If there was something technically representing the zenith of musical accomplishment in EOU or Boscoe, they would be household names.
I get what you are saying but Britney Spears is a household name and probably considered happy music but I don't think many of us would consider her a zenith of musical accomplishment. All about the context right? And ss is at least somewhat a gathering of like minded folks seeking to find the best of the best within somewhat a certain context. Of course we may seek out the overlooked or forgotten, because we do see value in places otherwise not noticed.
I never said happy music sucked. And while the tiny community of SS isn't the beacon of all things wonderful I do think there are
Possibly some standards for which greatness and quality can be measured. I appreciate honest critiques and unpopular opinions for unearthing those left behind but I still think there times when quality work deserves recognition regardless of its popularity.
In short, I think there are some standards for greatness and that Art... visual or otherwise isn't always subjective.
What standards of greatness do EOU, Boscoe,
And Stark Reality have in common? They have funky beats, are extremely difficult to find, are from the same era, and they are proficient at their instruments. All things strutters are drawn to but not everyone.
I think there may be standards of "goodness". Like if someone can graduate from a reputable school of art or music with honors, they are almost definitely "good", but not necessarily "great".
BTW I know it wasn't you who said happy music sucks.
Kool & the Gang and The Beastie Boys suck, right?
BTW I know it wasn't you who said happy music sucks.
Kool & the Gang and The Beastie Boys suck, right?
Here's what I said....Happy people make happy music and more often that not, happy music sucks. and I stand by that 100%,
Over the last 75 years or so the great majority of important and critically acclaimed music has come from strife and struggle, hard times, protest, lost love, unrequited love and other unhappy human conditions.
The best rock music was a result of teen angst, not teen happiness.
Entire genres like Blues, Punk, Heavy Metal, etc. have nary a happy note to be found.
The important musicians like Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley and on and on were not creating happy music. Sure they may have written something "happy" but it was the exception not the rule.
Whether it was Marvin asking "What's Goin On", Black Sabbath wailing "War Pigs", the Velvet Underground living "Heroin" or Gil-Scott Heron lamenting "Winter In America" they were anything but happy.
Nirvana, The Cure, NWA, Nick Drake, John Lennon and most other critically acclaimed musicians were not producing happy music.
I have a long standing theory that there are very few rock LP's that show a smiling happy artist on the cover that are worth a damn....go look at any list of the Top 100 LP's of the last 50 years and see how many can be considered "happy" music....10% at best
There is certainly popular happy music....Bubblegum, Novelty and most dance music....but for the most part this is shallow fluff.
For every Fat/Beastie Boys there are 100 artists within their genre singing about hardships, desperation and negative life experiences.
So when I say happy music sucks "more often than not" I believe it to be 100% accurate.
Happy people make happy music and more often that not, happy music sucks.
Jorge Ben is personally offended by this statement.
Apparently "more often than not" doesn't mean what I think it means.
Big_Stacks"I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
Rockadelic said:
Otis_Funkmeyer said:
BTW I know it wasn't you who said happy music sucks.
Kool & the Gang and The Beastie Boys suck, right?
Here's what I said....Happy people make happy music and more often that not, happy music sucks. and I stand by that 100%,
Over the last 75 years or so the great majority of important and critically acclaimed music has come from strife and struggle, hard times, protest, lost love, unrequited love and other unhappy human conditions.
The best rock music was a result of teen angst, not teen happiness.
Entire genres like Blues, Punk, Heavy Metal, etc. have nary a happy note to be found.
The important musicians like Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley and on and on were not creating happy music. Sure they may have written something "happy" but it was the exception not the rule.
Whether it was Marvin asking "What's Goin On", Black Sabbath wailing "War Pigs", the Velvet Underground living "Heroin" or Gil-Scott Heron lamenting "Winter In America" they were anything but happy.
Nirvana, The Cure, NWA, Nick Drake, John Lennon and most other critically acclaimed musicians were not producing happy music.
I have a long standing theory that there are very few rock LP's that show a smiling happy artist on the cover that are worth a damn....go look at any list of the Top 100 LP's of the last 50 years and see how many can be considered "happy" music....10% at best
There is certainly popular happy music....Bubblegum, Novelty and most dance music....but for the most part this is shallow fluff.
For every Fat/Beastie Boys there are 100 artists within their genre singing about hardships, desperation and negative life experiences.
So when I say happy music sucks "more often than not" I believe it to be 100% accurate.
Of course, as Rock stated (i.e., "more often than not"), there are exceptions to his statement. Bear in mind, I am a person with great love for dance music (which is usually happy); however, I wouldn't say that most of it (sure there are exceptions) is critically-acclaimed or anything.
Over the last 75 years or so the great majority of important and critically acclaimed music has come from strife and struggle, hard times, protest, lost love, unrequited love and other unhappy human conditions.
I think you're confusing what the music expresses with the artists that made it. I think art that successfully expresses the human condition becomes universal because everyone can identify with it, because everybody suffers and everybody has personal demons.
What I don't agree with is the idea that great art comes through great suffering. Is someone who makes mediocre art a person who has not suffered enough in one form or another? Probably not, they're just not capable of expressing something that resonates as deeply with others. I don't think having a fucked up life is a prerequisite for making great art, mainly because everyone has a fucked up life in one way or another, it's not the privilege of great artists.
as far as happy music sucking most of the time, I think the same could be said of sad music, or of music in general.
I no longer go record shopping whilst lit like a Christmas tree. Almost everything sounds GREAT while under the influence.
The feeling fades, you get it home, put it on again and wah wah waaaaaaahhhh wtf was I thinking?!? This is boring/corny/annoying as hell. Minus the money spent and the same shit applies to dating.
Even less fun when you're the one spending the money.
I no longer go record shopping whilst lit like a Christmas tree. Almost everything sounds GREAT while under the influence.
The feeling fades, you get it home, put it on again and wah wah waaaaaaahhhh wtf was I thinking?!? This is boring/corny/annoying as hell. Minus the money spent and the same shit applies to dating.
Even less fun when you're the one spending the money.
I wasn't talking about the dates one pays for. :balla: :roar:
there is a load of british electronic music that is rooted in drug culture and is super happy yet dark at times as well.
aphex,squarepher,luke vibert ,remarc ,all of that nasty chopped amen jungle shit was made by and for people off of their tits on "e".
there is no doubt that boards of canada tom jenkinson,vibert and RDj are massive weed heads.
a lot of their music is in a major key and is indeed "happy" sounding
i will conveniently exclude happy hardcore as an example, since it's total shite for the most part.
there is a load of british electronic music that is rooted in drug culture and is super happy yet dark at times as well.
Yes.
There is painful/heart-wrenching/angry/etc. music, art, etc. and then there's dark music, art, etc. which I consider more an aesthetic choice than an emotional expression/catharsis.
The happiest music I like is 60s girl group and Motown stuff, but what the words are saying don't always match the cheerful mood the instruments are putting across. And then there's Studio 1 sides that have some beautiful life-affirming messages and love songs but with that darkish moody production. On and on.
What I don't agree with is the idea that great art comes through great suffering. Is someone who makes mediocre art a person who has not suffered enough in one form or another? Probably not, they're just not capable of expressing something that resonates as deeply with others. I don't think having a fucked up life is a prerequisite for making great art, mainly because everyone has a fucked up life in one way or another, it's not the privilege of great artists.
as far as happy music sucking most of the time, I think the same could be said of sad music, or of music in general.
I no longer go record shopping whilst lit like a Christmas tree. Almost everything sounds GREAT while under the influence.
The feeling fades, you get it home, put it on again and wah wah waaaaaaahhhh wtf was I thinking?!? This is boring/corny/annoying as hell. Minus the money spent and the same shit applies to dating.
Even less fun when you're the one spending the money.
I wasn't talking about the dates one pays for.
From experience, I always pay for it one way or another. That's why I don't date.
What I don't agree with is the idea that great art comes through great suffering. Is someone who makes mediocre art a person who has not suffered enough in one form or another? Probably not, they're just not capable of expressing something that resonates as deeply with others. I don't think having a fucked up life is a prerequisite for making great art, mainly because everyone has a fucked up life in one way or another, it's not the privilege of great artists.
as far as happy music sucking most of the time, I think the same could be said of sad music, or of music in general.
Well said.
we have some very broad definitions now. And a great many qualifiers.
An over bearing father and teen angst qualifies as abuse or personal demons.
Hard to argue with that. In fact I agree with it.
What I reject is that mental illness/drug abuse makes a person a better artist.
Too many young people (and older people), sometimes, romanticize drug using musicians.
Many great jazz musicians were lost before their time because they thought that heroin was part of jazz.
And jazz is not alone in the loss of great artist to a romanticized notion of drugs.
I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,
dragging themselves through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix,
Angel-headed hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection
to the starry dynamo in the machinery of night,
There are lots and lots of examples of great artist suffering from mental illness.
There is no evidence that mental illness will make you a great artist.
B/W
There are lots and lots of examples of great artist suffering from drug addiction.
There is no evidence that drug addiction will make you a great artist.
Or even a better artist.
b/w
To the op point, I know from personal experience*, that hallucinogenic drugs can help you to see the world in a different way.
There is no way that hallucinogenic drugs will make you write as well as Ken Kesey.
But Kesey, being a great writer, may have achieved insights that informed his work.
*Lots and lots of personal experience with large quantities. Hey! I can hear your head going up and down saying "that explains a lot".
Between the much publicized sagas and deaths of past rock "icons" due to heroin, alcohol and/or suicide and what passes as acid and coke these days (usually lethal synthetic knockoffs so I have heard), I am convinced that current musicians are cleaner than they have ever been. Whether or not that makes the music better or worse is up to you.
By no means conclusive evidence but it gives some idea. They've got more drug related deaths listed in the 90s than any other decade, only three between 2010-2020 for obvious reasons. Then you need to think about the improvements in medicine, mobile phones etc which would effect the statistics but it still doesn't support the idea they're a cleaner bunch. Despite that I'd argue popular music is much worse currently, so where does that leave us?
They've got more drug related deaths listed in the 90s than any other decade
It was a great time for drugs and drug related music! I think the 00's saw a backlash, and the current climate of image obsession would rule out the kind of shameless hedonism that saw something like a third of all 16-30 yr olds in the UK necking Es every weekend, not to mention acid, pot smoking, and our nation's well-documented weakness for the sauce. Once in a blue moon I see a mashup stumbling down the street on my commute and remember that 8am gurners used to be such a common sight. :sigh: the good old days :grin:
I think every one's on the sniff (with kamagra!) now and whatever crap you can buy from the Silk Road (if it's still going/not been supplanted by a newer service). Are the yoot still doing ket, or was that just a dubstep* ting?
* the 05-09 stuff, not teh American Skrillex brand that seems to be more about glowsticks and Burning Man
I've been thinking about my life.
The deaths, sickness, illness, injuries, loss, overbearing parent, teen angst, drug addiction, alcohol.
The story of my life would make Mozart's sound like a Disney movie.
Yet, I think my life is rather normal. I am not a tormented soul.
Great artists don't need tormented souls. They need to be able to express the emotions, love, loss, fear, anger, angst, madness, depression, weakness, joy, that we all feel. It is the ability to communicate those emotions that make an artist great. Narcotics and mental illness do more to hinder an artist than help. IMO.
I'd like to see a Top Ten list of musicians who had no personal demons be it drugs, alcohol, disability, mental illness, abuse, etc.
David Gilmour immediately springs to mind. After reading 'A Saucerful of Secrets' I'm convinced that David Gilmour is the most normal rock star on earth. Upper/middle-class upbringing. Seemingly nil ego (at least compared to the mega dark Roger Waters). Didn't even want people to know his face, which is really just smart and observant IMHO.
Now HERE'S a question:
EGO'S & music. What would our record collections look like if there were no egos? To me that is arguably one of, if not, the ultimate demon.
Edit: I'd pretty pretty surprised of that topic hasn't been explored deeply here already
Comments
I get what you are saying but Britney Spears is a household name and probably considered happy music but I don't think many of us would consider her a zenith of musical accomplishment. All about the context right? And ss is at least somewhat a gathering of like minded folks seeking to find the best of the best within somewhat a certain context. Of course we may seek out the overlooked or forgotten, because we do see value in places otherwise not noticed.
I never said happy music sucked. And while the tiny community of SS isn't the beacon of all things wonderful I do think there are
Possibly some standards for which greatness and quality can be measured. I appreciate honest critiques and unpopular opinions for unearthing those left behind but I still think there times when quality work deserves recognition regardless of its popularity.
What standards of greatness do EOU, Boscoe,
And Stark Reality have in common? They have funky beats, are extremely difficult to find, are from the same era, and they are proficient at their instruments. All things strutters are drawn to but not everyone.
I think there may be standards of "goodness". Like if someone can graduate from a reputable school of art or music with honors, they are almost definitely "good", but not necessarily "great".
BTW I know it wasn't you who said happy music sucks.
Kool & the Gang and The Beastie Boys suck, right?
Here's what I said....Happy people make happy music and more often that not, happy music sucks. and I stand by that 100%,
Over the last 75 years or so the great majority of important and critically acclaimed music has come from strife and struggle, hard times, protest, lost love, unrequited love and other unhappy human conditions.
The best rock music was a result of teen angst, not teen happiness.
Entire genres like Blues, Punk, Heavy Metal, etc. have nary a happy note to be found.
The important musicians like Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, Bob Dylan, Bob Marley and on and on were not creating happy music. Sure they may have written something "happy" but it was the exception not the rule.
Whether it was Marvin asking "What's Goin On", Black Sabbath wailing "War Pigs", the Velvet Underground living "Heroin" or Gil-Scott Heron lamenting "Winter In America" they were anything but happy.
Nirvana, The Cure, NWA, Nick Drake, John Lennon and most other critically acclaimed musicians were not producing happy music.
I have a long standing theory that there are very few rock LP's that show a smiling happy artist on the cover that are worth a damn....go look at any list of the Top 100 LP's of the last 50 years and see how many can be considered "happy" music....10% at best
There is certainly popular happy music....Bubblegum, Novelty and most dance music....but for the most part this is shallow fluff.
For every Fat/Beastie Boys there are 100 artists within their genre singing about hardships, desperation and negative life experiences.
So when I say happy music sucks "more often than not" I believe it to be 100% accurate.
Jorge Ben is personally offended by this statement.
Apparently "more often than not" doesn't mean what I think it means.
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
I think you're confusing what the music expresses with the artists that made it. I think art that successfully expresses the human condition becomes universal because everyone can identify with it, because everybody suffers and everybody has personal demons.
What I don't agree with is the idea that great art comes through great suffering. Is someone who makes mediocre art a person who has not suffered enough in one form or another? Probably not, they're just not capable of expressing something that resonates as deeply with others. I don't think having a fucked up life is a prerequisite for making great art, mainly because everyone has a fucked up life in one way or another, it's not the privilege of great artists.
as far as happy music sucking most of the time, I think the same could be said of sad music, or of music in general.
Even less fun when you're the one spending the money.
I read it based on Olive Wang's recommendation. It is an essay on music, subjectivity and taste.
Also the current thread on Favorite songs with bad singing. An overview of how a piece of music can be quantitatively "bad" but still be "good".
Drugs. Lots of them.
So is this like the music chapters in American Psycho?
I'm heading to ARC in about 2 hours and that problem will be solved.
I wasn't talking about the dates one pays for.
aphex,squarepher,luke vibert ,remarc ,all of that nasty chopped amen jungle shit was made by and for people off of their tits on "e".
there is no doubt that boards of canada tom jenkinson,vibert and RDj are massive weed heads.
a lot of their music is in a major key and is indeed "happy" sounding
i will conveniently exclude happy hardcore as an example, since it's total shite for the most part.
Yes.
There is painful/heart-wrenching/angry/etc. music, art, etc. and then there's dark music, art, etc. which I consider more an aesthetic choice than an emotional expression/catharsis.
The happiest music I like is 60s girl group and Motown stuff, but what the words are saying don't always match the cheerful mood the instruments are putting across. And then there's Studio 1 sides that have some beautiful life-affirming messages and love songs but with that darkish moody production. On and on.
Well said.
From experience, I always pay for it one way or another. That's why I don't date.
THIS is what I am missing with no tv? That man's eyebrow just made my heart leap.
If I hadn't seen Southpark "Let go, let Gov", I don't know how I'd sleep at night.
we have some very broad definitions now. And a great many qualifiers.
An over bearing father and teen angst qualifies as abuse or personal demons.
Hard to argue with that. In fact I agree with it.
What I reject is that mental illness/drug abuse makes a person a better artist.
Too many young people (and older people), sometimes, romanticize drug using musicians.
Many great jazz musicians were lost before their time because they thought that heroin was part of jazz.
And jazz is not alone in the loss of great artist to a romanticized notion of drugs.
There are lots and lots of examples of great artist suffering from mental illness.
There is no evidence that mental illness will make you a great artist.
There are lots and lots of examples of great artist suffering from drug addiction.
There is no evidence that drug addiction will make you a great artist.
Or even a better artist.
b/w
To the op point, I know from personal experience*, that hallucinogenic drugs can help you to see the world in a different way.
There is no way that hallucinogenic drugs will make you write as well as Ken Kesey.
But Kesey, being a great writer, may have achieved insights that informed his work.
*Lots and lots of personal experience with large quantities. Hey! I can hear your head going up and down saying "that explains a lot".
Do u have any evidence, or are you speculating?
Is Amy Winehouse a rare exception?
By no means conclusive evidence but it gives some idea. They've got more drug related deaths listed in the 90s than any other decade, only three between 2010-2020 for obvious reasons. Then you need to think about the improvements in medicine, mobile phones etc which would effect the statistics but it still doesn't support the idea they're a cleaner bunch. Despite that I'd argue popular music is much worse currently, so where does that leave us?
It was a great time for drugs and drug related music! I think the 00's saw a backlash, and the current climate of image obsession would rule out the kind of shameless hedonism that saw something like a third of all 16-30 yr olds in the UK necking Es every weekend, not to mention acid, pot smoking, and our nation's well-documented weakness for the sauce. Once in a blue moon I see a mashup stumbling down the street on my commute and remember that 8am gurners used to be such a common sight. :sigh: the good old days :grin:
I think every one's on the sniff (with kamagra!) now and whatever crap you can buy from the Silk Road (if it's still going/not been supplanted by a newer service). Are the yoot still doing ket, or was that just a dubstep* ting?
* the 05-09 stuff, not teh American Skrillex brand that seems to be more about glowsticks and Burning Man
I've been thinking about my life.
The deaths, sickness, illness, injuries, loss, overbearing parent, teen angst, drug addiction, alcohol.
The story of my life would make Mozart's sound like a Disney movie.
Yet, I think my life is rather normal. I am not a tormented soul.
Great artists don't need tormented souls. They need to be able to express the emotions, love, loss, fear, anger, angst, madness, depression, weakness, joy, that we all feel. It is the ability to communicate those emotions that make an artist great. Narcotics and mental illness do more to hinder an artist than help. IMO.
David Gilmour immediately springs to mind. After reading 'A Saucerful of Secrets' I'm convinced that David Gilmour is the most normal rock star on earth. Upper/middle-class upbringing. Seemingly nil ego (at least compared to the mega dark Roger Waters). Didn't even want people to know his face, which is really just smart and observant IMHO.
Now HERE'S a question:
EGO'S & music. What would our record collections look like if there were no egos? To me that is arguably one of, if not, the ultimate demon.
Edit: I'd pretty pretty surprised of that topic hasn't been explored deeply here already
Edit Edit: Sorry to be a thread topic anarchist