Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 05:45:02 PM

Login with username, password and session length

"Boring" music, adult-contemporary, etc.

Started by Famous Mortimer, November 15, 2011, 03:02:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Famous Mortimer

http://www.avclub.com/articles/what-makes-music-boring,65075/

Reason I'm posting this is something in it started bouncing around my head...the thing about how certain artists are not a million miles away from the "adult-contemporary", MOR, call it what you will, of Sting. I rather like that description, and the apparently angry response from people to the original article indicates the writer probably hit a bit too close to home for some music fans.

So...not sure if this will even start a debate. Have you ever played some music by a hip new thing and thought "bloody hell, this sounds like the sort of crap that Radio 2 played back in the day, but in a scruffy jacket"?

CaledonianGonzo

Yes - Midlake sound like Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac.

Luckily, I like both.

NoSleep


CaledonianGonzo

* reads back *

Whaddayaknow, so I did, etc.

At any rate, the article seems to occupy a slightly contradictory stance:

QuoteSome music will evade your powers of appreciation, no matter how hard you try. Boring is okay. At least with boring we're talking about something real; "boring" is a construct. Boring can be the start of a dialogue, the first step in exploring a new galaxy of sounds you're just beginning to discover; "boring" shuts that dialogue down, and draws lines and creates divisions where they don't need to exist. If music is a color spectrum, "boring" is black. Worse, "boring" is boring.

is just waffle.



Goldentony

I disagree with the notion that Fleetwood Mac are boring, anyone who's listened to them properly will know
Spoiler alert
they're outrageous shit
[close]

Pie Pie Eater

"Bon Iver, Fleet Foxes, The Decemberists, St. Vincent, Wilco, Coldplay, Feist, The National, Grizzly Bear—I like some of these artists, and I don't like others. They're all pretty different, but they all have one thing in common: They're "boring.""

I really don't think St. Vincent should be in this list, based on their criteria for "boring".

Shoulders?-Stomach!

The Decemberists fans love to talk about how great The Decemberists are, which is fair enough really, but all their reasons seem to not be based on anything musically.

CaledonianGonzo

You could say the same of any group or artiste that tends to focus on or prioritise a 'literate' sensibility, e.g. Leonard Cohen or Billy Bragg.

Though I'd argue that Bragg, Cohen and Colin Meloy of The Decemberists can all write cracking songs and do so in a way that combines 'music' with 'message'.

Tagger beat me to it.

I beat the author to it.

All of these bands, even those who have some songs that I like, are absolute Shit.

Nobody loves them. Why bother?


All that Shit is virtually interchangeable.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

The band Unkle Bob who I saw supporting at someone elses gig were probably the most unnecessary music group I've ever heard. Lots of mid-tempo indie noise that went in one ear and out of the other. Not bad, but utterly dull. I don't know how the band got up in the morning happy with what they'd achieved. And they're called Unkle fucking Bob.

Famous Mortimer

The AV Club piece itself is pretty awful (as is a lot of their "state of the X" style journalism), it's more the stuff linked to inside the article that I like.

Wilco I've tried to like, but aside from a few songs, their output (including that thing Tweedy did with Mavis Staples) is so fucking bland and...nothing, that I'm amazed anyone can have any sort of reaction to it at all. It's the audio equivalent of knock-off brand ready salted crisps.

v00n

Quote from: CaledonianGonzo on November 15, 2011, 03:13:54 PM
Yes - Midlake sound like Rumours-era Fleetwood Mac.

Luckily, I like both.

'Roscoe' certainly does. The rest of the early stuff is like a better, more interesting version of Grandaddy.

Last album was worthy and dull.

CaledonianGonzo

Aye - the last one was pleasant but average. but I'll happily go in to bat for The Trials of Van Occupanther as one of the best albums of the last decade.

But then I also dig Grandaddy and Wilco and most of the other "boring" acts listed (- or are they just merely boring, can't recall, no wish to re-read the article -) so your mileage may vary.

I read both the AV article and the "eating your cultural vegetables" article it mentions. I felt there was a desperate bravado in the way they were written, and came away with the impression that art critics must live lives of terrible anxiety and one-upmanship over liking the right kind of thing.

I think the articles are talking about two completely different things though.

The film piece talks about films that are worthy but not enjoyable (to the author), so the idea that avant-garde works are dull.

I don't think anyone is suggesting Coldplay are esoteric but culturally rewarding, or Fleet Foxes are too experimental for their own good. Rather they are more like blockbusters that aren't enjoyable for some people because they don't have enough flair, rather than being like avant-garde films that are a bit too self indulgent, or that the person doesn't understand.

The author seems to recognise this difference labelling the first type boring and the second "boring", but then seems to suggest the last type might be simply the first type- which I think is a bit unlikely.

garbed_attic

I really don't like articles like this or 'Eating Your Cultural Vegetables' one by Dan Kois. You can tell that the writer, becasue they haven't enjoyed the art house films or adult contemporary music that their friends have recommended, have decided that no-one can really enjoy them and that everyone is just faking it. In actual fact, because most generic classifications are approximations at best and ad-hoc cobblers at worst, it'll make this sweeping gesture across massive swarthes of culture - good and bad.

Thinking of the bands mentioned, Coldplay write simple, accessible songs like a soppy U2. Parachutes was a decent album, with the melodic bits of Radiohead songs that would have bridged into some warbly guitar solo, repeated in a lulling, but not altogether unpleasant way. Bon Iver doesn't really appeal to me, but if you're a fragile hearted break-up sort of person, I can see that it might! Definitely aiming for intimacy though, while Coldplay are aiming for anthems. Fleet Foxes are again mellow, but multi-instrumentalists in the way Coldplay and Bon Iver are not. There seem to be more about conjuring a tone or an atmosphere. The Decemberists are keen on storytelling. I've seen them live and was thoroughly impressed. Though I understand why The Hazard of Love is going to be way too canoodly and ridiculous for some people (it's a prog Midsummer Nights Dream, basically) it certainly mellow, mid-tempo or "rooted in traditional forms". It lurches about a lot. It also has a dead children's choir, which is really what seals the deal for me. Their new album is certainly more sing-a-long, but doesn't sound much like the other bands mentioned, although it does sound a lot like early R.E.M. St. Vincent is a fascinating musician and what I've heard of her earlier material (I haven't listened to her newer stuff) was quite troubling and discordant in places. I guess, she might be said to be following in the Kate Bush tradition of making troubling, discordant things palatable, but she's worlds away from Coldplay. Wilco, I do wish were a little stranger than they are at times, but that I challenge anyone to put on 'Less Than You Think' at a polite dinner party and not get some disgruntled faces. Feist are prety enough, but yeah, easy-listening. The National are very well loved by me and Alligator is easily one of my favourite albums, but I'll admit that High Violet could have been more interesting musically in places. Really though, I'm in it for the lyrics: "It's a common fetish for a doting man to ballerina on the coffee table, cock in hand." and such. I guess if one isn't included to care much about lyrics, they might fill the critera (though they have their shimmering, surgign crescendos) at times, but their lyrics, like The Decemberists, are niggling, worrying things (sometimes I think The Decemberists try a little too hard on this front - I'm think writing a whimsical song about a murderous Ulster loyalist gang is taking their dark Irish fetishism too far). Grizzly Bear is slightly less interesting than Animal Collective, but clearly has very different influences to the other bands mentioned - Boards of Cananda, Aphex Twin and such. Midlake are a lovely bunch and their singer Tim once talked to me about ghosts and the band Eisley for twenties minutes at a gig. I will not hear a word against them.

I don't really know why I bothered writing the above, but basically, lots of those bands are loved due to their lyrics and music reviewers don't tend to care about those, so the bands end up with an English lit students fan base! END!

CaledonianGonzo

I think the original point of the thread was that Famous Mortimer has a great deal of respect and admiration for hip-hop.

Which would be fine, if only he stopped going on about it all the bloody time.

Famous Mortimer

CG nails it again!!

QuoteIn actual fact, because most generic classifications are approximations at best and ad-hoc cobblers at worst

Quotelots of those bands are loved due to their lyrics and music reviewers don't tend to care about those

Sorry, I couldn't resist (although you may have been trying to have a laugh).

I won't bother defending the AV Club article but the other one he linked to, of the person who claimed too many of the darlings of the indie world sound like warmed-over 70s MOR, because the more I think about it, the more I agree with it. I don't think it has anything to do with lyrics, especially as we're comparing the indie of today with the relative mainstream of yesteryear – I'll match any of your favourite lyric bands with a Steely Dan, or one of their ilk. Although these articles are primarily about the sound of these bands, I admit - I'm also not expecting all bands to sound like a piano being thrown down some stairs, or anything like that. But there's a world between a harsh bit of noise and, for example, Elton John, and way too many of this current crop of bands are congregating near the wrong end of the scale.

Re: your opinion of the writers just not liking the bands or the films – it's interesting that you describe them yourself as "adult contemporary", by the way – I disagree. They're questioning if this stuff is as good as we're being told it is, and the film guy said there were many long and odd films he did like (and I think his tongue was a bit in his cheek) but equally there were films he was convinced people were pretending they liked, and the journo made the same point with bands. I'm sure we've all been convinced some band is good by a friend, or all your mates being into something, or a potential love-partner (curse you, woman from Manchester when I was 23 who convinced me that David Bowie was good).

It's helped for me because I already thought those bands you listed were mostly boring as hell, like pale shadows of the already fairly uninteresting bands of the past they desperately wanted to be. But your opinion may vary, of course. I just wish they sounded less like they couldn't be bothered.

Absorb the anus burn

Heavy production, catchy chorus, irritating hooks. 70s-80s AOR is an almost uniquely awful genre. Adult Orientated Rock for cunts (beware of bands with one word names: Toto / Asia / Boston / Foreigner / Magnum) and especially beware of R.E.O. Speedwagon, whose back catalogue is one continuous Soda Stream spurt of shite - truly there isn't enough Pot Pouri in China to take away t'stench....... (T'Pau?)

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: Absorb the anus burn on November 16, 2011, 03:01:48 PM
Heavy production, catchy chorus, irritating hooks. 70s-80s AOR is an almost uniquely awful genre. Adult Orientated Rock for cunts (beware of bands with one word names: Toto / Asia / Boston / Foreigner / Magnum) and especially beware of R.E.O. Speedwagon, whose back catalogue is one continuous Soda Stream spurt of shite - truly there isn't enough Pot Pouri in China to take away t'stench....... (T'Pau?)

Well - none of the bands originally mentioned sound much/if anything like any of the artists you list.  I presumed the use of AOR/MOR here was a more of a nod towards acts like the aforementioned Fleetwood Mac, CSN, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Jackson Browne, Paul Simon, etc. 

There is more of a similarity with the Laurel Canyon type of AOR, but if you approach the argument with the POV that Neil Young is good, then you're maybe more likely to appreciate a band like, say, Fleet Foxes who share a similar sort of sonic territory.

But yes - damn those catchy choruses.  Especially More Than A Feeling.

[plays air guitar to More Than A Feeling]


Hank_Kingsley

'Heat of the moment' by Asia pisses all over any of that wonky Television shite.

Toto, too,  wrote some blinding tunes.

The album orientated rock of those bands is nowhere near comparable to bland schmindie music of Mumford and Sons or Fleet Foxes. Those dudes can't write catchy songs.

Wilco were good when they were just trying to sound like Creedence and The Rolling Stones. All the stuff after 'Being There' was just soulless experimentation. In my book there's no shame in just playing rock and roll.


Shoulders?-Stomach!

I find 80's AOR, especially any with proggy-leanings, so bad I want to shit out my own face. I don't care for the 'bland schmindie' either (if that's what they are, which is questionable), but I can remember two of the songs they've done, so I suppose they can write catchy songs, but tend not to.


El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: The Boston Crab on November 15, 2011, 04:43:33 PM
Tagger beat me to it.

I beat the author to it.

All of these bands, even those who have some songs that I like, are absolute Shit.

Nobody loves them. Why bother?


All that Shit is virtually interchangeable.

I love Fleet Foxes, and so do a lot of other people.

CaledonianGonzo

Lumping Fleet Foxes in with Mumford & Sons may be convenient shorthand as they play 'real' instruments and strive after a certain type of sepia-tinged folksiness, but they're poles apart both in terms of content and talent.

Certainly a fan of early Jeff Tweedy should have no problems digesting the sheer brilliance of ver Foxes.

Barberism

New music baffles you = you are getting old.

NoSleep

Nothing baffles me about it. It simply doesn't really do anything, well, new.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Are we talking about all new music there or just Mumford/Foxes?

Neville Chamberlain

The Fleet Foxes baffle me. I mean, it's just sort of nothing music, isn't it? I've nothing against sepia-tinged folksiness, but The Fleety Foxes are so polite and stuffy. I genuinely wonder what people actually get out of it...!

'Hilariously', there's a van parked outside my window with the words "Chris Martin Plumbing" written on the side.

CaledonianGonzo

Quote from: NoSleepNothing baffles me about it. It simply doesn't really do anything, well, new.

While I agree with that as it applies to the artists under discussion, for me personally music doesn't always have to contain things that are new.  I certainly agree that as an art music should have a pioneering vanguard that keep moving forward, progressing and evolving the form.  I like the idea that it's there, I just don't always want to listen to it, and if I find a 'new' single that's evocative of a 1960s girl group or that sounds just like The Band I'm not going to dismiss it out of hand for its retro influences.

El Unicornio, mang

Quote from: Neville Chamberlain on November 17, 2011, 10:38:18 AM
The Fleet Foxes baffle me. I mean, it's just sort of nothing music, isn't it? I've nothing against sepia-tinged folksiness, but The Fleety Foxes are so polite and stuffy. I genuinely wonder what people actually get out of it...!



For me, it's the melodies and the harmonies, and just the general warm feeling I get from the music. It hits me on an emotional level, which most music doesn't do to that degree. I mean, it's nothing music if you don't like it, but that can be applied to any music if you look at it like that.

NoSleep

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on November 17, 2011, 10:35:36 AM
Are we talking about all new music there or just Mumford/Foxes?

Mostly all new music draws heavily on the (recent) past. It's something that is difficult to surmount at this point in time, as there aren't any virgin fields to go sowing, as there have been in decades past. No radical new instruments or social structures.