Rickresource Rickenbacker Forum

Radiohead is hardly heavy and loud and not melodic. Okay, their first album was, but their first album, was, I feel, ******.

Second, I think you have a very narrow definition of melody. According to Merriam-Webster Online, "melody" means both:

A. a rhythmic succession of single tones organized as an aesthetic whole

B. "Tunefulness" which means
- "Musical" which means
- of or relating to "Music" which means
- the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity

It also says that "Music" may have rhythm, melody, OR harmony. It can have any of them, or just one. It doesn't need all. Basically, "melody" is a roundabout way of saying "the tones that make up a piece of music", and harmony is just "the tones that complement the melody within a piece of music." There is CERTAINLY melody within Soundgarden's music, and there is plenty of melody and harmony in The Goo Goo Dolls, Radiohead, and, yes, even Tool. It just doesn't happen to be specifically 60s-esque vocal harmonization. Counterpoint is a type of harmony. The thing is, the melody in most of this music is carried by the vocals, and supported by the instruments. That's the way Soundgarden was, and Pearl Jam. Radiohead do lots of crazy stuff. The Goo Goo Dolls are DEFINITELY using vocals as the "melody" instrument.

Just because something is heavy and loud does not mean it has no melody. It may be harder to discern the melody, or maybe its mixed poorly, or maybe the melody isn't even what the band feels is important in the song. But there is definitely melody there. There are simple melodies and complex melodies and (depending on your preference) obnoxious melodies and pleasing melodies. But very little of the music lacked melody altogether.

I live around Oberlin Conservatory students, many of whom are obsessed with what is called "Atonal Music", meaning that it is music not composed within a tonal structure (i.e. keys, staves, clefs, sharps, flats, and so on). The purpose of this music is to break all the boundaries of tonal music (which basically consists of 90% or more of all music) which these people feel are restrictive and sometimes unnecessary, while still maintaining at least one required quality of music (i.e. rhythm, melody, or harmony). One of the things they like to do is abandon melody. I know what lack of melody sounds like. I hear it all time. Every time I listen to tonal music now, it's very easy to spot the melody and harmony and rhythm. True, lots of songs (particularly in metal and the various permutations of alt-rock and such) have little to no harmony. But they certainly have melody and rhythm, albeit simplistic ones.

Hey Robert, my definition was all in fun. "Rickenbackery" how could it not? Though I think it's clear what Harrison meant when he said "heavy," and Oasis meant when they said "they don't like tunes." When it comes to rock, I listen to a handful of web radio stations on live 365. They play whatever they want...a lot of self pressed stuff from bands no one's ever heard of (including mine.) A couple of them are power pop stations, and some of them just play off the wall psyche and avant guard stuff (one's called Turn Me On Dead Man.) And while I certainly don't get jazzed over everything they play, I think the people who setup and run these stations care a lot more about music and have a much more opened minded view of it than a lot of the people who work at major labels, based on the bands the majors have been promoting the past two decades, as well as commercial radio in the US.

Oh, I wasn't talking about "Rickenbackery", to which I felt you managed to do justice (except you left out the bit about how the first question out of most new 4003 owners is "How do I get Squire's tone???"). "That which pertains to Eddie Rickenbacker." Hehehehe . . . every time I look up Rickenbacker on eBay, I get TONS of like "Signed Photo of Rickenbacker!" and things like that. All priced suspiciously low if you ask me!

"And while I certainly don't get jazzed over everything they play, I think the people who setup and run these stations care a lot more about music and have a much more opened minded view of it than a lot of the people who work at major labels"

Yeah. I think that what's important is not what kind of music the people play, be it 60s pop or strange psychedelic unstructured jazz-fusion, but rather whether they care about the music they play. It's always more fun to listen to music when you know the people making it and handing it out are looking at music notes rather than dollar signs.

I played in a band with a bassist who liked a wide range of stuff. He is a huge Who fan and played a 4001. He was always talking about Entwhistle's sound...roto sounds, etc., etc., etc. I have friends who are big Yes fans but I don't know if he was. I certainly remember Squire being prominent in the 70s. I had no idea he'd still figure so highly today. Did he quit Yes and then rejoin or did the whole band split and then regroup? I tend to remember it being the former and Anderson leaving at one point and rejoining again, too. By the way, my biggest Yes fan friend liked them in the 70s but didn't get 'em in the 80s.

I was thinking Chris was the only member that has always been in the band. Him and one more maybe... Im not sure to be honest. Im 17 and well... I havent looked up much into the history of the band. But thats what i think i heard.

Doing it for the love of the music. Check out an Eagles video. Who's the one having all the fun on stage? Henley and Frye are WAY too serious. Of course, that's where they get the tenacity to "perfect" the songs. But what is written all over Joe's face? Pure Pleasure!

I know it was off topic, but useful to make a point I thought.

Funny, there's a thread in the Byrds forum about all the mistakes on records in the 60s, huge bass clunkers on the Mr. Tambourine Man LP and Blonde on Blonde. But by the mid 70s the Eagles were causing all kinds of talk with their perfectionism, take after take and overdub after overdub in the studio on what otherwise were very simple songs. Of course the Eagles started and were way into that before Joe joined, must have driven him nuts in the studio.

As far as Yes goes, yeah, Squire has been in EVERY incarnation of Yes. Jon Anderson has been in every incarnation EXCEPT for the "Drama" album, which had Trevor Horn on vocals (he produced some of their later stuff after he left the band). As much as I love Jon Anderson, "Drama" is one of Yes' best albums, and it's without him. And I love '80s Yes, even though Steve Howe isn't there (and he's my favorite guitarist ever). It's different, but it works.

Love the James Gang. Love the Eagles. Love the Eagles w/Joe Walsh. Joe Walsh is up there on my "favorite guitarists" list as well. There's nothing wrong with studio perfectionism. And there's nothing wrong with not being a perfectionist. Perfectionism gave us "Desperado" and "Hotel California". Lack of perfectionism gave us "The Who Sing My Generation" and "Led Zeppelin I, II, and III".

Come to think of it, Joe Walsh is one of those singers who gets criticized for his voice all the time. I LOVE his voice (for some reason, I like nasal singers).

The thread about clunkers early on and perfection later (over in the other folder) the consensus is for clunkers over perfectionism. I agree after a point perfectionism can the soul out of a performance. I like Joe. I like the James Gang. I like the Eagles but, if we're talking LPs, only on the Border, pre-Joe. Him and that band never grabbed me. I must be the only one who never liked Hotel C. as everyone but me bought it. Maybe because it was played on radio incessantly here. There was no reason to buy it.

Glenn, liked your definition of Rickenbackery; made me laugh.

And Robert, post 805 was great...

Yikes!

I checked this thread early on 'cause I like Entwhistle (and bass guitars in general).

It sure has mutated!

(BTW, I often have to work in the field, often the tarmac at LAX. Lotsa basball caps out there worn by the baggage handlers, in the sun, BACKWARDS, so that the reason for it's design, keeping the sun out of one's eyes, is moot. Being fair skinned and sun damaged, I wear a hat too, but for not wanting to be associated with the image of stoopidity baseball caps have come to represent to me, never a baseball cap).

Geddy literally makes me feel ill.

Dang it, I fell into this quagmire.

Yes, there is an exception for fashion in times when function comes before style (baseball caps are probably great when you're out in the sun amongst the jets. Anything beats skin cancer or sunburn. And, well, if you wear a fedora out there the jets probably would blow it off of your head.) Coming from cold weather country when it gets cold enough no one cares what you wear, survival is the key. And if ugly shoes can increase your basketball skills, I'm all for 'em. Also, Rickenbackery of course is a place where Rickenbackers are produced, like a cattery produces cats.

Beatles are in good taste, right?

http://www.chrisbliss.com/videopresskit.html

Check out The Big Finale

Also, far as taste confessions go, I dig Elvis on velvet.