Urban Hat€monger ?

I moved all this out of Jackhammer's thread because none of it was about Sgt Pepper and I think it's worthy of a discussion in it's own right.

__________________

jackhammer

I could piss a few people off if I put forth my views on the passion in music. I will refrain for now. . Good call on the separate thread Urban!

__________________

Seltzer

Well, there are my thoughts (and Rainard's) about passion in music from another thread.

I think passion in music is important, because like Urban said, it's the difference between sincerely making music, and merely going through the motions. However, I think it's foolish to try to 'objectively' measure the amount of passion because some people have very pigeonholed ideas of what passion is, as I ranted about above.

__________________

Urban Hat€monger ?

I see it as going both ways.

On the one hand you have people who have no interest in music and have nothing to say whatsoever and are just in it for the money.

And on the other hand there are people that are so into their instrument or music they become so obsessed with the technique of what they are doing that it basically becomes a glorified practice session with no emotional response or message to anyone who might want to listen to it.

Thats not to say in the second case the person making that music has no passion for it. I could find a passion for doing something really mundane if I wanted , that doesn't mean an audience would relate & empathise with that passion.
And that for me is the most important thing in music , getting your message across.

__________________

jackhammer

Exactly. The music I listen to (hopefully) fit's neither criteria because I hear passion and honesty in all of it.

__________________

boo boo

Well some musicians put all the emphasis on the actual music and the lyrics are just filler. Whats wrong with that? I mean you're an AC/DC fan, you should understand what I mean.

A song can be carried by a solo just like it can be carried by a riff, just as long as it's a good solo. I can't hide the fact that I love a good solo. I do think some metal goes a little overboard with it, the best example is Cacophony. My god.

But to me it's silly to judge passion based on the song structure. I think a band can be just as passionate playing a 20 minute prog suite as a band playing a 3 minute verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus pop song.

I really HATE the notion that more skilled musicians are less passionate about music, that's really the most retarded thing I've ever hard. If they didn't have a true passion or love of music why would they practice so much and devote themselves to getting better at their instrument? Are you telling me they are only in it for the money? That would be kinda pointless since that dosen't require any skill at all.

I find it plain insulting that people call bands like Yes passionless, not liking their music is one thing. But you have to be deaf not to appreciate how much care they put into what they do, memorizing a complex 20 minute song and playing it live ain't f*cking easy. And to be that devoted has to require some real respect for music. Just because it's technical music dosen't mean it's only about showing off, if that were true then every virtuoso would be doing what Yngwie Malmsteen is doing. And even to Yngwie's credit, you can tell he enjoys himself.

Watch Steve Howe live, he's always got a big grin on his face (which is kinda scary because he looks like the crypt keeper) and you can really tell he loves what he does.

Yeah, but it also depends on the genre of music, punk is simple and it dosen't give a sh*t about missing a note or two so it's great that punk bands can be really energetic on stage. But when you're making more complex music, it requires that you focus on what you're doing and you wont have time to jump around and sh*t. Robert Fripp on stage is a robot, son of a bitch dosen't even bother to stand up. That dosen't mean he has no passion for what he does, he's just completely focused on what he's doing.

What about AC/DC?

Thats not always true, some people prefer different sounds and different tools for making music. A sampler can be just as important of a musical instrument as a guitar, just ask a rapper. The studio can be the main instrument, and theres nothing wrong with that. Some bands just want to make a great album and not even care if it's too complex for them to recreate live, again theres nothing wrong with that.

Theres always a reason. I certainly wouldn't call taking risks a sign of having no passion. Changing the formula is always risky. Some artists succeed at change (David Bowie, King Crimson) and some fail (KISS) but you know what they say, you never know until you try.

Well you have a point about Madonna, I think Kenny said it best.

Probably different reasons. A lot of soul singers have their roots in singing the gospel.

But really, just hitting the right notes can have an emotional effect on people, and I'm certainly not immune to that effect. But does that mean a musicians passion is pouring into the music (which dosen't even make sense) or is it just a sign of a damn good ear. I prefer to just think of it as the latter.

Or maybe some people are really good at faking it. How could you tell?

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Urban Hat€monger ?

Really? One of the biggest appeals of AC/DC for me is Bon Scott's lyrics & personality. Sure the subject matter isn't original but the way he writes about it is. That's not to say thats their only appeal but i'd say without the dynamic betwen Angus & Bon AC/DC would just be another pub band.


I don't have a problem with it carrying a song , what I find off putting is when it overpowers a song. As you have just said yourself there are limits , mine are just lower than yours as to what I can take. But regardless they're still there.


I already answered that in my last post
Like I said , different levels for different people. If I say a band has no passion it's just my interpretation because I can find no emotional connection to it. Shall I tell you what a song with an extended solo by someone like Dream Theater just sounds to me? It's like the background music to one of those cheap tv shows where you see sporting accidents & crashes and there's always some widdly widdly guitar solo going on in the background. That's all they are to me , just a band that's THERE , noodling away with their cliched 80s lyrics saying nothing at all , provoking no response other than chin stroking from their die hard fans . That sort of music doesn't even provoke hate out of me because it's too dull & lifeless to even care about.
As for song structure , I don't think it applies to what i'm saying. All i'm saying is I find it hard to relate to something when one or more members of the band are trying to overpower the music being played.
I think you missed the point with this. The genre is irrelevant , the point is he lost all interest in what he was doing and it was painfully obvious from his performance.

What about them? I think there's a very obvious progression in those first few albums. None of them sound alike. the first albums were obviously influenced by 50s rock n roll , Let There Be Rock is much more abrasive & garage rock like. Powerage is much more bluesy & relaxed and Highway to Hell is big budget pop metal. After that they became a formulaic but i've always stated it's the Bon Scott era that i'm a fan of.

And if thats not good enough I did say there are exceptions.


I did say SUDDENLY here. I wasn't talking about bands that have always done those sorts of things. And I was talking more about the bands who just add stuff for the sake of it.
For example The Cult suddenly becoming a grunge/industrial band in the early/mid 1990s. the result was horrible & they gave up bothering straight after.
And I don't have a problem with music just made in the studio. How it's made makes no difference to me. It's what it says.


But Bowie & King Crimson are bands that do constantly evolve and I said as much in my post. Kiss don't unless you count the foray into disco (which was a success, but I really don't want to argue that one seriously )
Yes , and gospel music is supposed to uplift you spiritually. In other words give an emotional response and a feeling through the music as a whole. It's not the sound of the guitar or the drums that matter, It's about the passion it creates.

Like I said before , pouring passion into music is all well & good but i'd rather someone poured it OUT of it.

I find a lot of that stuff has a very short life span so it doesn't really bother me. I think most bands have at the very least one good song in them , fakers or not. Sustaining it is a different matter. Most bands die out before they even get to that stage. Some bands carry on & on & on kidding themselves they still have something to offer , and thats when you find out who's who.

__________________

boo boo

I'm about to hit it soon so I'm sorry I won't give a full response.

But in regards to what you said about gospel music. Is the subject matter really that important to you? I've said it several times, I appreciate that lyrics can be an important part of a song but I don't think it makes or breaks a song. A bad song with great lyrics is still a bad song, and a great song with horrible lyrics is still a great song.

So while we are talking about "the message" of songs, are you saying the message is the most important aspect of a song and determines weither it has passion or not? What about instrumentals then?

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

WaspStar

I can't speak for anyone else, but I think the "message" can help to inspire passion or point out the passion (singing "la la la" might be ambiguous; singing "I'm going out of my mind with a pain that stops and starts" helps to pin down the emotion. It does not necessarily create the emotion). Instrumentals can certainly have passion, just as riffs can show passion. The intro to You Really Got Me comes to mind.

And I think lyrics are tremendously important. The cliche goes that lyrics don't matter as long as the music's good; to an extent, that's true, but some lyrics are so absolutely inane that no great tune, arrangement, or performance can overcome them. It depends on the kind of lyrics. I'm not as bothered by "meaningless" lyrics that are added as filler than "message" lyrics that try to put a point across and fail miserably ("In The Ghetto," anyone?).

ashtray

I don't know why you guys think the meaning of a song has so much to do with the passion. Music has been around for a lot longer than the '50's ya know. You tell me Mozart wasn't passionate about his work. You tell me Natives with there pow-wow chants and drums had no passion. All this timeless music with no "meaning" and you suggest it's not as passionate as music that does. Maybe to you. Twinkle twinkle little stars.