Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have TiVo. But I do watch some things in real time...imagine that!
Exactly, if you watch the 6:00 news, football, baseball, or just have the tv on while cleaning or cooking you would know the rockin tunes of the freecreditreport.com band.
Let's see...examples of 'popular musice' that wasnt 'trite, formulaic, and boring'. How much time do you have?:
Simon and Garfunkel, Led Zepplin, The Smashing Pumpkins, Frank Sinatra, Peggy Lee, Bill Hailey and the Comets, Ike Turner, Jerry Lee Lewis, Pink Floyd, The Killers (current and supremely talented, in my opinion), Siouxsie and the Banshees, David Bowie, The Pixies (popular in the alternative scene), Fiona Apple, Joni Mitchell, Johnny Cash, Nine Inch Nails, The Doors...the list goes on and on and on...
Can you count 25 years?
I limited it to that for a reason. I also limited it to music that has had chart success and sales figures comparable to Nickelback for a reason--to see why we're singling out Nickelback over all that other stuff, and if indeed, there IS any other stuff of comparable success (popularly, financially) that you'd say is non-formulaic, etc. in a way that Nickelback would be formulaic in just that same way. There's no shortage of music that has had that kind of chart success and sales figures.
At any rate, you've got a number of bands in your list that did have charting singles in the relevant period. I'll start off with The Smashing Pumpkins (I'll just do one at a time, because this takes some time and I've got other things to do too), because they're the charting band for the period that you mention first. You can ask to look at another band instead if you want.
"1979" was their biggest hit, so I'll look at that first. We'll look at this on a broad level first, but we can get as fine-grained with it as you need to (and you could suggest different songs if you like, but they should be in the relevant period):
The structure of the song is AABABCABA - That's Verse, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Verse, Chorus, Verse (as outtro). You can hardly get more conventional than that so far.
The song is in 4/4, based on a steady eighth-note pulse, with a drum groove of 1 2 3+4+ | +23+4 (snare on two and four, bass drum on the rest, steady eighth note hi-hat pulse) --again, all very conventional.
Harmonically, the verses are basically I-V-IV, which couldn't be more conventional. The only thing unusual about them is that on the I chord, the major seventh is emphasized, resolving up to the root. The tag at the end of the verses is just ii-V (or alternately ii-IV), one of the more formulaic substitutions.
The choruses are just I-IV, with again the only thing unusual about them being the major seventh emphasis on the I chord. The tag at the end of the chorus is the same as the tag at the end of the verse--ii-V.
The bridge is just V-vi-IV, with the final resolution again being the ii-V substitution.
The harmonic elements of the song overall, then, are primarily I-IV-V with ii and vi chord substitutions. Tension is created in the bridge by not resolving to the root, but rather the dominant--the V chord. Not only has this been the "formula" since rock 'n' roll began, or even pre-rock pop (and blues, etc.), but it's been harmonic meat and potatoes, in this same basic form, since at least the baroque era! Yes, since at least the 1600-1700s.
Now, how is that not formulaic? Or do you need to talk about it on a more fine-grained scale or something? Once you talk about how you believe it to be non-formulaic, we can see if Nickelback is formulaic or not in the same way.
That's not to say that I do not like "1979". I like it a lot. It's just that I disagree that being formulaic means being bad. I agree that Nickelback are formulaic in this sense, but guess what? So is almost everything else on the charts. You're just not going to find John Zorn on the charts unless he does something highly unusual for him. So there's no reason why Nickelback should be singled out.
Quote:
The Ramones made the formula...they created an entire sub- genre.
The Ramones did NOT at all make the music-theoretical formulas they employed--and they admitted as much. To them, they were just doing roots rock 'n' roll. They were right. They also did NOT start punk as such. I don't agree that any single band starts a genre (well, at least not usually, and I can't think of any cases for major genres where that would be so).
Quote:
There was no-one and has been no one like them.
You'd have to give some description of the observables you're referring to there, because you're sure not referring to what they were doing in terms of music theory.
Quote:
Now, Nickelback are not great musicians. They get the job done. But when you put stupid lyrics on top of 'okay' musicianship, you have mediocrity.
If you're primarily judging Nickelback on their lyrics, I just think that you're not actually judging the music.
Last edited by Tungsten_Udder; 12-12-2008 at 09:38 AM..
Reason: I'm th etype-O king
Most people are, because they unfortunately do not know much about music theory. So they judge what they can relate to the most, which is English rather than the music as such, and what they get from the music is usually "mood".
Exactly, if you watch the 6:00 news, football, baseball, or just have the tv on while cleaning or cooking you would know the rockin tunes of the freecreditreport.com band.
True - hadn't thought of that. We aren't sports watchers, and we both have home offices - so t.v. isn't on during the day. Guess you don't really want to watch sports recorded!
We do try and watch the 9pm news - guess I'll have to watch for that commercial (although half the time I fall asleep before the weather comes on).
I limited it to that for a reason. I also limited it to music that has had chart success and sales figures comparable to Nickelback for a reason--to see why we're singling out Nickelback over all that other stuff, and if indeed, there IS any other stuff of comparable success (popularly, financially) that you'd say is non-formulaic, etc. in a way that Nickelback would be formulaic in just that same way. There's no shortage of music that has had that kind of chart success and sales figures.
At any rate, you've got a number of bands in your list that did have charting singles in the relevant period. I'll start off with The Smashing Pumpkins (I'll just do one at a time, because this takes some time and I've got other things to do too), because they're the charting band for the period that you mention first. You can ask to look at another band instead if you want.
"1979" was their biggest hit, so I'll look at that first. We'll look at this on a broad level first, but we can get as fine-grained with it as you need to (and you could suggest different songs if you like, but they should be in the relevant period):
The structure of the song is AABABCABA - That's Verse, Verse, Chorus, Verse, Chorus, Bridge, Verse, Chorus, Verse (as outtro). You can hardly get more conventional than that so far.
The song is in 4/4, based on a steady eighth-note pulse, with a drum groove of 1 2 3+4+ | +23+4 (snare on two and four, bass drum on the rest, steady eighth note hi-hat pulse) --again, all very conventional.
Harmonically, the verses are basically I-IV-IV, which couldn't be more conventional. The only thing unusual about them is that on the I chord, the major seventh is emphasized, resolving up to the root. The tag at the end of the verses is just ii-V (or alternately ii-IV), one of the more formulaic substitutions.
The choruses are just I-IV, with again the only thing unusual about them being the major seventh emphasis on the I chord. The tag at the end of the chorus is the same as the tag at the end of the verse--ii-V.
The bridge is just V-vi-IV, with the final resolution again being the ii-V substitution.
Not, how is that not formulaic? Or do you need to talk about it on a more fine-grained scale or something. Once you talk about how you believe it to be non-formulaic, we can see if Nickelback is formulaic or not in the same way.
That's not to say that I do not like "1979". I like it a lot. It's just that I disagree that being formulaic means being bad. I agree that Nickelback are formulaic in this sense, but guess what? So is almost everything else on the charts. You're just not going to find John Zorn on the charts unless he does something highly unusual for him. So there's no reason why Nickelback should be singled out. The Ramones did NOT at all make the music-theoretical formulas they employed--and they admitted as much. To them, they were just doing roots rock 'n' roll. They were right. They also did NOT start punk as such. I don't agree that any single band starts a genre (well, at least not usually, and I can't think of any cases for major genres where that would be so). You'd have to give some description of the observables you're referring to there, because you're sure not referring to what they were doing in terms of music theory. If you're primarily judging Nickelback on their lyrics, I just think that you're not actually judging the music.
It frustrates me no end when people rip apart the structure of art, as you have done. It's art, which means it is subjective. Yes, I think Nickelback sucks. I hate their simplicity, because I feel it is rooted in a desire to make money and a direct grasping at elements of other bands that have achieved that desire over the years.
1979 was not indicative of what the Pumpkins could do. It was made popular BECAUSE it was simple and melodic and the masses were 'drawn in', in much the same way that they are drawn into the mundane tunes of Nickelback. Lyrically, 1979 was far superior to Nickelback but you don't seem to appreciate lyrics so I won't go into that. You told me to mention groups that I felt were accepted by the mainstream, a monetary 'success', but were more talented than Nickelback and I did so.
I don't care about the forensics of music at all, but I do know what qualifies as talent. If you really break it down, EVERY SINGLE MUSICAL ACT COMES FROM THE SAME EIGHT NOTES so that is neither here nor there. It's what they do w/ those notes that matter. I never said 'formulaic' was 'bad'...I said I found Nicelback formulaic AND boring (with stupid lyrics), which means I don't see that they've brought anything new to the table. I never said I was judging them based primarily on their lyrics but when you add that to the quality of their music, I don't see how you can deny their mediocrity.
The Ramones are considered by most to be the first punk rock group. They created the genre whether you agree or not. I really don't care...they did something no one else had done and they did it darn well!
Trudge along with the weighty sludge of your 'music theory' all you want. Lyrics are a HUGE PART of a song's success. And I'll judge every one I hear accordingly. It's the reason I'll take Simon and Garfunkel over The Beatles any day.
It frustrates me no end when people rip apart the structure of art, as you have done. It's art, which means it is subjective.
If we're going to call something formulaic, how would that not imply that it's instantiating some kind of formula in its objective properties? What the heck would a subjective-only "formula" be for music?
I wouldn't at all argue that anyone should like Nickelback. However, what I'm pointing out is that on any objective, observable properties that we could be referring to, at least insofar as folks refer to them, their complaints about Nickelback are going to be inconsistently applied--that is, I'd bet dollars to donuts that whatever someone is pointing to (so that again, I'm referring to observables) for a reason that they do not like Nickelback, at least some stuff they like is going to have those same properties. "Formula" writing is a good example as above.
Now, I really think that it's much more complicated than this. I think that there are a lot of objective properties to music that are more or less ineffable, and it's probably to a large extent those properties that we're subjectively responding to. The properties can be things like nuances of timbre, nuances of timing, nuances of pitch, etc.--and probably lots of those things working together in particular ways. But inasmuch as they're ineffable, they're also not typically things that musicians are very intentionally doing--it's just the way they play, and just the way they play with particular other people in many cases.
The above is also part of why discovering a formula wouldn't work for writing hit songs. There are too many subtle properties involved that just can't be specified or intentionally achieved to arrive at a formula.
But, what people want to do is complain that the stuff that doesn't click with them personally is deficient in some relatively easy-to-pin-down way. All I'm doing is pointing out that this isn't the case.
Quote:
Yes, I think Nickelback sucks. I hate their simplicity,
As if a song like "1979", or Bowie's "China Girl", or Zeppelin's "Rock 'n' Roll", etc. is not simple.
Quote:
because I feel it is rooted in a desire to make money
Oy vey with that ideology. For most of our recent history, if a musician had no desire to make money with their music, they would have been a musician that you wouldn't know about unless they were your friend, neighbor, relative, etc. It's a bit easier now to hear about someone who has no desire to make money with their music because of the Internet, but even at that, I've certainly never worked with or met any musicians who didn't want to make money with their music (or artists, period, who didn't want to make money with their art), and I've worked with and known hundreds of musicians, including some famous ones. Artists tend to be the kind of folks who find it torturous to hold white and blue collar 9-to-5 jobs. They also tend to be the kind of folks who like to have shelter, food, clothing, etc. It's possible to make money with one's artworks, so that's seen as the desired option. An exception could be someone like a trust fund kid, but I've been in bands with trust fund kids, and every one of them wanted to make money with music instead, too, because all of them that I knew would have rather been out of their parents' influence. (Heck, one guy had a dad who was still making him get his hair cut when he was in his 30s.)
Quote:
and a direct grasping at elements of other bands that have achieved that desire over the years.
"They have been influenced by other musical artists". Everyone has.
Quote:
1979 was not indicative of what the Pumpkins could do.
Okay, I said you could pick another song if you think that one is formulaic.
Quote:
Lyrically, 1979 was far superior to Nickelback but you don't seem to appreciate lyrics so I won't go into that.
It's not that I do not appreciate lyrics. It's that the semantic content of lyrics is not itself music. Music is sound. The semantic content of lyrics is not sound.
Quote:
You told me to mention groups that I felt were accepted by the mainstream, a monetary 'success', but were more talented than Nickelback and I did so.
No, that's not anything like what I asked for.
Quote:
I don't care about the forensics of music at all, but I do know what qualifies as talent.
"Talent" is subjective and ambiguous. I mentioned earlier why we'd have to correlated it to some kind of observables in an earlier post.
Quote:
If you really break it down, EVERY SINGLE MUSICAL ACT COMES FROM THE SAME EIGHT NOTES
Actually 12, in the "equal" or "well-tempered" tuning system, although not all music uses that tuning system. What makes it formulaic is that I-IV-V progressions (and things like ii and vi substitutions) are the most basic, common progressions in western music since at least the baroque era (although a lot of classical music moved away from it finally in the twentieth century--meanwhile, pop musics didn't). It's kinda like the musical equivalent of "The cat is on the mat", or "See Jack run", only if almost everyone was talking about cats on mats and Jack running. We could point out that there are only 26 letters in English, and every single sentence comes from those 26 letters, but then we realize how many more possible sentences there are than the most simplistic ones about cats on mats and Jack running.
Quote:
I never said 'formulaic' was 'bad'...I said I found Nicelback formulaic AND boring (with stupid lyrics),
Okay, so the bad part is that you find them boring and you think they have stupid lyrics. But the "stupid lyrics" part isn't actually about music, and the "boring" part is ambiguous and subjective (obviously), so that we can't know quite what someone believes is wrong, objectively, with an artist when someone says they find them "boring". It would be a lot more interesting to correlate that to some observable or another, but then, as I mentioned above, I seriously doubt that the person trying to do that could do it in a way that it implied that only the bands they didn't like (or that they found "boring" to be more specific) had those objective properties while the bands they liked all lacked those properties.
Quote:
which means I don't see that they've brought anything new to the table.
We'd have to talk about what kinds of new musical things the bands you like brought to the table I suppose.
Quote:
The Ramones are considered by most to be the first punk rock group.
I neither agree that they are "the first punk group" nor that "they are considered by most to be the first punk group".
Quote:
They created the genre whether you agree or not.
And I think they didn't whether you agree or not. Again, I do not think that any one band has created such a wide-ranging genre. So that's not just the case with punk, but also with heavy metal, swing, fusion, etc.
Last edited by Tungsten_Udder; 12-12-2008 at 10:50 AM..
Reason: I'm th etyp0 king
I disagree with almost every boggy statement you've made. I'll just sum up my general feeling by saying that I feel that skill and talent are COMPLETELY different. Anybody can develop a measure of skill. However, I strongly feel that only a select few are blessed with actual TALENT.
For instance, you have soaked up a large ammount of knowledge on the forensics of music. However, I feel you lack the talent for appreciating the beauty of any of it. Alas and Alack.
My dad took Music Appreciation in School and The Ramones were featured in the book as the catalyst that started the punk rock movement. But perhaps his textbook is wrong.
'What if we were trapped in the snow?
In a drift ten feet high
Would we still feel as low
as when we finally die?'
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
