What? No 7/4? On the lameness of pop-rock functionalism
Nota bene: this rant comes from someone who discovered rock (in its "classic" and "hard" varieties) out of an early and on-going love for classical orchestral music. So I could be a little perverse.
Let me first say I am a big fan of certain subgenres of rock. As a recreational bass player, I relish playing along with old chestnuts by Cream, Zeppelin, Hendrix, and a host of their contemporaries. I see no contradiction or schizoid separation in being moved by Hendrix's "Red House" (live or studio version) and Hindemith's "Mathis der Maler"--for many of the same aesthetic reasons.
That said, I'm really turned off by the narrow genre conventions of pop and rock generally. In the main they have to do with milking proven ways to sell records, tickets, and memorabilia. This is why I'm all the more impressed when really creative artists (e.g. Beck) get popular. That my respect for certain kinds of creativity is unequaled by the adoration I have for the admitted crudity and loudness of, say, "Mississippi Queen" does not diminish the former, merely my enthusiasm for it. And, if you make a living off your art within a marketplace, I have no basic problem with you tailoring your output to market forces in a way that you can bear.
But why can't there be more little tweaks and tricks to keep pop songs interesting as artistry? Case in point: odd time signatures. What "average" consumer (if there is such a thing) would even notice a lopped-off 7/4 section in the verse, for instance? It adds something interesting and out of the ordinary to what are otherwise saleable songs--perhaps making them more so. And, if you're any kind of musician, it should only slightly tax your brain. (I might be getting my hopes up: you'll find a lot more performers than musicians in pop.)
While it's kind of a stretch, take a listen to Pantera's "Broken" for clues how you might go about integrating oddness and convention successfully. The track still thrashes - even swings - through a 6/4 chorus and a 7/8 verse. It's the main reason why I really dig Pantera, Tool, Clutch, and a handful of other heavier bands (despite qualms about their lyrical content or their fan base) as creatively engaged artists and faithful rockers.
The major factor restricting creativity of form to certain niches is not market or audience expectations. It's genre conventions (and, if I may be so bold, shaky musicianship), combined with the idea that "creativity" ought to be focused on lyrics--although they also remain highly conventional. Bottom line for many pop-rock acts and industry brass: odd time signatures just don't sound right. Why? My guess is that they make the music harder - though not impossible - to dance to. Again, I'd argue that this is not technically true, simply the logic governing these genres.
This suggests a crude classification for music. Within an X/Y grid, with the X-axis labeled "expressivity" and the Y-axis labeled "functionality," we can map any song or artist. All music has each aspect, though the balance differs by genre and work. That is, classification rests on the ratio between aesthetic appreciation and visceral/bodily movement--nod your head versus shake your ass.
Four examples
Let me first say I am a big fan of certain subgenres of rock. As a recreational bass player, I relish playing along with old chestnuts by Cream, Zeppelin, Hendrix, and a host of their contemporaries. I see no contradiction or schizoid separation in being moved by Hendrix's "Red House" (live or studio version) and Hindemith's "Mathis der Maler"--for many of the same aesthetic reasons.
That said, I'm really turned off by the narrow genre conventions of pop and rock generally. In the main they have to do with milking proven ways to sell records, tickets, and memorabilia. This is why I'm all the more impressed when really creative artists (e.g. Beck) get popular. That my respect for certain kinds of creativity is unequaled by the adoration I have for the admitted crudity and loudness of, say, "Mississippi Queen" does not diminish the former, merely my enthusiasm for it. And, if you make a living off your art within a marketplace, I have no basic problem with you tailoring your output to market forces in a way that you can bear.
But why can't there be more little tweaks and tricks to keep pop songs interesting as artistry? Case in point: odd time signatures. What "average" consumer (if there is such a thing) would even notice a lopped-off 7/4 section in the verse, for instance? It adds something interesting and out of the ordinary to what are otherwise saleable songs--perhaps making them more so. And, if you're any kind of musician, it should only slightly tax your brain. (I might be getting my hopes up: you'll find a lot more performers than musicians in pop.)
While it's kind of a stretch, take a listen to Pantera's "Broken" for clues how you might go about integrating oddness and convention successfully. The track still thrashes - even swings - through a 6/4 chorus and a 7/8 verse. It's the main reason why I really dig Pantera, Tool, Clutch, and a handful of other heavier bands (despite qualms about their lyrical content or their fan base) as creatively engaged artists and faithful rockers.
The major factor restricting creativity of form to certain niches is not market or audience expectations. It's genre conventions (and, if I may be so bold, shaky musicianship), combined with the idea that "creativity" ought to be focused on lyrics--although they also remain highly conventional. Bottom line for many pop-rock acts and industry brass: odd time signatures just don't sound right. Why? My guess is that they make the music harder - though not impossible - to dance to. Again, I'd argue that this is not technically true, simply the logic governing these genres.
This suggests a crude classification for music. Within an X/Y grid, with the X-axis labeled "expressivity" and the Y-axis labeled "functionality," we can map any song or artist. All music has each aspect, though the balance differs by genre and work. That is, classification rests on the ratio between aesthetic appreciation and visceral/bodily movement--nod your head versus shake your ass.
Four examples
- romantic classical = high expressive, low functional
- techno dance = moderate expressive, high functional
- West African drumming = low expressive, high functional
- pop = moderate expressive, moderate/high functional
posted by AntropOvni at 5:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home