Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Glice
The thing with music is that there is a vernacular of musicology. The problem with rock is that pretty much anything like the Melvins is a very short conversation. Blues, slower, sometimes fewer intervals, long. That's it. Talking about the audience gets to the genuine subtleties in the music (timbre, tone, production etc) much quicker than describing what valves they use on their amps. It's usually easier to use oblique, inexact euphemisms than it is to treat music like a lab-case.
I'm telling you this like you're a fucking idiot, rather than playing the fucking idiot.
|
Well, yes, but if you want to distinguish Metallica from Melvins, you're going to need be a bit more exact than the audience as, in this case, "indie kid" is obscure to the point of phantasmic. This is why I used that grotesque phrase which, in the way I am thinking of it, puts the audience in a post-2000 confluence of transmutable ethics and aesthetics. To extend it before then would require a terminal dose of retrospective plying and Melvins certainly predate it. Are there genuine, subtle differences between Metalllica and Melvins that make the latter any less legitimate? I just get the sense that this typically spins out of relevance to be saying that indie kids are shittier than metal kids so the Melvins are shittier than Metallica, all while pointing at unsubstantiated continuity of subtleties. I don't think there is any saving grace evidence there within the subtleties to provide a narrative of music quality that makes Melvins necessarily shit. It begins with first impressions.
I'm sorry, I'm taking this too far. I just haven't thought about the Melvins, or even the quality of any music, in such a long time that I'm reopening my own reservations. I'm thinking of deleting this post. The Melvins are just a band.