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.
|
This is true, but only if in 2010 you apply it to not just rock music, but also to much house, happy hardcore, dub, hip hop, and way too much pop music produced in this time and age, which you seem to more or less enjoy.
A lot of the rock music I like I'm dead certain hasn't been composed with a mindset that worried about what the analysis of an expert musicologist makes out of it, even the kind that seems to stretche the conventions of what was previously there, or, like I often find now, takes inspiration from the more under-explored corners of otherwise celebrated ''golden eras'' of music. I find the whole debate on the alleged antagonism between pop music/electronic music in general and guitars to be a regurgitation of British music journalism of the now distant past, since time and again, and particularly in the past decade, the instrumentation of a considerable number of rock bands has in many cases evolved from the more prominent set up consisting of just guitar/bass/drums/vox of yore.