ok geezer. chilton at his best in the box tops? maybe mentally... and maybe he had an incredible voice at that point... which somehow lost its gruffness as he got older... becoming almost reedy by the end.

but still. even a best of the boxtops barely touches on chilton's greatness. besides radio city and third, which are two absolute masterpieces, bach's bottom (get it?) and like flies on sherbert are ridiculously good, if sloppy, bits of rock n roll genius.

the box tops are, to me, a footnote to chilton's 70s work. of course, to most, the box tops are a footnote to "that aero-plane song. 'ain't got time to take a fast train?' you know it? come on..."

I appreciate the comments and respect your opinion, Zingzing. One of the things I love about music is how it's personal to each of us, so I hope you also noted that my preference for the Chilton of the early days is simply that -- my preference.

oh, i noted, and i fervently disagree! preferences (unless we are talking about sexuality) can be wrong, wrong, wrong! some people prefer the california roll to the spicy tuna roll. those people would be wrong. you see?

(i just want an argument, not to be confused with abuse, which i would never hurl your way, especially on music--unless you are brian aka guppus, who seems to think that virtuosity is more important than creativity... again, a preference that is just wrong.)

"who seems to think that virtuosity is more important than creativity..."

Poor Zing, Just doesn't get it... Do ya?!
If you don't push yourself to master an instrument than how can you call any of that resulting untalented noodling "creativity"?

(The reason why the California Roll is wrong is because it isn't sushi.See we agree on some things,Zing, though I would stay away from Tuna. Too much Mercury...)

Sorry Mr. Geez,Ididn't mean to hijack your thread but I have come to my own defense against the crappy computer noise lovin weirdos of the world. Thank Jeebus, Techno is dead!

Good analysis on Chilton. Minor correction; their followup to The Letter was NEON RAINBOW not Bible. It was a very good if not great Christmas Song and still is.

Although I like The Letter, I never understood why it was so huge. Granted it has been so overplayed by now that it has lost all impact. Perhaps it is the basis for Greg Kihn's line from The Breakup Song about the tune "with the million dollar sound." JANK

Yip! "If you don't push yourself to master an instrument than how can you call any of that resulting untalented noodling "creativity"?"

the beatles, joy division, mr. alex chilton, the clash, the replacements, the fall, pavement, brian eno--all very creative bands/performers that certainly weren't masters of anything. creativity trumps virtuosity every time. without creativity, virtuosity means jack shit.

with opinions like the one you express above, you could probably back yourself into preferring celine dion over nick cave.

and techno is no more dead than metal. that said, each genre benefits greatly from near-deaths every few years.

you seem to think that all i listen to is techno... i have no idea what gave you that idea. i listen to loads of stuff, including metal (and techno). go look at the column i write every now and again... lemme see... there's classical, punk, indie/folk, noise, disco and minimalism in there. maybe i'll write a metal post next, just to fuck up your life. i'll dedicate it to you.

without creativity, virtuosity means jack shit.

Jus' cause you say it, doesn't mean its true. I would have to say that it would be the other way around or you end up with Nirvana.

the beatles, joy division, mr. alex chilton, the clash, the replacements, the fall, pavement, brian eno...

All bands that don't really push any boundaries to me... Really, what is your definition of creativity?
Bands/Artists like Michael Manring, YES,Rush,Queen,Watchtower,Cynic,Dream Theater,Mike Patton(Mr.Bungle,Fantomas,etc) have done far more creative things utilizing their talent & musicianship than any of that pop/punk rock..PERIOD!


you seem to think that all i listen to is techno..

Yea, and you seem to think that all I like is metal though I have written far more diverse reviews here than you have.


maybe i'll write a metal post next, just to fuck up your life.


So, try your luck with a Metal review.. I would like to see what your definition of that would be as well. You'd probably f*ck up your "BC cred" before you could ever have an impact on my listening experience nevermind my life...*Smirk*

*BTW*
my BC writer's page

without creativity, virtuosity means jack shit.

Jus' cause you say it, doesn't mean its true. I would have to say that it would be the other way around or you end up with Nirvana.

well, i do think it's true. viruosity can certainly be a plus where creativity is concerned but if a person doesn't have any interesting ideas, then that virtuosity is empty.

guppy: "All bands that don't really push any boundaries to me... Really, what is your definition of creativity?"

pushing the boundaries of music, and/or working within those boundaries to make those boundaries limitless. brian eno didn't push any boundaries to you? like someone once said of another artist, eno's "mistakes" became whole genres. creativity doesn't have to mean you can play 1,000 notes a minute. you could play just one.

"Bands/Artists like Michael Manring, YES,Rush,Queen,Watchtower,Cynic,Dream Theater,Mike Patton(Mr.Bungle,Fantomas,etc) have done far more creative things utilizing their talent & musicianship than any of that pop/punk rock..PERIOD!"

i'll agree with you on patton. but we've had that discussion before. queen was also very creative. however... rush, yes and dream theater are just also-rans in the art rock game. nothing too magnificent compared to roxy music, can or faust (although those bands certainly had flashes of virtuosity). and if queen ain't pop, i dunno what the hell pop is supposed to mean.

"Yea, and you seem to think that all I like is metal though I have written far more diverse reviews here than you have."

hrm. what's not diverse about classical, disco, punk, minimalism, folk... i'll check out your writer page... but the stuff i've written is the very definition of "diverse," so i dunno where you're coming from (or going to) with that little crack.

"So, try your luck with a Metal review.. I would like to see what your definition of that would be as well. You'd probably f*ck up your "BC cred" before you could ever have an impact on my listening experience nevermind my life...*Smirk*"

hrm. bc cred? dude, my second post was on disco. cred is for wankers. besides, you're so far inside your own definitions of what is good that i doubt i could ever change your mind. all i'd want to do is argue (just because your general opinions on music are so foreign--and odious--to me).

musicianship (of a virtuoso level) is a plus, certainly, but it is not a requirement by any means.

WOW. What are you guys on? As an outsider and music lover ('cept for opera) looking in on the happenings here, what's going on? :)

From a simple homage to Alex Chilton to ...this. Sorry, I don't get it; especially the genre bashing.

"but if a person doesn't have any interesting ideas, then that virtuosity is empty."

And if a person can't communicate those ideas because he sucks at playing his/her instrument then that supposed creativity is not really creative at all. I mean, isn't the base word "Create"?!

"creativity doesn't have to mean you can play 1,000 notes a minute. you could play just one."

Maybe if you knew what that one note was & where it was then you could recreate the event. I wonder how many "Brilliant" moments were lost because said "artist" didn't understand what he accomplished. They didn't create the form of writing music for nothing.

I'm sorry but I have found more creative moments as a musician when I gained an understanding of certain techniques and polished my skill to recreate those techniques during performances or jam sessions.

My final word - if you don't take your instrument seriously enough to master the technique & practice to raise your skillset then what you may consider to be creative is limited by your lack of knowledge.

AND, since when has virtuosity & musicianship been reduced to mere speed??

"sucks at playing his/her instrument" is a relative term.

let's take John Lee Hooker as an example. i love his guitar playing, but he's far from a virtuoso.

and yet i'd rather listen to him than nearly any metal guitarist.

still, it's all completely subjective. i just happen to resonate more with that style of play. that's all.

Jank: "Good analysis on Chilton. Minor correction; their followup to The Letter was NEON RAINBOW not Bible. It was a very good if not great Christmas Song and still is.

You're right - some kind of mental hiccup on my part. The closest thing I can find to a bible among the group's songs is "I Met Her In Church." ;-)

As for the rest of the comments, I'm having a ball reading them.

Yea, Mark, but I never said that people cannot like certain musicians. John Lee Hooker played one chord blues & that was all. Which is fine & you may love it but its not what I am talking about.

i know. it's just that my point is that virtuosity is not absolutely necessary for creativity in all cases.

it doesn't prevent it either.

guppy: "...if a person can't communicate those ideas because he sucks at playing his/her instrument then that supposed creativity is not really creative at all. I mean, isn't the base word "Create"?!"

if a person can't communicate musical ideas, you aren't going to be hearing it. it is a proven fact, however, that plenty of valid musical ideas have come from players who were far short of virtuosoes.

guppy: "I'm sorry but I have found more creative moments as a musician when I gained an understanding of certain techniques and polished my skill to recreate those techniques during performances or jam sessions."

that's fine and good. it's just not a 100% hard and fast rule for finding creativity. many artists go about it in a much different way--there are many paths.

guppy: "My final word - if you don't take your instrument seriously enough to master the technique & practice to raise your skillset then what you may consider to be creative is limited by your lack of knowledge."

it could be. however, there are plenty of artists who have immense creativity at the beginning of their career. sometimes that creativity is created by the very fact that they DON'T know how to get the sound in their head onto tape, so they just fumble about in the dark until they get it out. and in that fumbling, they find new ways to express ideas. and that is certainly a way to find creativity and innovation. those same artists, as they become better at getting out their ideas become stale, as they always get the same idea out in the same way. they lose their creativity. they become mere professionals.

"AND, since when has virtuosity & musicianship been reduced to mere speed??"

never. it was an example, as simple as i could make it. gimme a break. you knew that. i coulda said something about complex chord structures versus lou reed's "if it has more than three chords, it's jazz." reed has a point.

one of my favorite bands is can. you probably know them to some degree. they were all virtuosos who could improvise amazing genre-bending tunes. they studied under stockhausen. they knew all the latest techniques in composition, production and improvisation. they also knew that they were at their best when they held back. simplicity, repetition and a lack of virtuoso ego MADE can the creative juggernaut that it was. their virtuosity is certainly evident throughout their career, but you could be forgiven for thinking them a strung-out punk band on their first few releases.

the beatles are another example. think of them what you will, but it is a well-known fact that they took to writing songs on instruments unfamiliar to them in order to aid in their creativity, to find new ways to write and record. ignorance is bliss, sometimes. as their purely musical abilities deteriorated, (after they quit touring,) their pure creativity grew in leaps and bounds til they were upping the ante for the whole of 60s pop/rock with every album.

you're a musician's listener. as a musician yourself, you marvel at those whose work you aspire to emulate/beat. it's certainly a valid way to listen to music. but it's not the only way.

But, a lack of musicianship/virtuosity can prevent creativity. Again, when you limit yourself to what you already know then there is no expansion.

Zing is the one here who is throwing the word "creativity" around like a synonym for talented or good. Which is what I disagree with..

as a musician yourself, you marvel at those whose work you aspire to emulate/beat.

Naw... That is what you are perceiving by this discussion. But, it is not true.
I think you are getting creativity mixed up with the term passion.

more later...

guppy: "Zing is the one here who is throwing the word "creativity" around like a synonym for talented or good. Which is what I disagree with.."

well, i value creativity highly. a musician who can make creative music is one i definitely consider talented and good. virtuosos are certainly talented. but that doesn't mean their music is any good. see: kenny g, stevie ray vaughn, satriani, buckethead, genesis, santana, les claypool... blar, blar, blar.

of course, you also have your zappas and beefhearts... who used virtuoso musicianship to create incredible music. but that's because they were virtuoso composers. i will say that a virtuoso composer is more likely to make creative music than a virtuoso guitarist is, but virtuoso composition is much harder to pinpoint.

guppy: "That is what you are perceiving by this discussion."

it's all i have to go on...

"I think you are getting creativity mixed up with the term passion."

and talent and good? sigh. creativity is not a simple concept, i suppose. it is highly subjective. passion and talent are, most certainly, a couple of qualities that i do look for. i, unlike you, don't completely wrap up those qualities in musicianship.

jandek, by all accounts, can't (or couldn't) even tune a guitar, much less play it in any manner that would be considered "good;" yet, he has created music of supreme atmospheric dread. i doubt he could even begin to play the same song twice. sometimes, two different songs sound just about the same... but such ideas are completely beside the point when trying to understand or appreciate jandek as an artist.

i own several Jandek cds, by the way.

...not that it means anything except that sometimes i lean toward the really, really weird.

Zing is the one here who is throwing the word "creativity" around like a synonym for talented or good. Which is what I disagree with..

Actually, Gup...as far as the arts are concerned (music or other), "creative" IS a synonym for "talented."

Somewhere on bc last week I brought up the idea of the inspired amateur vs. the perfect professional.

Sometimes, a person gets so adept at his or her instrument that they become technically perfect, and able to play any numbers of styles and genres, but then never discover how to use their technique to access their own voice or vision or whatever you want to call it.

Sometimes, an artist has limited technique, and can only access part of his or her vision because they don't have to competence to know how to access the rest. they have to rely on various short cuts and intuitions to get thir point across - and they don't always succeed at that.

A perfect amateur... urk. Pretty much what you'd think - and avoid.

AND.... sometimes... an inspired professional comes along. Few and far between, but enjoy them while their inspiration lasts.

Just the way I see it - but for me it explains the difference between Joe Satriani & Lou Reed. Depends who you want to listen to when you come home from work.

i dunno there jc... lou reed is a tough example. he's not exactly the world's worst guitarist... he's no virtuoso, but he's no slouch either. the man has perfect rhythm. and wonderful feedback control. his work on the blue mask alone throws your example into the fire, drags it back out, pees on it and makes it into a sex slave. yep. that's what it does.

Ok... if not Lou then Johnny Thunders. I mean, consider - Satriani's good at what he does and he has an appreciative audience that enjoys and/or worships him, but could you imagine him doing "You Can't Put Your Arms Around a Memory?"

Neither could I.

Oh, right - the Box Tops. Wasn't there a bc article about why "The Letter" was the most perfect pop single of all time? So then, is Alex Chilton a cult hero or the lost prince of power pop?

lost prince of cult heroes

Blah

I tried twice now to comment & it didn't take for whatever the reason. Sorry you folks won't get to read my brilliant response(smirk)

BUT, I do have to say this:

Jandek f*cking sucks & is in no way a prominent example of how creativity could come close to overshadowing virtuosity. Spare Me!!

in your opinion of course. it's all subjective.

guppy: "Jandek f*cking sucks & is in no way a prominent example of how creativity could come close to overshadowing virtuosity."

c'mon. you know he's at least interesting... how could you not be intrigued? but i think you just betrayed yourself.

you actually value virtuosity above all things, eh?

that's sad, man. sad.

you actually value virtuosity above all things, eh?

No,not usually, but in Jandek's case...Yes!

in your opinion of course. it's all subjective.

Dude, Jandek's suckage is fact. If you can honestly listen to that and say to me that this is subjective music in all its creativity then I say to you:
You & Zing need to stop dropping LSD & come back to earth because you both just lost any credibility with me!

guppy: "Jandek's suckage is fact. If you can honestly listen to that and say to me that this is subjective music in all its creativity..."

i think i can figure out what you mean... but i'm not too sure. jandek's music isn't like anyone else's... almost anyone could make it, it seems, but no one does. if there is anything consistent about jandek's music, it's the tone/atmosphere he creates. he seems to know what he is doing on some front.

"You & Zing need to stop dropping LSD & come back to earth because you both just lost any credibility with me!"

we never had any to begin with, right? so what do we lose? i'll keep the lsd. actually i don't like listening to music on acid. it bothers me. shrooms are another story. coke is another. weed is another. good times.

Yea, I think I got the idea turned around a bit. What I meant to say was: "Creative music in all of its subjectivity" - Because alot of people around here like to drop the word "subjective" when speaking of music. I say that is a cop out for people who can't explain why something is good or bad.

almost anyone could make it[Jandek's music], it seems, but no one does.

I can guess that this type of "Art"(?) or music,if you wanna call it that, would only be reproduced by someone who is just learning what a guitar is or by someone who is disillusioned into thinking that its a form of art or communication of ones feelings. Other than that, it is a complete waste of time,tape,CD and/or harddrive space.

i've already said that i like the stuff because of it's weirdness.

'subjective' a cop out? not at all. i've said all along that there's an element of mystery to why we like certain things.

i just don't buy the factual element of something's "goodness". no wait, it's not that i don't buy it: it's that that way of viewing it just doesn't work for me and the way i perceive things.

"I can guess that this type of "Art"(?) or music,if you wanna call it that, would only be reproduced by someone who is just learning what a guitar is or by someone who is disillusioned into thinking that its a form of art or communication of ones feelings. Other than that, it is a complete waste of time,tape,CD and/or harddrive space."

well, jandek's music certainly does convey his feelings in a striking manner. or at least it conveys the feelings he wants it to convey. maybe you don't like the delivery, but you can't deny that some of the most purely melancholic sound being produced these days.

"Alot of people around here like to drop the word "subjective" when speaking of music. I say that is a cop out for people who can't explain why something is good or bad."

no, it's just them NOT telling you your taste in music is bad, even if they think it is... they are just recognizing the subjective nature of appreciating music. i mean, yes and rush really suck, but you like them for some reason. you see something good in them.

that's "but you can't deny that IT'S some of the most purely melancholic sound being produced these days."

Rush really suck

Now Wait... There's quite a difference between not liking a certain style of music & still understanding that it took soul,talent & musicianship to create it then compared to something that doesn't have any of those components... His "music" just sucks! There's nothing there to appreciate.

"There's nothing there to appreciate."

so what are mark and i appreciating? nothing?

Subjective is about feelings - "this music makes me feel bad/good or nothing at all." Everybody feels that way about whatever music is on the table for discussion. But if people are going to have any kind of reasonable give and take, they have to be objective - "in my experience, these elements taken as a whole make this music bad/good/mediocre because they fail to meet the standards I'm applying them."

And before we ride the same carousel we did last summer over the White Stripes - it is almost impossible to make your feelings and experiences so clear in your writing that you can make other feel like you do. But you can discuss objoective criteria and whether a given artist or song meets that criteria.

Doe Rush suck? They have some songs that make me feel annoyed, so I suppose subjectively those songs suck. Others make me feel good or get me to think about ideas I never did before, so I guess those don't suck. Is each band member accomplished at their instrument? Yes. But it doesn't prevent them from creating music I don't like on occasion. And on a purely subjective level, I don't listen to them much - why? because I don't - a subjective reason that I don't have to begin to explain.

Now take the above paragraph and substitute Jandek for Rush and as far as instrumemntal talent, write, "just enough to get his point across." And that how I feel about him. So, technical prowess shouldn't make a difference to good music - well, it doesn't in my life.

(Do I really want to go for the throat here?)

Because I do appreciate both of you even though we have drastic different points of view on this topic,I'm just gonna leave it at this:

I don't believe that just because both of you can find some sort of entertainment out of Jandek's "material"(mine would be utter laughter w/tears flowin)that it can be a determining factor that creativity has its own strengths & merits without some sort of virtuosity & musicianship. I don't believe that artists like Brian Eno didn't have a great understanding of music & a passion for it before they blazed their own trail.

so what are mark and i appreciating? nothing?

I don't have a clue as to what you could actually appreciate about this shite!

Subjective is about feelings

But, that's your definition & "subjective" could mean that music is subject to what people think about it as well. When you feel something there are usually reasons behind them & just because you can't figure out why doesn't mean those reasons don't exist

they have to be objective - "in my experience, these elements taken as a whole make this music bad/good/mediocre because they fail to meet the standards I'm applying them."

And I agree with that statement but it does show why your idea about subjectivity fails:

Ex.What is your experience w/music? Is it just a backdrop to the show you call "Life" or is it your life.

I'm just saying that with greater knowledge comes greater ideas. "Creativity" lacks any kind foundation without education. I've been playing drums since I was seven. I could never express my ideas & creative side without learning more about that instrument. There are so many ways to play the kit that it is mind boggling.

look, we can argue this in circles forever. you believe that music education and/or technical knowledge is important. i don't. it's as simple as that.

"look, we can argue this in circles forever."

Too late

I guess you can say there's a grain of subjectivity in an objective point of view and vice versa - there are very few absolutes in the world. But it works for me to try and separate the two. So there are some bands that I can take my time and objectively explain the various reasons I think they're good, and of course, by extrapolation, I probably like them too. Then there's others that even I admit suck, but I don't care, and I don't overthink them - sibjective enjoyment, but I could probably give you a reason I listen to them.

And I could write up a CV of my musical accomplishments - some might be impressed - some might simply laugh up their sleeves. And it wouldn't begin to address whether it's simply background to my life or the "punishing obsession" that art often is. So I think in a written correspondence such as we have on bc, it's simply a matter of trying to discuss things in a civil and relatively objective manner - anything else is just too inexact and frustrating.

Hmmm... it sounded smarter in my head an hour ago. Should've carpe diem'ed while I had the chance (carpe diem: Latin for "seize the fish").

guppy, are you a painter, a sculpter, an architect? are you a master chef? a clothing designer? a brewer of beer, a novelist?

are you a woman?

you probably aren't most of those things, and yet i bet you can appreciate and have an opinion on them. i mean, you must know a good painting when you see one. you must appreciate good food and beer. you've probably liked a novel and licked a woman.

what i'm saying is that being a musician has little to do with being able to judge music. to say so is just ignorant. i mean, it's like saying you shouldn't judge a rape trial unless you've raped.

"I don't believe that just because both of you can find some sort of entertainment out of Jandek's "material"(mine would be utter laughter w/tears flowin)that it can be a determining factor that creativity has its own strengths & merits without some sort of virtuosity & musicianship."

of course it is a determining factor. jandek is a great point of reference. he never could be confused with someone who went to school to learn how to play guitar. there's no one out there who sounds like him or can match his tone. he's created his own sound and a matching world around it. it's BECAUSE of his unschooled technique that he is interesting at all. if he could play guitar worth a damn, his music would be completely different, a quite possibly very boring. either way, i don't want him to change what he's doing and how he does it. because what he does is unique.

"I don't believe that artists like Brian Eno didn't have a great understanding of music & a passion for it before they blazed their own trail."

eno claims to be a "non-musician." he's more about his ideas than he is about playing his various instruments (he plays just about everything) to any standard of virtuosity. he's great because he has HIS OWN understanding of music, and it differs significantly from those who came before him. some of his first musical experience was playing in a symphony where the players were told to play instruments that they had no competency at. he blazed his own trail because he came at music from a totally different perspective, and he opened up doors that others had never even bothered to knock on (or even knew were there to begin with).

that's the point. becoming a virtuoso at one or many instruments does not necessarily better your fundamental take on music. you are a good case. you've worked your way to the point where you can only appreciate virtuosity, as if that's the only thing worth liking about music. whatever happened to passion or wit or pure volume? where is there ever room for a mistake? where do you have room for the bob dylans and the will oldhams of the world, between all your multi-sectioned, 17-minute guitar solos?

the best have always been the ones that came from somewhere unexpected and did unexpected things. sometimes, being a virtuoso has led to these unexpected things. more often, however, it is not immense knowledge that leads to these breakthroughs, it is immense curiosity.

where do you have room for the bob dylans and the will oldhams of the world, between all your multi-sectioned, 17-minute guitar solos?

Didn't the musical world start with 17-minute arpeggios?? J.K....

eno claims to be a "non-musician." he's more about his ideas than he is about playing his various instruments (he plays just about everything) to any standard of virtuosity.

Thanks for making my point... I never said that virtuosity is the be all,end all.

you've worked your way to the point where you can only appreciate virtuosity

Naw,Zing, I just enjoy watching people who have mastered their instruments.Again,I never stated that virtuosity is the be all,end all.See, I came from the land of "Bob Dylons" & all the other so-called geniuses of music. That made this supposed "brilliant" music because it was soo creative. It got boring after awhile...waiting for the next gimmick. So, I searched for the music that moved me and when I found it, I felt disappointed. I wondered why all these amazing artists were always overlooked and then I figured it out... The masses were really kind of ignorant when it came to music. People are just looking for the next gimmick. The next catchy, feel-good subjective tune & that because everyone else likes it, it must be good.

As for Jandek...It's nothing mystical,magical or pioneering! it's just f*cking garbage!

Oh well, I can agree with Mark... Round & Round we go.

well, i'm outa gas here. lemme go listen to some Shania Twain and i'll get back to you...

Shania? Or were you referencing "Man, I feel like a woman..."?

guppy, are you a painter, a sculpter, an architect? are you a master chef? a clothing designer? a brewer of beer, a novelist?

Sure, Zing...I get your point but those people could tell me who or what out of their respective works/arts are the "greats" & why. What to look for & how they create such masterpieces. Even their critics have had years of experience and can tell you the difference between good & bad. If this wasn't the case then we wouldn't have "Blogcritics".

what i'm saying is that being a musician has little to do with being able to judge music. to say so is just ignorant. i mean, it's like saying you shouldn't judge a rape trial unless you've raped.

Woa..That statement is pretty ignorant. There is always evidence of or witness to a rape.The jury has to have some serious doubt to let someone walk. And let me ask you something... Do you know what its like to be raped? Have you experienced that kind of tragedy & nastiness?? I seriously f*cking doubt it,so, you'll never be able to tell me why it's like. You'll never be able to explain the experience.

Being a musician gives me the opporunity to experience the subject firsthand so I probably do have a better knack for judging music than most people!! Plus, the fact that I started listening palying & listening to music at an early age gives me an advantage.

I don't care if you love Jandek... Just don't try making it out to be more than it is. There is no hidden intelligence & I agree with you in the fact that a moron could point out that his so-called art is f*cking crap!

I don't care if you love Jandek... Just don't try making it out to be more than it is. There is no hidden intelligence & I agree with you in the fact that a moron could point out that his so-called art is f*cking crap!

i don't have to make it out to be anything at all. the simple fact that i enjoy it is all that i need. that you hate it means nothing to me at all.

as far as being a musician goes, i'm glad it helps you evaluate other things. i'm a musician too, and i almost never use any of that knowledge when listening to music...i'm just not wired that way.

...or i'm an effing ignorant moron.

don't have to make it out to be anything at all. the simple fact that i enjoy it is all that i need. that you hate it means nothing to me at all.

Good for you Mark. I am glad you love it man...Enjoy!

i'm a musician too, and i almost never use any of that knowledge when listening to music...i'm just not wired that way.

Seems like a shame to me, I didn't know that you are a musician. Can you share some of your work?
Seriously, I would love to check it out if you have any links.

I still stand by what I have been saying:

Playing the guitar incorrectly doesn't always equate to creativity. And just because you record something doesn't mean it is good.
Hell, Methane Man(google)farts on his cds(not literally)...Wow, such creative juices(no pun) flowin there,huh?

There's a jazz writer named James Lincoln Collier. He's a trained trombonist and musicologist, and has frequently lamented that the majority of jazz critics don't play an instrument, don't read music, and have very little grasp of music theory.

He also says that Duke Ellington's music after World War II was uniformly boring, and that he "never wrote a piece over three minutes long that was worth a damn."

If that's the kind of thinking that musical training brings out in a critic, then I want no part of it.

Seems like a shame to me,

why? i just don't analyze music that way. there are many, many ways to enjoy music, that particular route doesn't resonate with me.

and yes, i've been playing guitar for over 25 years...studied jazz guitar for several years. i don't have anything recorded though (mostly because doing that is lower of my insanely long things to do list, which is mostly packed with writing activity)

sigh... okay...

guppy: "those people could tell me who or what out of their respective works/arts are the "greats" & why. What to look for & how they create such masterpieces."

but do you need them to tell you what is good and bad?

"Even their critics have had years of experience and can tell you the difference between good & bad."

so... people who don't actually do something can learn about that subject and know something about it?

and what about women? do you have to be one to appreciate them? or judge them?

"Do you know what its like to be raped?"

that wasn't the question at all. the question was whether or not someone who has not raped has any business judging a rapist. you're coming at it from the wrong angle. the person who was raped is not the one being judged. usually.

"Being a musician gives me the opporunity to experience the subject firsthand so I probably do have a better knack for judging music than most people!!"

maybe, but the act of listening to music has more of a bearing on how people listen to music. i'm sure your understanding of how music is created does add something to your appreciation of music, but that is a personal criteria. (i make music as well, and some of it quite interesting, i would say... nothing too grand... most major fans of music are going to try their hand at it at some time or another.)

"I don't care if you love Jandek... Just don't try making it out to be more than it is."

of course not. and i haven't. i readily admit that he is not a great guitar player in any usual sense. he is, however, a very interesting guitar player. there is no sacred handbook to how you play guitar.

"Playing the guitar incorrectly doesn't always equate to creativity."

no one EVER EVER EVER claimed that. ever. that's the most obvious statement you've made yet. the point is that playing the guitar CORRECTLY doesn't always equate to creativity.

Mark,
Do you think I'm an idiot?? I realize that there are many ways to listen to music all the way down to the subliminal including listeing to the spaces in between.

I need to retract my "shame" comment... I know for certain that you listen to music analytically because you raved about "Free Jazz". That takes an analytical mind to retrieve the parts of the music that you like. I'm sure you may listen to more music for the pure enjoyment but you still have to analyze it somewhat wether it be actively or subliminally. That's just fact!


If that's the kind of thinking that musical training brings out in a critic, then I want no part of it.

Yes, knowledge from education about a particular subject brings forth a critical attitude. I guess maybe you shouldn't train any further in your profession, whatever that may be...

Ignorance is Bliss?!

Actually, hasn't there been plenty of times when people on here complained about how people write reviews??

-Bunch of hypocrites-

Yes, knowledge from education about a particular subject brings forth a critical attitude. I guess maybe you shouldn't train any further in your profession, whatever that may be...

You missed the point, Gup.

The point was, musical training did not enhance James Lincoln Collier's ability to appreciate masterpieces. He calls Ellington's Far East Suite - acknowledged by critics, musicians, and lay fans alike as one of his finest works -"like watching slides of someone's vacation."

Thus I certainly don't trust Collier's opinion more, simply because he has studied music theory. It hasn't stopped him from having a lousy ear.

no, i don't think you're an idiot. geezuz, when did i say that?

i sometimes analyze music, but it's purely in a weird synesthetic way (i wrote about it a long time ago).

but i never think about it in technical musical terms: this scale over that chord progression, etc. it's just not my natural thought process.

All I can say after reading all of this is that people really need to remember Louis Armstrong's famous quote of "there's only two types of music in the world - good music and bad music" - however, it really needs to be updated.

There are THREE types of music in the world: music you love, music you hate, and music you don't get. Suffice it to say that most of the music you assign to the category of "hate" is really music you simply don't get. Just say "It's not my thing" and all this arguing becomes meaningless. And who knows, someday it might just make sense to you. I can't even begin to think of the things I swore I'd never listen to, never "get," and now I love.

Armstrong also had another famous quote - when somebody asked him to give a technical description of jazz:

"Man, if you can't feel it, I can't explain it."

didn't Armstrong also call bebop "chinese music"?

Suffice it to say that most of the music you assign to the category of "hate" is really music you simply don't get.

Yea, I'm pretty sure that I don't "get" Jandek...HA! Maybe,in general,that might work for most people as an explanation but for me it only shows that most people might not sit down an analyze the music they "hate" to find out why.

I may have to search out some of James Lincoln Collier's material...He sounds interesting to me.

Mark, that was Cab Calloway. Louis called bebop "the sound of modern malice."

"Maybe,in general,that might work for most people as an explanation but for me it only shows that most people might not sit down an analyze the music they "hate" to find out why."

damn, man. you actually analyze each piece of music you dislike to find out why? either that's a lie or you're a little obsessed.

Zing,

Music to me is life. It's a life-long dream & course of study for me.Not just a hobby or a sideshow to trends & materialism. One day, I hope to play music for a living,NOT a f*cking rockstar, but as an independant musician. I do not disagree with alot of people here that if you listen to something you don't like more than once you may end up liking it. BUT, I do feel that I can discard plenty of music that I "hate" quickly because I have listened to,enjoyed & analyzed quite a bit of music in my time.

But is it a "punishing obsession"? Maybe - maybe not - maybe not YET. And it makes all the difference in the way you see and hear the world - because we can analyse things to the greatest extent to which we are able, and in the end it turns out that the world as we know it isn't always what we think we know.

Well if you want to talk about "blue-eyed soul" how can you not make some serious mention of Michael McDonald? A discography that fills up a page of smooth hits and more on their way. His new Soul Speak should be a good example of this.