>>Brian Wilson wrote some great bass lines but again I see nothing of his style in Mac's playing.<<
Okay, Bob, well then it's you vs. Macca. Because he's on record saying that BW was one of his fave bass players, early on through the mid 60s, though some of what he really liked was probably played by session people.
>>The bass part to I saw her Standing There was played on guitar I think, forget the name of the song and year but it is a fairly standard line anyway, <<
What in the world is a "farily standard line?" I've only heard it on two records and Macca himself said he loved it and swiped it, which he clearly did, note for note, from the Berry record I'm Talkin' 'Bout You, which of course is on "the Great 28." Had it been something used numerous times earlier, perhaps Macca would not have given credit where credit is due.
>>And of course Rush never had any teamwork whatsoever, and all their songs had **** lyrics, pathetic melody, and felt incredibly unrefined. Definitely.<<
Could not have said it better myself. I cringe every time I see something about "Geddy." If a band has no tunes, who cares about their playing? And that voice, agh! Rush isn't music, it's noodling.
>>It would appear as always, that good bass playing, whether simple, complex, or at any point in between, is purely a matter of personal taste<<
While I agree there are plenty of songs, or at least parts of songs, where bassists have been wise to keep what they're doing simple (Macca being no exception) I do not agree that it's all purely a matter of taste.
Like what has been said above regarding Rush, it's an example that taste is not a relative thing. If it was, there would be no such thing as bad taste (and no Las Vegas.) And we all know there is such a thing...in music, in art, in T shirts and architecture. In fact, there's a lot more bad taste around us, and always has been, than there are examples of good taste.
And most people don't know the difference, which is why there are more examples of the bad than the good. And if U2's relentless simplistic bass playing is not in fact a bad thing, well then it surely is not as good as bands and players that are not so one dimensional, predictable and dull. Also, it is well known that since the late 70s, American radio programmers and focus groups have chosen the predictable and dull over the unique and innovative (hence all the new wave bands held in high regard now that couldn't and still can't get on mainstream radio even if they are in the rock hall of fame.)
Awesome Entwistle video
Moderators: rickenbrother, ajish4
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
Yeah, um . . . what I said was HEAVY sarcasm if you didn't know. I happen to think Geddy Lee is one of the best bass players of all time.
I was making a sarcastic statement by going on about how bad Rush are, when, in fact, I feel that they are one of the most together and melodically adept bands in the history of rock. And I'm sorry, an obnoxious voice does not equal bad music. Bob Dylan has THE WORST voice in rock and roll. But he's still awesome, as is his music.
Seriously though, I was trying to play up exactly how absolutely ridiculous that claim made about Jaco and Geddy's playing was. But if you notice, Jaco only played 4-strings, and Geddy played a 5-string very briefly in the late 80s, before going back to 4-strings once again. Neither used 7-strings, or even 6-string basses. They each have a unique take on fingerstyle bass playing, but neither one was ever big on tapping or slapping or using their nose and their toes. The thing is, it's very easy to know this if you listen to the music.
If you look, Geddy Lee's biggest influence was Chris Squire. Chris Squire's biggest influence was Paul McCartney. Despite the differences between their playing, there are only two degrees of separation. If people actually cared to listen to any Rush and not instantly (and reactionarily) go "OH MY GOD HIS VOICE IS SO ANNOYING OH MY GOD IT'S ALL GRATUITOUS WANKERY!!!" they would probably notice that there is always viable melody and songwriting and . . . GASP . . . even a groove!!!
I was making a sarcastic statement by going on about how bad Rush are, when, in fact, I feel that they are one of the most together and melodically adept bands in the history of rock. And I'm sorry, an obnoxious voice does not equal bad music. Bob Dylan has THE WORST voice in rock and roll. But he's still awesome, as is his music.
Seriously though, I was trying to play up exactly how absolutely ridiculous that claim made about Jaco and Geddy's playing was. But if you notice, Jaco only played 4-strings, and Geddy played a 5-string very briefly in the late 80s, before going back to 4-strings once again. Neither used 7-strings, or even 6-string basses. They each have a unique take on fingerstyle bass playing, but neither one was ever big on tapping or slapping or using their nose and their toes. The thing is, it's very easy to know this if you listen to the music.
If you look, Geddy Lee's biggest influence was Chris Squire. Chris Squire's biggest influence was Paul McCartney. Despite the differences between their playing, there are only two degrees of separation. If people actually cared to listen to any Rush and not instantly (and reactionarily) go "OH MY GOD HIS VOICE IS SO ANNOYING OH MY GOD IT'S ALL GRATUITOUS WANKERY!!!" they would probably notice that there is always viable melody and songwriting and . . . GASP . . . even a groove!!!
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>If people actually cared to listen to any Rush and not instantly (and reactionarily) go "OH MY GOD HIS VOICE IS SO ANNOYING OH MY GOD IT'S ALL GRATUITOUS WANKERY!!!"<<
If anyone was within a mile of radio, and later, MTV, in the late 70s and early 80s, how could one, like it or not, not actually LISTEN to Rush? They got TONS of airplay. In those days, as well as today, one's odds are much slimmer, at least on commercial radio, to hear the Clash or any number of jangle pop acts often associated with Rickenbackers. And the question still stands, is there such a thing as bad taste or is it all a relative thing?
If anyone was within a mile of radio, and later, MTV, in the late 70s and early 80s, how could one, like it or not, not actually LISTEN to Rush? They got TONS of airplay. In those days, as well as today, one's odds are much slimmer, at least on commercial radio, to hear the Clash or any number of jangle pop acts often associated with Rickenbackers. And the question still stands, is there such a thing as bad taste or is it all a relative thing?
This is off the record
I meant like actually listen, not just hear it. Those are two very different things. I know that I don't listen to Van Halen; I just hear it. And that's because David Lee Roth's voice annoys the heck out of me. I have no real idea of what their music is like other than snippets of a couple of songs that come to mind every time I think of them, and the reason for this is that I don't ever listen to the music. I hear it, go "This sucks," and change the radio station. That's not listening.
I hear "Rock the Casbah" far more than I hear any Rush on the radio. And I hear early Beatles all the time. Very few people that I know have even heard of Rush, much less heard a song by them. When I wear my Starman t-shirt, I've had several people say, "Rush? Like Rush Limbaugh?" EVERYONE I know knows who the Clash are. Considering a very large portion of the people I know are under 25, this indicates that, in fact, younger people these days know punk and pop acts MUCH more than Rush or Weather Report or anything like that. When I ask anyone about Jaco, they inevitably go, "Wait, he's the guy who played 'America the Beautiful' on bass, right?" And that's it.
Bad taste is relative. Otherwise, you could say that there are universally applicable rules that determine what is art and what is not. Considering EVERYONE has a different view on what specifically constitutes art and what constitutes junk, I think it's safe to assume that there is no universal rule, or that, if there is one, very few, if any, people have found what it is.
I love the Beatles. Most people who like rock music would say that I have good taste (I have met maybe three people, in my life, who have disliked the Beatles). However, I also like Rush. Lots of people would say that I have horrible taste, while others would say that I have very good taste. I like Simon & Garfunkel. Lots of people say I have good taste. I like Paul Simon's solo stuff. Lots of people say I have bad taste, but some people say I have great taste.
There is NOTHING I can think of that people universally like or dislike (except for William Shatner's cover of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds", which proves that it is very easy to take one of the greatest songs ever and turn it into one of the worst songs ever).
I hear "Rock the Casbah" far more than I hear any Rush on the radio. And I hear early Beatles all the time. Very few people that I know have even heard of Rush, much less heard a song by them. When I wear my Starman t-shirt, I've had several people say, "Rush? Like Rush Limbaugh?" EVERYONE I know knows who the Clash are. Considering a very large portion of the people I know are under 25, this indicates that, in fact, younger people these days know punk and pop acts MUCH more than Rush or Weather Report or anything like that. When I ask anyone about Jaco, they inevitably go, "Wait, he's the guy who played 'America the Beautiful' on bass, right?" And that's it.
Bad taste is relative. Otherwise, you could say that there are universally applicable rules that determine what is art and what is not. Considering EVERYONE has a different view on what specifically constitutes art and what constitutes junk, I think it's safe to assume that there is no universal rule, or that, if there is one, very few, if any, people have found what it is.
I love the Beatles. Most people who like rock music would say that I have good taste (I have met maybe three people, in my life, who have disliked the Beatles). However, I also like Rush. Lots of people would say that I have horrible taste, while others would say that I have very good taste. I like Simon & Garfunkel. Lots of people say I have good taste. I like Paul Simon's solo stuff. Lots of people say I have bad taste, but some people say I have great taste.
There is NOTHING I can think of that people universally like or dislike (except for William Shatner's cover of "Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds", which proves that it is very easy to take one of the greatest songs ever and turn it into one of the worst songs ever).
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>>Bad taste is relative. <<
That was not the question.
It is "is taste a relative thing," or not? By using the phrase "bad taste," you seem to indicate that you agree such an animal exists.
That isn't to say that bad art isn't art. It is art. But it's bad art.
McDonld's is food. A lot of people eat it. It does not mean it's good food.
As per younger people being more aware these days of other classic rock bands than Rush, who knows....
I never got the Van Halen thing either, but I guess that's why I'm in a Rick forum. I do not reckon it's mainly because they too, didn't really have songs, couldn't write anything but mindless lyrics if their lives depended on it.
That was not the question.
It is "is taste a relative thing," or not? By using the phrase "bad taste," you seem to indicate that you agree such an animal exists.
That isn't to say that bad art isn't art. It is art. But it's bad art.
McDonld's is food. A lot of people eat it. It does not mean it's good food.
As per younger people being more aware these days of other classic rock bands than Rush, who knows....
I never got the Van Halen thing either, but I guess that's why I'm in a Rick forum. I do not reckon it's mainly because they too, didn't really have songs, couldn't write anything but mindless lyrics if their lives depended on it.
This is off the record
Sorry, you're right, I phrased that badly. I meant that taste is relative, that some people feel that X is bad, and some people feel X is good.
Also, regarding "bad art" still being art, albeit bad, that depends on your perception of art. A lot of people assume that if something is art, then it's good solely based on the merit of whatever made it art. If it's bad, then it's not art, because it has no artistic merit. I'm actually not sure where I stand on this. I'm of the opinion that there is not some sort of defining quality that all art must have (i.e. that it be aesthetically pleasing, which is something LOTS of people argue), and therefore, even what is considered art is somewhat arbitrary. One man's trash is another man's treasure, just like one man's Hondo is another man's Alembic.
If I had to define art, though, I would probably say, "Something created as a means of personal expression." Obviously, that definition has a lot of wholes in it, and would have to be fine-tuned, but, once again, I'd be, consciously or unconsciously, telling everyone that my view of art is valid, and everything that doesn't fit it is, in fact, not art.
Where "food" is defined as something you would normally eat, "art" is not something so simple. With McDonald's, I'm sure some people think it's great food, some people think it's bad food, some people think it's okay. You'd be hard pressed to get anyone to honestly say that what you get at McDonald's is not food (i.e. literally inedible). That's because food has a more or less definite meaning. You can't get people to agree on what exactly art is. I bet you could find specific things that lots of people would consider examples of art (i.e. the Mona Lisa, Mozart's "Reqiuem", Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby", etc.), but never any broad definition.
Alas, thus are the failings of semi-arbitrary distinctions.
Also, regarding "bad art" still being art, albeit bad, that depends on your perception of art. A lot of people assume that if something is art, then it's good solely based on the merit of whatever made it art. If it's bad, then it's not art, because it has no artistic merit. I'm actually not sure where I stand on this. I'm of the opinion that there is not some sort of defining quality that all art must have (i.e. that it be aesthetically pleasing, which is something LOTS of people argue), and therefore, even what is considered art is somewhat arbitrary. One man's trash is another man's treasure, just like one man's Hondo is another man's Alembic.
If I had to define art, though, I would probably say, "Something created as a means of personal expression." Obviously, that definition has a lot of wholes in it, and would have to be fine-tuned, but, once again, I'd be, consciously or unconsciously, telling everyone that my view of art is valid, and everything that doesn't fit it is, in fact, not art.
Where "food" is defined as something you would normally eat, "art" is not something so simple. With McDonald's, I'm sure some people think it's great food, some people think it's bad food, some people think it's okay. You'd be hard pressed to get anyone to honestly say that what you get at McDonald's is not food (i.e. literally inedible). That's because food has a more or less definite meaning. You can't get people to agree on what exactly art is. I bet you could find specific things that lots of people would consider examples of art (i.e. the Mona Lisa, Mozart's "Reqiuem", Fitzgerald's "The Great Gatsby", etc.), but never any broad definition.
Alas, thus are the failings of semi-arbitrary distinctions.
Uh, Geddy used a 5 string on one song, Lock and Key, and that was it.
I don't see what the complaint about Geddy's voice is! Sure, he screamed, ya know where he got that from? Robert Plant. I don't see anyone complaining his voice is too high or annoying. All I heard is he is one of the best. That's what I think of Geddy. When Geddy stopped screaming he was great. From "Signals" + he really started singing, and most of that gives me goosebumps and makes me smile. He's a kick *** singer, and his syle is very unique. He puts a lot of emphasis on one word in a verse sometimes. "Closer to the HEART!" "Turn around and WALK the razor's edge." How many people do that? Geddy is also instantly recongnizable. Even if you hated Rush, as some do, as soon as people hear his voice they go "Ahh, Rush! Turn it off!" Or "Hey, Rush, kick ***! Turn it up!"
"As per younger people being more aware these days of other classic rock bands than Rush, who knows.... "
I'm 17 now, and I've been a die heard Pink Floyd fan since I was 14. Not just post Dark Side stuff.. I mean all of it. "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is one of my favorite albums ever. I and a Kiss fan, I love the Beatles and Wings. I am getting into Iron Maiden. I like Elton John. If even one of those counts as "classic rock" (as Rush does) then I am a younger person who enjoys classic rock.
Rush is not noodling. Rush has melody, but it's in a very complex structure. At least the older stuff was like that. Te new stuff is more simplistic, but still has that "vibe" to it.
Robert, I liked Shatner's version of "Rocket Man"! Classic! Lol.
I don't see what the complaint about Geddy's voice is! Sure, he screamed, ya know where he got that from? Robert Plant. I don't see anyone complaining his voice is too high or annoying. All I heard is he is one of the best. That's what I think of Geddy. When Geddy stopped screaming he was great. From "Signals" + he really started singing, and most of that gives me goosebumps and makes me smile. He's a kick *** singer, and his syle is very unique. He puts a lot of emphasis on one word in a verse sometimes. "Closer to the HEART!" "Turn around and WALK the razor's edge." How many people do that? Geddy is also instantly recongnizable. Even if you hated Rush, as some do, as soon as people hear his voice they go "Ahh, Rush! Turn it off!" Or "Hey, Rush, kick ***! Turn it up!"
"As per younger people being more aware these days of other classic rock bands than Rush, who knows.... "
I'm 17 now, and I've been a die heard Pink Floyd fan since I was 14. Not just post Dark Side stuff.. I mean all of it. "The Piper at the Gates of Dawn" is one of my favorite albums ever. I and a Kiss fan, I love the Beatles and Wings. I am getting into Iron Maiden. I like Elton John. If even one of those counts as "classic rock" (as Rush does) then I am a younger person who enjoys classic rock.
Rush is not noodling. Rush has melody, but it's in a very complex structure. At least the older stuff was like that. Te new stuff is more simplistic, but still has that "vibe" to it.
Robert, I liked Shatner's version of "Rocket Man"! Classic! Lol.
1976 Rickenbacker 4001
2011/05 Fender Standard Fretless Jazz Bass
2005/11 Fender Standard Jazz Bass
2011/05 Fender Standard Fretless Jazz Bass
2005/11 Fender Standard Jazz Bass
-
studiotwosession
- Advanced Member
- Posts: 2215
- Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 1:36 pm
>> ...some people feel that X is bad, and some people feel X is good. <<
Absolutely.
>>I meant that taste is relative<<
I don't think the former, which I agree with, means this statement makes logical sense. Not at all.
If it did, there would be no such phrase as something being "in bad taste" or someone "having bad taste." But there certainly is.
Taste is elusive, of course, as things like education and income do not guarantee someone has good taste (Donald Trump is a perfect example...from his hair to everything he owns dripping in gold, he has not a clue when it comes to good taste...which I guess is why people watch his shows, at least the ones that get the joke..he has no taste even though he's educated and has money...the rest well, they think he has taste, which also proves this point...most don't get it...taste that is.)
But, more often than not, there is a correlation between these things and people having taste, or not, which is why it is not a relative thing. And by definition, a lot of rock is all about bad taste, metal for example. Spinal Tap is all about how so many metal fans don't even get when it's being made fun of. Issues of taste and humor regarding it went right over their heads.
Didn't mean to single out Rush or their singer's voice, by the way. I put 99+ plus of prog down as the same rubbish. There's no song craft there. That material woudn't be any better if Macca was singing dribble like "catch the spirit, catch the spit." It's what punk and new wave were rebelling against.
Absolutely.
>>I meant that taste is relative<<
I don't think the former, which I agree with, means this statement makes logical sense. Not at all.
If it did, there would be no such phrase as something being "in bad taste" or someone "having bad taste." But there certainly is.
Taste is elusive, of course, as things like education and income do not guarantee someone has good taste (Donald Trump is a perfect example...from his hair to everything he owns dripping in gold, he has not a clue when it comes to good taste...which I guess is why people watch his shows, at least the ones that get the joke..he has no taste even though he's educated and has money...the rest well, they think he has taste, which also proves this point...most don't get it...taste that is.)
But, more often than not, there is a correlation between these things and people having taste, or not, which is why it is not a relative thing. And by definition, a lot of rock is all about bad taste, metal for example. Spinal Tap is all about how so many metal fans don't even get when it's being made fun of. Issues of taste and humor regarding it went right over their heads.
Didn't mean to single out Rush or their singer's voice, by the way. I put 99+ plus of prog down as the same rubbish. There's no song craft there. That material woudn't be any better if Macca was singing dribble like "catch the spirit, catch the spit." It's what punk and new wave were rebelling against.
This is off the record
-
atomic_punk
- Senior Member
- Posts: 5093
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 5:00 am
- Contact:
I know that we get a lot of people requesting Rush when we play out, that must mean they have a lot of fans. And from what I see, they seem to sell out whenever they tour, so it appears those fans are sticking with them. It's OK not to like something, not everything hits the mark with everyone.
"They make great f***'n basses". - Lemmy, NAMM 2009
I'd like to chime(butt) in! I happen to like the "groove" of Traffic, rather than the uber speed of Rush. I like Limelight, Closer to the Heart, and not much else. Does that mean it is bad? Nope, it just means I like a different approach. The closest I'v come to recording,is when I helped a songwriter to do pre-demo demos for Nashville's Christian music guys. When we got the pro demos back, the bass lines I came up with were intact, with embellishments. Were they necessary for the song? Not so much. Did they add to the song? A bass player would notice, but probably no one else. I got a kick out of the fact that what I "heard" in the song, was what the pros also "heard". To amplify, as I've gotten more mature in my bass playing, songs seem to "call out" for a certain groove. It is my responsibility to create that groove. Everything else is embellishment. Is embellishment bad? If it was, jazz would not exist. Do I like jazz? Not so much. Blues, however!!!!!!!!
I like the way Geddy sang 'Tom Sawyer' on the "A Show of Hands" video.
"What you say about his company
Is what you say about society.
Catch the witness, catch the wit,
Catch the spirit, catch the fish (spit)."
(Someone thew a fish on stage and the joke stuck.)
There is nothing wrong with Neil's lyrics. Would you rather every song was a love song? "I love you! I love you!" No, and Neil's lyrics can be very deep. Just because you single out 'Tom Sawyer' doesn't mean the rest of his work sucks. Rush has the occasional love song, but they don't come out and say is like McCartney does in 9/10 songs. Which is why I love Pink Floyd. They have love songs too, but they don't come out and say it.
Geddy's voice and Neils lyrics go great together. Imagine if you heard a Rush song without Geddy's high pitch. That would suck.
One of Neil's masterpieces (IMHO) are "Hold Your Fire" and "Presto".
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/albums-holdyourfire.php#LYR
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/albums-presto.php#LYR
One of my favorite Rush albums, 'Counterparts'.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/albums-counterparts.php#LYR
To me most of those are not bad lyrics. Just because some are **** doesn't mean it's all terrible.
"What you say about his company
Is what you say about society.
Catch the witness, catch the wit,
Catch the spirit, catch the fish (spit)."
(Someone thew a fish on stage and the joke stuck.)
There is nothing wrong with Neil's lyrics. Would you rather every song was a love song? "I love you! I love you!" No, and Neil's lyrics can be very deep. Just because you single out 'Tom Sawyer' doesn't mean the rest of his work sucks. Rush has the occasional love song, but they don't come out and say is like McCartney does in 9/10 songs. Which is why I love Pink Floyd. They have love songs too, but they don't come out and say it.
Geddy's voice and Neils lyrics go great together. Imagine if you heard a Rush song without Geddy's high pitch. That would suck.
One of Neil's masterpieces (IMHO) are "Hold Your Fire" and "Presto".
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/albums-holdyourfire.php#LYR
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/albums-presto.php#LYR
One of my favorite Rush albums, 'Counterparts'.
http://www.cygnus-x1.net/links/rush/albums-counterparts.php#LYR
To me most of those are not bad lyrics. Just because some are **** doesn't mean it's all terrible.
1976 Rickenbacker 4001
2011/05 Fender Standard Fretless Jazz Bass
2005/11 Fender Standard Jazz Bass
2011/05 Fender Standard Fretless Jazz Bass
2005/11 Fender Standard Jazz Bass
-
sabbath_of_bass
- Intermediate Member
- Posts: 699
- Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 4:16 pm
- Contact:
Personally i liked tom sawyers lyrics too. I really like the song. I also like most of rushs lyrics. There different. But if you really listn and think about it... then it adds up. And like how Nate said.... I get sick of every song being about love. And If its not about love... its about drugs. Rush has deeper lyrics then just love and drugs.
As for Geddy's voice. At 1st i thought it was weird. But After a bit you get use to it. And really start to like it. At least i did. And its different from what is out there now. I get sick of hearing everyone singing the same way. Thats why i hate all this music today. Everyone has the same lyrics basically.... just jumbled up together. Lets see... how many different ways can i use the words... love... heart break... and pain in the same song. Then they go and sing it like everyone else is singing it. As far as the music goes... Well to be honest... theres not really much music there.
That was a little off topic probly.
As for Geddy's voice. At 1st i thought it was weird. But After a bit you get use to it. And really start to like it. At least i did. And its different from what is out there now. I get sick of hearing everyone singing the same way. Thats why i hate all this music today. Everyone has the same lyrics basically.... just jumbled up together. Lets see... how many different ways can i use the words... love... heart break... and pain in the same song. Then they go and sing it like everyone else is singing it. As far as the music goes... Well to be honest... theres not really much music there.
That was a little off topic probly.
"I put 99+ plus of prog down as the same rubbish. There's no song craft there. That material woudn't be any better if Macca was singing dribble like "catch the spirit, catch the spit." It's what punk and new wave were rebelling against."
Says you. Frankly, New Wave was not a rebellion against prog. If anything, it was an extension in a different direction, towards a more electronic, atmospheric, and poppy sound . . . but hardly anti-prog. Punk on the other hand . . . well, yes. They were also rebelling against what they saw as general "excess", not just of prog, but of 70s rock in general. And just because they were rebelling against it does not somehow support the point that it is rubbish. What if I think punk is "all the same rubbish" (I do not) or that new wave is "dribble" (I also do not)?
Your assertion that there is "no song craft there" is utterly unsupported and, I think, worthless. No offense, but that's a meaningless statement. What is song craft? The crafting of a song? If so, well, every type of prog has that: they are songs that are crafted. If it's something less literal than that, I'd like to know. Because I can guarantee you that there is plenty of prog out there that contains whatever "song craft" is, unless "song craft" happens to be "everything that isn't prog".
Of course there's bad prog. There's bad metal, there's bad rock, there's bad blues, and there's bad punk. There's bad disco and bad electronica and bad classical (in every era). There's always bad music. But you can't write off an entire genre as being inherently "in poor taste" because you dislike it. I don't like death metal. Does that mean that death metal is "in poor taste" and has no "song craft" because I don't like listening to it? No. No. No.
Basically, what it seems to come down to is that anything that is weirder/more complex than a certain level, which you have determined, is rubbish and not viable music. So what am I not allowed to sing about lest my music become ****? What is the limit of notes that I may play before I have crossed the line into over-pretentious elitist inflated-ego bull****? Oh dear, it seems as though I played the melody on my bass, and it was a pretty busy melody at that . . . I guess this song sucks now!
To me, all blues sounds the same. All of it. I know that's not really true, but I don't listen to enough blues to tell the difference between any of it, because I don't like listening to it. You don't like certain types or styles of music, so automatically, according to you, those types of music are just bad music.
Says you. Frankly, New Wave was not a rebellion against prog. If anything, it was an extension in a different direction, towards a more electronic, atmospheric, and poppy sound . . . but hardly anti-prog. Punk on the other hand . . . well, yes. They were also rebelling against what they saw as general "excess", not just of prog, but of 70s rock in general. And just because they were rebelling against it does not somehow support the point that it is rubbish. What if I think punk is "all the same rubbish" (I do not) or that new wave is "dribble" (I also do not)?
Your assertion that there is "no song craft there" is utterly unsupported and, I think, worthless. No offense, but that's a meaningless statement. What is song craft? The crafting of a song? If so, well, every type of prog has that: they are songs that are crafted. If it's something less literal than that, I'd like to know. Because I can guarantee you that there is plenty of prog out there that contains whatever "song craft" is, unless "song craft" happens to be "everything that isn't prog".
Of course there's bad prog. There's bad metal, there's bad rock, there's bad blues, and there's bad punk. There's bad disco and bad electronica and bad classical (in every era). There's always bad music. But you can't write off an entire genre as being inherently "in poor taste" because you dislike it. I don't like death metal. Does that mean that death metal is "in poor taste" and has no "song craft" because I don't like listening to it? No. No. No.
Basically, what it seems to come down to is that anything that is weirder/more complex than a certain level, which you have determined, is rubbish and not viable music. So what am I not allowed to sing about lest my music become ****? What is the limit of notes that I may play before I have crossed the line into over-pretentious elitist inflated-ego bull****? Oh dear, it seems as though I played the melody on my bass, and it was a pretty busy melody at that . . . I guess this song sucks now!
To me, all blues sounds the same. All of it. I know that's not really true, but I don't listen to enough blues to tell the difference between any of it, because I don't like listening to it. You don't like certain types or styles of music, so automatically, according to you, those types of music are just bad music.