"The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll" Discuss ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Define "heaven" first. Nicholas xox Jamie Huxley wrote:
"The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll"
Discuss
----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Huxley wrote:
"The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll"
Discuss
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Nicholas Ioannidis wrote:
Define "heaven" first.
(oooh baby do you know what that's worth?) Heaven is a place on earth. Sadly, due to an administrative cock-up, that place is Cumbernauld. Hope This Helps. Rod. Rod Begbie @ http://www.cee.hw.ac.uk/~ceerab/index.html | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Can he swing? Listen, bud! He's got radioactive blood. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Huxley wrote:
"The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll"
Discuss
not one to shrink from a challenge, although challenging a shrink may be a different matter altogether, here's me chipping in with probably a bit more than tuppence worth... first of all, i'm not even going to start thinking about notions of religious symbolism and reference. i'm not going to start deconstructing notions of 'heaven' in relation to culture, although it may well be a very interesting experiment. i'm going to stick to rock'n'roll. (actually i'm not, obviously...) secondly, i've been thinking a lot recently about the notion of Rock as oppossed to Pop. Actually i've been thinking of it the other way around, but what the hell. Having spent many years being pretty much a resolute supporter of a strain of musical reference which, to greater or lesser extent made a refusal of the genre of 'rock' (see early Kinks, Dexys, Vic Godard, Orange Juice, Postcard, Pale Fountains, the Esurient scene, Sha-La-La etc... ) and which celebrated the appeal of Pop (whilst never going so far as to define in strict delineations what Pop exactly was or was not, which was half the point of course...), i'm afraid i'm always going to have problems with this essentially tired and 'music paper'-led type idea that 'rock'n'roll' is some sacred cow which embodies revolutionary, spiritual enlightenment (okay, so there's a reference to equating culture with spiritual/religious imagery/language... i'm sorry). Vic Godard said something about how rock'n'roll was going well until (something like) 'Whole Lotta Shaking Going On' (tell me the real song, Tim...), and that it was downhill all the way from there. A strange, but strangely natural concept :-) Anyway, i kind of agree with him. See, i think that rock'n'roll in it's natural phase was essentially Pop. No more, no less. Go read Nik Cohn's amazingly inspirational 'awopbopaloobop awapbamboom' for proof, if it's proof that you need. But it started going downhill when it became an industry in and of itself, when it became more than a passing fad of culture, when it became apparent that the cult of teenage was being seen by some as not simply a phase to pass through in the process of becoming an adult, but a state of mind and being to sustain and to use in the creation of new ways of living. A new way to do things. Which was essentially Pop, and so this disintegration of Rock'n'roll into Pop was also it's saviour. So what do i mean by Pop, as oppossed to rock'n'roll then? Well simply this: that the moment to which we return in and through our consumption of culture (and musical culture in particular) is essentially a moment (or sequence of moments that blur into one recognisable period) that embodies the excitement of initial realisations, in other words; the excitement of discovery. It is this feeling which is essentially adolescent, which ties us to the idealisation of teenage, of being 16, which is an arbritrary moment in age, but which nonetheless symbolises this concept as closely as required. I don't mean that we need to read music and culture as having to be about being 16 to be Pop, but rather that, should a piece of music strike the correct chord (as it were!) at a particular moment, then that piece is, for that moment, Pop. It struck me the other night actually as we were coming home from school, listening to the live on radio one version of 'The Clearing' by Arab Strap. It was clear that in so many respects the noise should be described as being Rock, and yet, it was sending the shiver along my spine, making me so excited that i was close to tears, elucidating that essential IT that made me realise that indeed, this was a classic Pop moment. You know; you want to kiss the skies, you want to explode in a pyrothechnic display of other-worldly colour. Just so. Which is, essentially, why Belle & Sebastian are also so resolutely Pop, as opposed to rock'n'roll, despite what some band members might want to argue about their 'rock' influences... because in my book (quite literaly soon, i should hope!), those rock'n'roll icons are actually Pop Icons. Pop Icons because, obviously, the nature of the celebration of personality and artefacts as objects of importance is the personal collection of momentoes. It's the Bruce Dickinson/Paul Morley thing again: "ALL musics will be remembered as simply a collection or gathering of little moments." We might agree on the importance of some moments, we might not. Here we may agree on the repeated listenings to 'Sinister' or 'Tigermilk', the Union Chapel, (or simply the first time you saw them play)... others may agree on 'Stairway to Heaven' and Deep Purple. Yes, even. And to those people, i argue that those moments are Pop, even though they will prefer to call them Rock (and that is their prerogative), if only for the simple fact that the personal nature of music and it's criticism must essentially be derived from the individual voice, the individual experience, the individual emotional response to the stimulant. So: rock'n'roll the closest thing to heaven? NO NO NO. But Pop as Personal Religion? Um, yeah, sure, why not... Oh yeah, and before anyone now starts pointing and accusing me of being overly analytical of all of this, i just want to point out that, as Tim and I both attempted to state earlier this week in the ER thread; i love a musical piece (cultural artefact) BECAUSE I DO. The above type of analysis and (pedantic?) critique is offered because i like to think about reasons for things... i like to have opinions. Also because it's a fun way to spend an hour or so on a sunday morning (whilst listening to Josef K...) no longer dashing quite so much, the duke. -- Tangents On-Line http://www.virtual-pc.com/tangent/ Tangents On-Paper: PO Box 102, Exeter, EX2 4YL, UK tangent@mail.zynet.co.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Jamie Huxley wrote:
"The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll"
Discuss
Rock 'n' roll is surely by definition happy, upbeat music. It is designed to cheer people up. That's why it was named after sex; it's a joyful occasion, a brief moment of euphoria, something that makes your life a more enjoyable thing to inhabit. That's why I have problems with refering to pop music generally as rock 'n' roll. Good music needn't be cheerful - indeed it can cheer you up without being cheerful in itself - but then it comes under another category. So rock 'n' roll is what the writer of the song thinks heaven should be like, eternal happiness and all that; but it won't transport you to heaven in the first place. The problem I think is that there are so many different (and usually contradictory) labels for the same music. Maybe this is just a British thing, the desire to find a name for every conceivable type of music, but when the different genres inevitably merge, what do you call it then? So I don't think it is possible to differentiate between rock and pop (ie popular) music. However I do think you can differentiate between rock and POP! (ie deliberately populist) music. That's why B&S would say they had rock influences, because they have never written music purely because they think it will be popular (as people like the Spice Girls or Wet Wet Wet do); they write it because they like it, it does something for them. There seems to be a great confusion over what pop means, because someone like Radiohead are popular without being populist. Similarly Bon Jovi produce populist rock, whereas Iron Maiden simply produce popular rock. There are no clearcut definitions, no exact opposites; which is why whenever you hear somebody slagging off a band for being pop or whatever, you have to be very careful what they mean. Forgive my ramblings, forgive me if I appear to have contradicted myself, but I think things like this are very hard to put into words; music is all about feelings, which by their very nature are hard to describe. I just think it's worth trying. Stuart G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Gardiner wrote:
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, Jamie Huxley wrote:
"The closest thing to heaven is rock 'n' roll"
Discuss
don't think it is possible to differentiate between rock and pop (ie popular) music. However I do think you can differentiate between rock and POP! (ie deliberately populist) music.
argh! So now we also have a distinction between Pops!! Phew... i'm not into it though. Not at all. I don't define Pop as being a shortened version of anything, be it 'popular' (where do you define the line between not popular and popular? is it in terms of 'sales', if so, what number?) nor 'populist' (by whose definition? is this also tied to sales figures? if B&S then go in to sell millions of record are they too 'populist'?). It's simply(?) a personal evaluation of the state you might be in a certain moment, in response to a stimulant.... usually aural :-) And i happen to believe it's to do with what i talked about before...
That's why B&S would say they had rock influences, because they have never written music purely because they think it will be popular (as people like the Spice Girls or Wet Wet Wet do); they write it because they like it, it does something for them.
this is cruelly unfair on Spice Girls or Wet Wet Wet, because who are you to say that when they write or perform a song it is not also 'doing something for them'? Or to the fans who embrace their noises and who also will tell you that the noise 'does something for them'? Are you calling these people stupid simply because they don't like the same music as you do? Dangerous ground...
There seems to be a great confusion over what pop means, because someone like Radiohead are popular without being populist.
ah, but they ARE... because by their very actions they conform to a set of fairly strictly written traditional rock rules. They also sell a lot of records...
Similarly Bon Jovi produce populist rock, whereas Iron Maiden simply produce popular rock. There are no clearcut definitions, no exact opposites;
but there ARE clear distinctions and exact opposites, the point is that everyone has their own idas about what they are, because everyone defines their Pop for themselves, regardless of sales figures and perceived ideas about the reasons for an artefact being produced in the first place.
Forgive my ramblings, forgive me if I appear to have contradicted myself,
contradictions are intrinsic to Pop, you have to embrace them for it to make any sort of sense... i discovered this as i grew older :-)
but I think things like this are very hard to put into words; music is all about feelings,
which is why the definitions about what makes a certain noise 'Pop' or not is entirely personal, and why global distinctions are ultimately irrevelvant.
I just think it's worth trying.
ditto. and the very fact that we try is surely proof of our continued delight at the fact that noise can make us so excited and inspired. long may it continue! keep the faith, the duke -- Tangents On-Line http://www.virtual-pc.com/tangent/ Tangents On-Paper: PO Box 102, Exeter, EX2 4YL, UK tangent@mail.zynet.co.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sun, 30 Nov 1997, the duke of harringay wrote:
don't think it is possible to differentiate between rock and pop (ie popular) music. However I do think you can differentiate between rock and POP! (ie deliberately populist) music.
argh! So now we also have a distinction between Pops!! Phew... i'm not into it though. Not at all. I don't define Pop as being a shortened version of anything, be it 'popular' (where do you define the line between not popular and popular? is it in terms of 'sales', if so, what number?) nor 'populist' (by whose definition? is this also tied to sales figures? if B&S then go in to sell millions of record are they too 'populist'?).
What I meant by populist was people writing (and releasing) songs purely because they know that it will sell. A couple of years ago there were loads of boy bands doing just that; because Take That sold millions of records in Britain, other people copied their formula (in some cases very successfully). Whether they sold any records as a result is irrelevant - the point is that that was their sole intention behind writing the song. If B&S sell millions of records, that will not make them populist; but if they did it by writing ropey ballads and going all-out for mass expoure on the basis that it worked for the Spice Girls, then that would make them populist. (Choirboy Belleandseb, bus driver Belleandseb, sporty Belleandseb... can you imagine it?) Where exactly one defines popular is always going to be arbitrary (personally I'd have said getting on mainstream TV), but I don't think it really matters; I don't have a problem with popular. But I do have a problem with the unoriginality, naivity etc of being overtly populist, something which thankfully noone could accuse B&S of.
That's why B&S would say they had rock influences, because they have never written music purely because they think it will be popular (as people like the Spice Girls or Wet Wet Wet do); they write it because they like it, it does something for them.
this is cruelly unfair on Spice Girls or Wet Wet Wet, because who are you to say that when they write or perform a song it is not also 'doing something for them'? Or to the fans who embrace their noises and who also will tell you that the noise 'does something for them'? Are you calling these people stupid simply because they don't like the same music as you do? Dangerous ground...
I know I'm not in the best position to judge the motives behind the writing of a song. But I distinctly remember an article in the Melody Maker back in September in which some of Wet Wet Wet were saying that they didn't even like their music much themselves, they made it because Marti Pellow's voice sold lots of records using that kind of music. And I think that sucks. Stuart G ----------------------------------------------------------------------- . This message was brought to you by the Sinister mailing list. . To send to the list please mail "sinister@majordomo.net". . For subscribing, unsubscribing and other list information please see . http://www.majordomo.net/sinister . For questions about how the list works mail owner-sinister@majordomo.net . We're all happy bunnies humming happy bunny tunes. Aren't we? -----------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (5)
-
Jamie Huxley -
Nicholas Ioannidis -
Rod Begbie -
Stuart Gardiner -
the duke of harringay