BTW, at the beginning of 'Seperator' you can hear someone (Thom?) talking in the background? Can anyone understand anything?

Phishanga said:

BTW, at the beginning of 'Seperator' you can hear someone (Thom?) talking in the background? Can anyone understand anything?

hmmm.. i'll have to try it out later when i have headphones. I'm playing it on my work computer now, and wasn't able to hear anything, but the speakers i have here are kinda shitty

Sandino said:

Unholyalliance said:

I remember getting into a discussion with this person who claimed that European classical music was the most advanced music in the entire world and that if Africa had actually developed, as a nation, it would have went into that direction as well.

Needless to say that statement was one of the most ethnocentric comments I had ever come across in a while and someone else called them out on it. I can’t, fully, remember what the other person said in response, but it had to do with the fact that while the tonality of European classical music is very advanced, their rhythms were still lacking quite a bit compared to that of the advanced polyrhythms of Asian and African music. Especially in Africa, where music is a way of life rather than seen as something recreational.

I know that pop music is supposed to be simpler music that has the ability to appeal to a large demographic, but that would include ALL modern pop music including: rock, funk, disco, r&b, and etc. Why am I saying all this? I think I just get a little bit annoyed when European classical music gets treated as the ultimate level high art and everything else ever created is just subpar compared to that. That would be the equivalent of saying that European paintings and sculptures are the highest form of visual art and everything else ever created, such as ukiyo-e’s from Japan, calligraphy from many Islam nations, and the many sculptures of African are far inferior in comparison. It’s not that they are, it’s just that it all serves a very different purpose & values, especially since it comes from very different cultures.

I know that modern pop music is really just European and African sensibilities melded together. It’s music from an entirely different culture and it holds a way different value for most of us. I don’t find any of it to be really that inferior. I know that a lot of musicians think that way, like my friend who is an opera singer, but I know that they they like to teach European art >>>>>>> everyone else’s so I guess we’ll never get out of that mindset.

By no means am I being ethnocentric; I'm a black-latino! Ultimately I made that comparison to put it in perspective in relation to the finest music made in Western Art . I could say the same but compare it to the intricateness within bebop chromaticism or jazz modalities, and try and use what knowledge I have of the ragas and melakartas to make a legitimate comparison that these polyrhthyms and melodies are also superior forms and my argument would still stand.

Pop music simply doesn't have as much value as 'serious music' be that Classical, Jazz, Choro, etc. the average pop musician doesn't have sufficien knowledge or training at their disposal to organize musical materials to achieve profound universal insight or deeply engaging emotional content. These musical traditions are meant to solely be appreciated and listened to for their inherent qualities, popular music-throughout history- has been meant to facilitate festive occassions, sell products, or fashion iconic images. People don't like prince just because he can play in any key! they like prince because he had a unique image or was sexy, or androgynous/ambiguous/enigmatic or whatever else. On the other hand no one goes to see beethoven's 9th just because they couldn't believe he was deaf!!!

Do you understand the point I'm making? The emphasis in 'serious music' is to respect the work that goes into making a piece of music exclusively intended to be listened to for enlightenment or emotional resonance. The purpose of popular music throughout time has always largely been to create ephemeral "feel good" danceable rhythms and hummable tunes.

First I have to say thank you for giving me a reason to post in this forum.

Second as much as I have respect and have love for the great composers of the classical era, I must admit that Western Art is the most pedantic and self righteous music on the face of the earth (perhaps because it was built that way.) The fair majority of classical music is primarily a constant move from V to I, the dominant harmony to the tonic harmony, then a formulaic modulation, to some nearby key usually dominant, or minor. Sure some of the innovators broke these rules like Mahler & Stravinsky, but many just followed them because they fed into their own superiority of the music making process.

Don't get me wrong, music and the creation process hasn't really changed that much since Mozart's day. However I am certain that the places that pop music has reached, not even Béla Bartók, could forsee and he lived within the jazz age. The only big difference between Pop Music and Classical, isn't the seriousness at all. Classical Music was the pop music of it's day conditioned and commissioned by the clergy and the spoiled monarchy, whereas pop music comes from the blues and folk traditions. which basically means that instead of V-I, it's IV-I or V-IV-I, Utilizing a plagal cadence rather than perfect. But within that simple change the creativity still stayed the same. The Stones used the same applied chords Beethoven did, The Beatles, used harmonic dissonance the same way Schubert did. Led Zeppelin totally abused the use of the hypermeter and compound meters. While I admit there has been some dumbing down of popular music since the 60's, I believe that is primarily because of the involvement of the recording industry, and the attempt to turn music into a manufactured product. Many aspects of Popular music continue to be revolutionary.

I take serious offense to the questioning of seriousness. It has nothing to do with musical training. Want proof? Go listen to Jeff Buckley. To this day I don't know a contemporary artist, whose music was so modally opaque, it puts Miles Davis & the Beatles to shame. And Jeff barely any musical training outside of gigging. There are plenty of artist who are serious. Serious doesn't mean you sit at a piano and contemplate writing the greatest sonata in the world. It takes many shapes and forms, it could very well be sitting with your guitar in hand and just telling a story that in your eyes needs to be told, praying that someone other then ourself understands it. Alot of these contemporary musicians live and breathe there music no matter how simple it is. If that makes them not serious. I really don't want to be serious.

Taking a break from the new album and skimming through some of Radiohead's previous work. They are where they are in the industry for a reason. Seriously... album after album, absolute stunners. Listening to "Idioteque" right now from Kid A.. unbelievable.

I don't think I could pick a favorite Radiohead album, but I guess it would be between Kid A, In Rainbows and OK Computer. With the others (minus Pablo Honey) just a touch behind.

I think Hail to the Thief, at its core, is every bit as good as the other Radiohead albums, but unlike the others HTTT got a little fat. I think the Radiohead albums work best when they are very tight and concise, and HTTT kinda lacked that. Had it been a 10 or 11 track album with a few tracks relegated to b-side status (The Gloaming.. Backdrifts... Go To Sleep) I think it would stand up right alongside their best.

Amnesiac is brilliant but has a couple weak moments (well, comparatively speaking). Given the strong batch of b-sides (especially Fog) I think the tracklist for Amnesiac could have been stronger. I would have plugged Fog in for Morning Bell/Amnesiac at minimum. But at its best it's as good as anything they've done (Pyramid Song.. amazing. I Might Be Wrong... You and Whose Army...)

The Bends is well-worn, but still sounds great. Problem for me is that is that I've played it so many times I really don't get the urge to listen to it much. The newer material just has so much more to experience really; it unfolds much more slowly. The Bends packs a punch immediately. That was the album that really showed that Radiohead was something special. There were hints on Pablo Honey, but The Bends was a huge surprise for me.

And OK Computer... lol. I was obsessed with that album for like a year straight, heh. It was THE album of the late 90s for me and alot of others. I can't imagine how many times I played it, but it was alot, heh.

Edit: well, I was taking a break.. can't stop listening to it. Another classic Radiohead album.

[Edited 2/24/11 17:41pm]

"Give Up the Ghost" is my favorite so far

Ok...I'm probably on the 10th listen and I can't love this album. I only like 2 or 3 songs

Bought the .wav download. So happy to be able to support this band directly

I'm only on my 3rd listen and each time it gets better it seems. I love Bloom, Codex and Lotus Flower maybe the most but really I love the whole album. It's dark but uplifting. Seems lite but is actually dense. Haven't did the headphones test but I'm sure that will be a whole another experience to enjoy. Good stuff.

Now here's hoping for TKoL (2)....

[Edited 2/25/11 14:46pm]

Phishanga said:

NoVideo said:

[img:$uid]http://i120.photobucket.com/albums/o177/B_a_n_d_i_t/kingoflimbs-1.jpg[/img:$uid]

I feel the same. Love "Lotus Flower" most. (I think the title is a wink to Prince. lol) Like what Prince did to Jesse Johnson about "Shockadelica". -You're gonna name your album with a good title but without a song of the same name?

I also like "Morning Mr. Magpie". The whole album is good. One reviewer said it's short and keeps you wanting more but in a good way. I agree with that. I don't care because some of the best albums in the world are short. Radiohead still rule in my Alternative Rock universe. No one is doing what they're doing. Or better.