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?
