Worst. Band. Ever.
It's been a weird week for me, musically speaking.
I wrote not long ago about how I have been playing with the GEnius feature in iTunes, and while I am still geeking on it pretty bigly, it has brought up a few things that I hadn't realised about my musical collections (such as it is).
If you're not familiar, or don't use iTunes, the short version is that you pick a song in your library and clicky the little icon, and BLAMMO! You have a playlist that vibes with the original choice. The reason I was so jazzed about it is 'cos... Well. I don't have the most extensive collection of music, but the tempos can be a little all over the place. So I thought: HEY! I can choose SONG A and I will get a whole playlist that is in keeping with that kinda thing, without having to hand-select for every conceivable mood. 'Cos if I wanna whole buncha stuff like, say, Rihanna, I don't have to jack around choosing stuff in that same tempo and: RAD!
... Except, as I have played around with it more, I keep having certain things pop up in playlists that don't seem all that... Um. Similar. Like, I made a playlist around a Weezer song, figuring I'd get quirky alt-poppy goodness. And all was fine and groovy, but then Iron Maiden's "Run to the Hills" popped up. And then it gave me Jimi Hendrix's version of "Star-Spangled Banner." And then Journey's "Wheel in the Sky."
... HUH?
When these songs popped up on my Zeppelin-based playlist, I got it. To me, that made sense. But then I was talking to my friend SirShannon about it, and he pointed out that though these songs are popping up on a bunch of seemingly unrelated playlists, they all have something in common.
Apparently, I like guitar virtuosity. Who knew? As he put it: "Those are all songs that are in, like, the guide to advanced guitar. Every guy that wants to play would want those songs."
Hmmm.
Interestingly, Vampire Weekend's "Oxford Comma" tends to pop up a lot too, on playlists around everyone from Neko Case to Metallica.
OK, iTunes. Message received. I should branch out some. Word.
---------------------------------------
In other, similar news, I have been having some ongoing conversations about what constitutes "bad music."* This all started when I was talking to a friend (affectionately known as the "San Francisco lesbian stalker" around these parts) and I mentioned in passing that I was listening to Steely Dan, and she espoused instant loathing for them because "they suck."
I was intrigued, as I have always known Steely Dan to be pretty well respected, from a musical standpoint. While I understand that their brand of awesome is not always appreciated, I kinds feel like the accomplishments of form achieved outweighed that.
Naturally, this led to the conversation continuing in the direction of what counts as "bad" music?
Since stan_42 is one of the biggest audiophiles I know, of course I posited the query to him. As one will do. And that led to a very interesting conversation - as most conversations with him are, particularly when discussing music.
Since I had that conversation with SFLS, I had been giving a lot of thought to what "sucks" - and I realised that while there is music I don't necessarily think is good music, I can enjoy it without having to think it's important. Conversely, I can appreciate things without liking them. There is very little music that I flat out think "sucks" - I may not like it, granted, but I appreciate BITS of it.
SFLS said the worst ever was The Grateful Dead. And I know she's not alone. Dead fans can be overwhelming. In a way, it made me think of serpent_sky's aversion to feminists - crappy people can influence one's perception of everything. And Dead fans? WOW. You have the historical Dead fan - stoned, stinky, self-referential, etc. They kinda give a bad name to hippies everywhere. This has morphed, over time, into super-obnoxious trust-fund hippies that are holier than thou. Ew. I'd hate them too. And when you think of those PEOPLE, it makes you kinda wanna hate the the music too. I get that. Do I argue that? Sure. While certainly NOT to everyone's taste - the noodling around can be distracting - I feel there are a lot of strong points in the music itself that get overlooked in the "jam" aspect of the songs themselves. I mean, this is a band that made "jam bands" possible, after all.
... On the other hand: that jam part is kinda what makes them great. Lefsetz wrote something recently (I was trying to find it in my emails, but... Eh. I'll gist it for you) about how that particular aspect shows without question the musicianship behind the image. And I agree. If you don't know music intimately, you can't deconstruct it and take it in entirely new directions. This is why Phish phans are such phreaks (HA!) about Anastasio. Say what you will about the music they play, but his mastery of his instrument is ridiculous. As for the Grateful Dead - well, they did what a lot of rock bands did back in the early days of rock - they took a standing form and made it their own. Nowadays, we think of "country rock" and we think of Kid Rock. But the Grateful Dead took country music, at its core root and structure, and changed it into something completely different. They created a new kind of music, and set the stage for innumerable artists to come.
Again: I get why one might not like it. I'm not a fan of a lot of rap music, and I have a pretty strong hate on for most "country" music today. But I can see where certain elements have strength and communicate to certain people.
[Wow, that was a helluva digression. Sorry about that]
At any rate: we were discussing the "worst" bands ever. And I made my arguments both to SFLS and stan_42. In my opinion? Worst classic rock? The Doors.
Do I like them? Sure. Do I appreciate some of what they did? Yeh. Do I think it's GOOD? No, not really.
The music is not very interesting to me. It's background. The lyrics? BAH. Stan argued there is creativity in them. I rebutted that yes, there is -- but then again, a seventh grader can write "creative" poetry -- creativity alone doesn't make it good poetry. There are certian bits that are very good - when those guys were on their game, they COULD be very, very good. But by and large? Not really. I find them mostly notable for bringing a darkness to the airwaves. Like the precursors to what would come two decades later. Influential, but not strong music. Dylan? Almost the exact opposite. EXCELLENT fucking poetry. Strong song structures that made sense. Also incredibly influential. Changed the face of folk music, bringing it out of the background and onto consciousness of the nation. Cannot STAND to listen to him. Ever. Worst singing voice in the world.
Again: Appreciation. Dislike.
Not mutually exclusive concepts.
As we moved deeper into this conversation, Stan pointed out that, for his money? Nickelback = worst band ever. Formulaic. Wretched lyrics.
... and top of the charts. Repeatedly.
Interesting.
For the record? I like Nickelback. I have several of their songs. Would I buy an album? No. I can only listen to them for a song or two before I am over it. But I enjoy it for what it is. And for what it says about the general American music-buying public.
'Cos hey, don't we all want to be a rockstar, in some tiny part of ourselves? Really, when we're dead honest with ourselves? There's something to be said for that, and the fact that they lay it out so baldly... Well, that I have to respect. I mean, they sing about selling out, f'Christ's sake. And they have. If they're ok with it, I don't think it's my place to judge them. Everyone has to make a living, somehow. For my own sake, though< I have to admit I crack up when I listen to that song by Nickelback and then listen to "Pull My Strings" by DK. Same sentiment. Wholly different perspective.
So my brain is wrapped around this concept of "good" versus "influential" versus "palatable." Lotta meat, there, to chew on.
---------------------------------------
It's interesting to me to note now that all of this began because I went to see Heart Sunday night. major_shock had an extra ticket that he generously offered to me. I've never considered myself a huge Heart fan, though I've always had a gut-deep appreciation for what the Wilson sisters did for women in rock. Nancy spent years working her ass off to make people realise that yes, in fact, she WAS playing that guitar all on her own. Without her, we'd have no Cat Power. We'd have no VooDou. We'd have no Kim Gordon. Really, any of the women who rock just as hard - if not harder - than the boys. So, there was an appreciation. Just not a huge... Kinship, I guess.
So off we went to the show, and I was amazed at how much of the music they played hit me like a gut punch. I knew most of the stuff they played - without having ever realised I knew it. It's part of the public consciousness. From the opening chords of "Barracuda" all the way through their interpretations of Zeppelin classics (which is a whole 'nother post about family and Daddy that needs to come) to the closing notes of "Magic Man" - I was hooked in. I don't know the last time I have been so mesmerised at a concert. (To be fair, I don't GO to many concerts, really, 'cos I don't have the attention span for them. That is a part of why I have such a good time at Bonnaroo - I can drift from show to show as the mood strikes)
Heart was one of the bands SFLS said "sucks."
Apparently, she's never heard them live.
* For the record, at this point, I am compelled to point out that I consider myself a pretty cursory music fan. I have very little musical background, I know sweet fuckall about time signatures, and my interest in composition is spotty at best. I LIKE a lot of stuff, but I am no music critic, by any stretch of the over-active imagination. As discussed with stan_42 some time ago, I have a very broad interest in music, but it is pretty lacking in depth. I would like to have a deeper knowledge of stuff, but as I wrote about here, the time to just inhabit something is just not there. There's too much to learn, to listen to, to learn something that deeply.