Tis the season to be ranting...
Aug. 12th, 2004 10:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
aumentougot something else that needs letting out. It's to do with all you silly people who are so
I've been hearing this, or similar, a fair bit recently:
"How can you possibly say anything about music, given what you listen to?"
and for some reason, I find it rather offensive, mostly because of it's origin. The implication is that the music I listen to is artistically worthless. Frankly, there are quite a few genres of music that are or have been significantly more artistically vital than glam, and if the originators of the statement were followers of one of these more artistic movements, then while they would still be fools trying to start trouble, they would have a point.
Unfortunately, the people coming out with this comment seem to be goths and punks.
So lets go through it:
Punks.
Punk rock consists, musically, of three chords and some shouting. On occaison, it gets as high in the vocal spectrum as "he can sort of hold a tune, but you wouldn't hire him as a backing singer", and of course sometimes it sinks as low as one chord.
Now, I'm not trying to be rude here, but if the musical high points of the genre are lower in terms of talent and originality than ZZ Top, then you know something is wrong. In fact, punk in purely musical terms, is arguably the worst genre in the entire history of time, and worse, would remain so even if "British Eurovision entries" could be considered a genre.
Of course, the reason for this is that punk isn't supposed to be a musical genre, oh no. It's a 'scene'. It's about attitude and individuality and the lyrics and suchlike.
I'm not trying to stop you having your rage, or your studded leather jacket, nor am I criticising your lyrrics, nor am I trying to suggest you should listen to songs that have more than one tempo, three chords, or any singing talent required. It is, after all, your choice. On the other hand, if the music you most admire (as opposed to like) is the artistic equivalent of a kids potato drawing, you are not in any position to criticise anything more complex. So don't.
Then of course, there are all the various goths who have over the years implied that glam music is inferior. Of course, this is nothing to take personally, because they all implied that every musical piece ever written was inferior to the goth music they like, AND that even though they like it, it's rather passe. They then managed to imply that the ultimate musical form in fact resides within their own talents, and has thus far remained undisclosed to the world because if they had done so it would have melted our feeble mortal brains. Or possibly that we would have been unable to appreciate it's true nature, and the pain it would have caused them to see the ultimate creation wasted would have made the whole endevour worthless.
They also attempted to suggest that every other person in the room was slightly less intelligent than themselves, and that we had all just slightly missed the point, but that with careful training there might conceivably be hope for us, although we would never quite be able to properly appreciate life in all it's many-layered contours and nuances in the same way that they themselves could.
Sorry, bit of a digression there:
Goth:
The basic trad goth band racks up rather poorly against the basic glam band. The goths have a drum machine, bassist, guitarist, and a singer. The glammies swap the drum machine for a real person (well, a drummer anyway). The goth singers tend to be able to carry a tune, but the glammies can too and they usually have more vocal range than the goths, and more power behind the voice. The glam sides guitarists also come off better, mostly because they spent every year since they first got a guitar trying to learn to play something so awesomely fast that a whole roomful of people would stop and stare, struggling to see their fingers moving. On the other hand, your average glam band faced with a drum machine, will probably use it as a bottle opener.
In upgrade terms, goth bands tend to end up with sinister synth lines and occasional wailing girls. Nice, but half of all the glam bands in the world made use of synth lines, and it's unheard of for a glam band not to use two part vocal harmonies at least in the choruses of their songs, and some of them chuck in wailing girls just for laughs. The only reason they don't use them like goths do is that girls hanging around glam bands don't have any reason to sound miserable.
Goths will typically say that Glam is unoriginal, and that all glam bands sound like they want to be Bon Jovi. In all honesty they have a point, but then again all trad goths sound like they want to be Bauhaus, and all nouveau goths sound like they want to be NIN. Glam is pretty much a dead genre these days, so obviously there isn't anything mould-breaking coming out. On the other hand, the stuff that could be considered original, new, mould-breaking goth is so different from the original that it probably should be considered a new genre. I'd do a comparison between glam and bleep, but frankly I'm already overrunning on this rant, and I'd end up seeing how many ways I can paraphrase "bag of wank" so there's not much point. Suffice it to say that there's not much artistry in a goth band to start with, so when you take away the optional second vocal line, simplify the primary vocals, speed it up a bit and add some rhythmic beeping, it doesn't magically become the equal of Verdi's requiem. Returning (briefly, I promise) to the point, the variety within glam encompasses at least six highly distinct vocal styles, four guitar modes, and a relatively wide range of tempi. Goth doesn't match it for variety.
Glam live acts. Lets face it, some of them are shit, but the best are tremendous amalgams of colour, chaos, energy, and really singable tunes.
Goth live acts. Some of them haven't even realised they should have one. The best? How the hell would I know? Since one of the most popular goth bands ever had an 'act' that consisted of flooding the stage with smoke, I'm guessing they aren't that hot.
"But glam is just silly posing, daft outfits, and trying to impress the birds!"
Well yes... but goth is just silly posing, 300 year old fashion, and moping. Were you trying to make a point or are you too busy lurking in a corner and cutting across your wrist, in the hope that women will recognise that your pain is the result of you being deep and misunderstood, and will thus sleep with you?
I'm afraid the other issues have got out of hand here... I'll try and stick to music, I promise:
Glam: Full marks for musicianship, because vanity demands talent. Relatively low overall originality. Fair live shows.
Goth: Most of them are soulless but competant musicians. Originality as low as glam bands. Crappy live shows.
As a final word, consider a rather famous glam and a goth song in direct head to head competition:
Bon Jovi: "Livin on a prayer"
Nine Inch Nails: "Head like a hole"
These two songs are about the same speed. Within their respective genre's they are almost equally famous, basically being required listening. Livin on a prayer is a world famous rock anthem, that millions of people know, and that most people will dance to because it's rock and roll feel makes people want to dance. The overall message of struggle and triumph in the face of adversity cheers people up. Head like a hole has a riff that sounds suspiciously like the bon jovi one, makes most goths dance, and it's overall message is negative.
Now, imagine head like a hole done as an acoustic ballad. It doesn't work, does it? The reason is, it's tune is lacking. The bon jovi song has a strong enough tune that even when mutilated into an acoustic ballad, it's still worth listening to.
Thankyou, and goodnight.
*cue pyro*
Do I need to mention that it's not entirely serious and that some readers may be offended?
I've been hearing this, or similar, a fair bit recently:
"How can you possibly say anything about music, given what you listen to?"
and for some reason, I find it rather offensive, mostly because of it's origin. The implication is that the music I listen to is artistically worthless. Frankly, there are quite a few genres of music that are or have been significantly more artistically vital than glam, and if the originators of the statement were followers of one of these more artistic movements, then while they would still be fools trying to start trouble, they would have a point.
Unfortunately, the people coming out with this comment seem to be goths and punks.
So lets go through it:
Punks.
Punk rock consists, musically, of three chords and some shouting. On occaison, it gets as high in the vocal spectrum as "he can sort of hold a tune, but you wouldn't hire him as a backing singer", and of course sometimes it sinks as low as one chord.
Now, I'm not trying to be rude here, but if the musical high points of the genre are lower in terms of talent and originality than ZZ Top, then you know something is wrong. In fact, punk in purely musical terms, is arguably the worst genre in the entire history of time, and worse, would remain so even if "British Eurovision entries" could be considered a genre.
Of course, the reason for this is that punk isn't supposed to be a musical genre, oh no. It's a 'scene'. It's about attitude and individuality and the lyrics and suchlike.
I'm not trying to stop you having your rage, or your studded leather jacket, nor am I criticising your lyrrics, nor am I trying to suggest you should listen to songs that have more than one tempo, three chords, or any singing talent required. It is, after all, your choice. On the other hand, if the music you most admire (as opposed to like) is the artistic equivalent of a kids potato drawing, you are not in any position to criticise anything more complex. So don't.
Then of course, there are all the various goths who have over the years implied that glam music is inferior. Of course, this is nothing to take personally, because they all implied that every musical piece ever written was inferior to the goth music they like, AND that even though they like it, it's rather passe. They then managed to imply that the ultimate musical form in fact resides within their own talents, and has thus far remained undisclosed to the world because if they had done so it would have melted our feeble mortal brains. Or possibly that we would have been unable to appreciate it's true nature, and the pain it would have caused them to see the ultimate creation wasted would have made the whole endevour worthless.
They also attempted to suggest that every other person in the room was slightly less intelligent than themselves, and that we had all just slightly missed the point, but that with careful training there might conceivably be hope for us, although we would never quite be able to properly appreciate life in all it's many-layered contours and nuances in the same way that they themselves could.
Sorry, bit of a digression there:
Goth:
The basic trad goth band racks up rather poorly against the basic glam band. The goths have a drum machine, bassist, guitarist, and a singer. The glammies swap the drum machine for a real person (well, a drummer anyway). The goth singers tend to be able to carry a tune, but the glammies can too and they usually have more vocal range than the goths, and more power behind the voice. The glam sides guitarists also come off better, mostly because they spent every year since they first got a guitar trying to learn to play something so awesomely fast that a whole roomful of people would stop and stare, struggling to see their fingers moving. On the other hand, your average glam band faced with a drum machine, will probably use it as a bottle opener.
In upgrade terms, goth bands tend to end up with sinister synth lines and occasional wailing girls. Nice, but half of all the glam bands in the world made use of synth lines, and it's unheard of for a glam band not to use two part vocal harmonies at least in the choruses of their songs, and some of them chuck in wailing girls just for laughs. The only reason they don't use them like goths do is that girls hanging around glam bands don't have any reason to sound miserable.
Goths will typically say that Glam is unoriginal, and that all glam bands sound like they want to be Bon Jovi. In all honesty they have a point, but then again all trad goths sound like they want to be Bauhaus, and all nouveau goths sound like they want to be NIN. Glam is pretty much a dead genre these days, so obviously there isn't anything mould-breaking coming out. On the other hand, the stuff that could be considered original, new, mould-breaking goth is so different from the original that it probably should be considered a new genre. I'd do a comparison between glam and bleep, but frankly I'm already overrunning on this rant, and I'd end up seeing how many ways I can paraphrase "bag of wank" so there's not much point. Suffice it to say that there's not much artistry in a goth band to start with, so when you take away the optional second vocal line, simplify the primary vocals, speed it up a bit and add some rhythmic beeping, it doesn't magically become the equal of Verdi's requiem. Returning (briefly, I promise) to the point, the variety within glam encompasses at least six highly distinct vocal styles, four guitar modes, and a relatively wide range of tempi. Goth doesn't match it for variety.
Glam live acts. Lets face it, some of them are shit, but the best are tremendous amalgams of colour, chaos, energy, and really singable tunes.
Goth live acts. Some of them haven't even realised they should have one. The best? How the hell would I know? Since one of the most popular goth bands ever had an 'act' that consisted of flooding the stage with smoke, I'm guessing they aren't that hot.
"But glam is just silly posing, daft outfits, and trying to impress the birds!"
Well yes... but goth is just silly posing, 300 year old fashion, and moping. Were you trying to make a point or are you too busy lurking in a corner and cutting across your wrist, in the hope that women will recognise that your pain is the result of you being deep and misunderstood, and will thus sleep with you?
I'm afraid the other issues have got out of hand here... I'll try and stick to music, I promise:
Glam: Full marks for musicianship, because vanity demands talent. Relatively low overall originality. Fair live shows.
Goth: Most of them are soulless but competant musicians. Originality as low as glam bands. Crappy live shows.
As a final word, consider a rather famous glam and a goth song in direct head to head competition:
Bon Jovi: "Livin on a prayer"
Nine Inch Nails: "Head like a hole"
These two songs are about the same speed. Within their respective genre's they are almost equally famous, basically being required listening. Livin on a prayer is a world famous rock anthem, that millions of people know, and that most people will dance to because it's rock and roll feel makes people want to dance. The overall message of struggle and triumph in the face of adversity cheers people up. Head like a hole has a riff that sounds suspiciously like the bon jovi one, makes most goths dance, and it's overall message is negative.
Now, imagine head like a hole done as an acoustic ballad. It doesn't work, does it? The reason is, it's tune is lacking. The bon jovi song has a strong enough tune that even when mutilated into an acoustic ballad, it's still worth listening to.
Thankyou, and goodnight.
*cue pyro*
Do I need to mention that it's not entirely serious and that some readers may be offended?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 05:07 pm (UTC)They also attempted to suggest that every other person in the room was slightly less intelligent than themselves, (sneeeep) never quite be able to properly appreciate life in all it's many-layered contours and nuances in the same way that they themselves could.
Yes. That's because we're goths. That's what we do (traditionally, at least)
Do I need to mention that it's not entirely serious, and that some members of other subcultures may be offended?
I know you hate NIN. I rather like them, myself. I *also* know that in certain circles it's rather fashionable to slag them off...but lets not go there! I personally quite like some glam music. I also like the Eighties big hair cheese that you, for some weird reason of your own, insist on lumping in with The Sweet, T-Rex and Slade who were originally glam. The only reason I'd slag it off would be because I'd been hearing it all day at a volume that was making my head ache. (If this were ever to happen, of course.)
Glam; what I like -
Loud, rar bouncy stuff that makes you (anyone, but especially you) do silly dancing in the kitchen/nightclub.
What I don't like: Crappy ballads. I don't like ballads.
Goth; what I like -
The Sisters. Silly trad goth that makes you go 'rar!' at the immense silliness. Trad goth that makes you dance in a big backwards and forwards arm waving way. Bleep, too, and grr.
What I don't like: Ballads. Whiny bints. Female vocalists. The Cocteau Twins must die![1]
Is that everything? Oh yes; you seem to be making out that all glam bands everywhere are better than even the best goth band. You know this isn't true. They are an enjoyable experience, and masters of their art [2], but you'd be hard pushed to call Faster Pussycat genuinely *good* :-) And don't make me talk about The Angels from Angel City.
The Sisters, now, or (even better) The Chameleons - I maintain they were genuine virtuosos of their art. They use their skill to provoke an emotional or intellectual response. [3] You may not like the result, but they did it bloody well. And with drum machines as well.
*safe in the knowledge that he probably doesn't know who the Chameleons are...*
That's my thruppence ha'penny.
:-)
[1] Anyone starting a WIG thread here will have to answer to the Hungarian cheeseboard....
[2] Falling off stage drunk, that is.
[3] Particularly if it's *bloody* Temple of Love again ;-P - but that's the DJ's fault, not La Eldritch's.
[4] And don't even get me *started* on punk.....
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 05:18 pm (UTC)Not at all, merely that the whole glam genre involves greater variety and virtuosity than the goth genre.
I wouldn't describe faster pussycat as good exactly, I'd call them a bit of a laugh. The thing is though, if you get the equivalently ranked goth band, they also suck arse, but they aren't funny.
Now, when it comes to evaluating the sisters, apparently they aren't a goth band.
*slaps himself*
I have no idea where that sentence came from... Seriously though, what exactly do you consider the sisters had that made them virtuoso's? The woman whose name is gone was rather good at wailing, but if we were to list good singers Eldritch wouldn't be on there, and I don't recall any impressive guitar or bass work. Competant yes, virtuoso no.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-12 05:54 pm (UTC)Hey kids - the landing at 19a's the place to be!
equivalently ranked goth band, they also suck arse, but they aren't funny.
Oh, come on! Have you *seen* any of those sub Eldritch wailers? They're fscking hilarious. Also, it's just occurred to me that Screaming Banshee Aircrew are
a) goth
b) clever and funny
c) really rather good
d) traddy.
Nur.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 05:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 06:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 06:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 05:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 01:31 am (UTC)Of course you're dislike of NIN is odd, but then again everyone has their oddities.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 01:58 am (UTC)Damn, I miss hearing your ranting. *sniffles*
Ah well, nothing for it, I'll just have to sing silly songs to myself & try & imagine you're around...
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 01:59 am (UTC)With you on the punk thing, though I do believe british eurovision entries is a genre. German eurovision entries are also a genre.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 06:08 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 08:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-14 04:23 pm (UTC)Have friended you.
[1] Apart from yourself, of course...
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 08:17 am (UTC)I shall friend you back. My journal comes with a statutory warning to to high levels of descriptions of intimate bodily parts and nasty violent things. I also bore people to death talking about work. I suspect you shall cope.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-15 06:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 05:34 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 07:01 am (UTC)Just thought of a really good way to express the differences between goth and glam;
goth music, with all it's mopey sentiments, is about what you've been through
but
glam, with the silly fast cars and sexy women rock n roll thang is about what you want, or think might be fun to try.
And whatever you might think of the music, the lyrics in goth tend to be deeper and more meaningful than your standard 'tell the name of the song from the chorus' glam choon.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-13 08:59 am (UTC)