extra virgin organic olive oil fresh from the olive press. We only
see a few of these people alive in any one of our lifetimes. The music
these people create is a reward to those who have bothered to awaken
from the stupor of conventional wisdom and taste. Five star musicians
only very rarely make it through the filter of mass acceptance unless
their speciality is rock and roll, and even that is a very rare
occurance. Inevitably, the music of five star musicians survives long
after they themselves are gone. They can be pioneering innovators, or
the highest masters of their choosen style.
Often, only an extremely well trained ear can tell the difference
between a more common four star artist and a true five star musician at
work. Five star musicians are frequently ahead of their time. Their work
is so brazenly brilliant, that it goes completely unnoticed by most,
like an alien formula for perpetual motion.
In art and science we easily name Van Gogh, Picasso, and Einstein as
representitive of this class. In music, most all admit Bach, Mozart,
Beethoven, and Stravinsky as examples of the very finest. They are
almost all the anti-thesis of popularity. Van Gogh sold one painting in
his entire life. Bach was considered "old fashioned" and was unknown 100
miles from his home during his lifetime. Both Einstein and Beethoven
were told their work was "impossible". But today, with time and
perspective, we see that these five star individuals laid the very
foundations upon which we rest our current notions of reality, of what
is good.
How often have we heard the easily tossed about comparison of a
contemporary artist with one of the greats? "The Giant Banana Clones are
the next Beatles!" Or, "Wangwee Balmstead is the next Hendrix!" What is
the criteria? Is the music as solid as a granite boulder? Are we still
listening after five years with the same fascination as before? Will we
listen at all after twenty, fifty or one hundred years? Has the artist
left a totally unique footprint, like Louis Armstrong, George Gershwin,
Charlie Parker? Most people really haven't got a clue because their
reference of comparison is so limited. All they know is what is sold by
big corporations on TV with elaborate and colorful exhibitions.
Five star artists take the nice cushy chair you are sleeping in and yank
it out from under you. "Try this on for size." They dare you. Charles
Ives, Captain Beefheart, Kate Bush. They say "think or sink". They don't
remind you of hardly anybody. Their voice is unique. They sit on the
edge of the grand canyon and yell "Look at THAT view!"
Five star musicians are in the front car of a roller coaster. Up is down
and down is up, twist and turns, they lead you places you don't expect,
you've never been. Do you like this or not? They are the lead party on
the trip to Mars.
The music of five star musicians continues to evolve. They keep
exploring and demand that you keep up. Miles Davis, John McLaughlin.
Nothing grows mold. Five star music is like clouds. It doesn't stay the
same for very long. It is not revisited. You don't buy "The Greatest
Hits" album because you have to move along with it as well, transforming
and exploring. It is unbelievably deep, you can listen for hours, and
days, and weeks, and still find something new.
Five star music DEMANDS that you move on and grow.
The pale three star music which is the steady diet of most Americans
wants you to sit down and grow barnacles.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
Related Articles |
More of That "Good News" In Iraq Fred Won't Tell You About
Re: Please, don't tell US how PRC treat Muslim in XinJiang. In XinJiang, all Muslim butcher knifes were locked by a one meter long chain. It is not a good idea. Re: Please , Do NOT leave old cars on railway tracks , abo moslums are all car thieves
More of that Good News In Iraq MSM Won't Tell You About
Searching good Freethinkers and Liberal Christians in the 50 states
Santa Claus is the only good thing about Xmas.
"Good and Evil" Vs. "Cause and Effect"
OT: Blair's perversity does him harm and Iraq no good
What's our good friend, Jerry Falwell, got to say today? June 25, 2004
| Re: In whose opinion are you a good person?
Michael Moore makes good films
Re: Even "Good" Homosexuals Are EVIL in God's Sight!
OT: Not Such Good Neighbors
Commentary: 'Design' theory fails basic tests of good science
According to Hinduism, Really Good Hindus Are Reincarnated as Englishmen
Re: I want to ask you the most important question of your life. The question is: Are you saved? It is not a question of how good you are, nor if you are a church member, but are you saved? Are you sure you will go to Heaven when you die? The reason s
|
|
|
