Why digital is superior to analog

[SouthSIDE Glen]

However, US notwithstanding, there is some cross-influencing in Europe and south america.

No question.

What always fascinates me is just how incestuous all the different genres and artists are at any given time and how such relationships intertwine over time.

And American music itself is not immune. Hell, the difference between Piedmont Blues and Delta blues is largely and directly traceable to just which part(s) of Africa the various slaves were taken from and geographicaly relocated, and the original rhythms and tonalities used in the music indigenous to those disparate parts of Africa.

There's a famous story that Neil Sedaka love to tell about how he composed his music and came up with various riffs and changes and whatnot. Neil Sedaka; about a "white bread" American as you can get, right? He used to read a foreign newspaper (I forget which one) in the 50s and 60s that had a weekly world version of a kind of international Billboard listing. He'd then track down pressings of the songs from Brazil or Italy or wherever - he didn't care - that reached the top of the list, and listen to them and analyze them for why they worked, and took the best ideas, riffs, lines, hooks, lyrical subjects, etc. from them and applied them to his own writing. I think it was "Oh Carol" (but my memory may be wrong on that one) where he actually adapted a line or progression he heard from a Venezuelan classical piano composition.

But this is the point, and why it's so important to the discipline of music engineering and production; the wider and deeper ones interests and muses, the better they usually will perform in the studio - on both sides of the glass. The whole idea that we often hear from the unwashed smart asses around these parts is, "if all your band plays/records is music type X, then that's petty much the only type of music you really need to study to do it well."

That idea is nonsense. The best artists in almost any genre, from metal to ambient, who are deified in these forums, when you read or hear what they actually have to say, almost never limit their listening and musical edification to the genre they play in, and often never listen to the genres they play at all, at least not for recreation. And many of them have a more encyclopedic knowledge of music past, present and future than either of us does, and understand extremely well how it all interrelates and works.

This business takes an ear, #1. Period. And the best way to develop that ear is not to limit what it actually listens to and what the brain behind it learns about and understands.

But just because there is a McDonald's in Moscow, that doesn't necessarily make McDonald's gourmet food (ugh... sorry, food analogies were your domain )

McDonalds sells food?

I agree, George. But again, I've been trying to avoid making value judgments here. Farsi hip hop is not exactly my cup of tea any more than French blues is (I'm sorry, but "Je me suis réveillé ce matin" just doesn't work for me the way "Woke up this mornin'" does. Yet a *am* a fan of Edith Piaf, just for the record, so you don't think I'm a jingoistic American frog-hater ) That doesn't change the dispassionate facts. As much as I dislike McD's, the influence and effect they have had on the 20th century food culture and industry is undeniable.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

That doesn't change the dispassionate facts. As much as I dislike McD's, the influence and effect they have had on the 20th century food culture and industry is undeniable.

Yes. And that explains why most people in the US are overweight and now it's spreading throughout the rest of the world, except for the very poverty stricken countries... I know you are not passing judgement, but I am. It's not necessarily a good thing.

Same thing with pop with it's 4/4 time signature.

And I was thinking... how much has the US influenced the world at least in some genres, mostly different varieties of Rock/Metal and how much has it been influenced by other (english speaking) countries, mainly the UK and Australia? Ozzy, ACDC, Depeche Mode, etc? Just wondering, as they are as much of the American culture now as Slayer and Metallica are. I don't know the answer to that, just started thinking about it after reading your responses to my diatribes. Or maybe they have the acceptance in this country because they sound sooo... uh... American?

It is unfortunate that we tend to shut ourselves out of the non-english speaking world. I can understand it, it's easier with Aussies, New Zealanders, England, etc just because of the common language, but still, we are robbing ourselves of some truly rich and exciting stuff from around the world.

 

[Beck]

Oh brother.................

Yes brother... you rang?

I guess I should have had my sarcasm indicator switched to on.

 

[legionserial]

Remove most American pop from any era and you remove pretty much *all* music composed and recorded in the past 100 years (that's been heard by more than 5 people, anyway).

With respect Glen, I think that's a pretty arrogant statement to make.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Yes. And that explains why most people in the US are overweight and now it's spreading throughout the rest of the world, except for the very poverty stricken countries... I know you are not passing judgement, but I am. It's not necessarily a good thing.

But now you're going back and comparing jazz and blues and folk music and so forth to junk food? That, my friend, is just wrong on so many levels, whatever your personal tastes may be. As is:

Same thing with pop with it's 4/4 time signature.

Since when as American popular music been relegated solely to that time signature? OK, maybe during the mercifully short Disco period. But otherwise, that's a goofy thing to say.

And I was thinking... how much has the US influenced the world at least in some genres, mostly different varieties of Rock/Metal and how much has it been influenced by other (english speaking) countries, mainly the UK and Australia? Ozzy, ACDC, Depeche Mode, etc? Just wondering, as they are as much of the American culture now as Slayer and Metallica are. I don't know the answer to that, just started thinking about it after reading your responses to my diatribes. Or maybe they have the acceptance in this country because they sound sooo... uh... American?

"Rock" is nothing more than a particular offshoot of jazz via the jump blues/swing jazz blood line. And Metal is just a second generation of rock. So, Ozzy, AC/DC and all that are nothing more than non-Americans performing music styles designed and built in America. Hell, the Beatles would still be playing in caves and Zepplin still attending skipple jams were it not for Elmore James, Willie Dixon and the rest of that class. The "British Invasion" was nothing more than an end-around of the racial segregation here. Even that idea came from Elvis (Presley, not Costello ) first.

The fact is that the vast majority of the music performed and played in technological countries with radio and phonographs, regardless of the language, are ultimately directly traceable decendents of ragtime jazz.

That doesn't mean that there aren't entirely different bloodlines of music out there that descend from non-American sources that are very good and very worthwhile, including everything from European "classical" to Latin American salsa and Chinese qin music. It just means that none of those have had the effect on the music of the planet during the history of music recording that American jazz has. Period.

And to respond to that by saying it's all just 4/4 cheeseburgers and Coke is itself just thinking's version of junk food.

G.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

"Rock" is nothing more than a particular offshoot of jazz via the jump blues/swing jazz blood line. And Metal is just a second generation of rock.

I'll agree with the following caveats - for me, it's less "jump blues/swing jazz" as it is chicago blues, which is really amped-up delta blues. And metal, for better or worse, has had a measurable classical influence from day one (I'm not sure where you want to start - Iron Butterfly seems as good a place as any for proto-metal, and "In A Gadda Da Vida" definitely has baroque influences - if you want to go later, Richie Blackmore is an obvious name to drop, and his clear influence on Yngwie. And then there's every clean electric Metallica intro...).

But yeah - American music, from day one, has been this wild and crazy melting pot. The down side is today we're seeing some pretty badly homogenized crap, but the good news is every so often something really interesting gets churned out.

 

[noisewreck]

But now you're going back and comparing jazz and blues and folk music and so forth to junk food?

Not necessarily. We are specifically comparing Pop (not popular music) pop as in Michael Jackson, Brittney Spears, Madonna, Celine Dion and the like.

That, my friend, is just wrong on so many levels, whatever your personal tastes may be. As is:Since when as American popular music been relegated solely to that time signature?

Since the emergence of Pop Show me a Pop tune that is not in 4/4 (or 12/8). Hell, majority of Rock and Metal is 4/4. About the only genre that regularly explores not only the far reaches of meter, but harmony as well is Jazz. But then again, you can scream on top of your lungs that jazz is a pop genre, and I'll say "horseshit". The number of listeners that listen to pure jazz is maybe slightly higher than those that listen to classical music.

OK, maybe during the mercifully short Disco period. But otherwise, that's a goofy thing to say.

It's not. I stand by it, and if you stop being so defensive about American music, you'll realise that I am right

The fact is that the vast majority of the music performed and played in technological countries with radio and phonographs, regardless of the language, are ultimately directly traceable decendents of ragtime jazz.

In the US yes, but not the rest of the world. And by the rest of the world I don't mean the UK. You complain that I make "goofy" blanket statements and you go and make one yourself.

The rest is coming. I am late for work. I am having way too much fun.[/QUOTE]

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I'll agree with the following caveats - for me, it's less "jump blues/swing jazz" as it is chicago blues, which is really amped-up delta blues.

Sure, there's a whole gumbo of influences and contributions; and you're right that Chicago provided the electrification/amplification that is so much a part of the modern rock sound. I guess I was referring more to the musical roots, in which case the line between, say, Louis Prima and Little Richard is virtually invisible. But yeah, while an overall evolutionary line can be described, it's impossible when drilling down to detail to draw just one solitary line; it's a bramblebush of interrelations.

Let me throw one more in there from slightly different perspectives; while Muddy Waters and his fellow Chicago blues guys were the ones to electrify the blues and help spawn "the baby" called rock n' roll, let's remember where they got their electric guitars from. The "purpose" for the electric guitar as we know it, as first envisioned, was to allow the guitar to be able to be heard when used in a jazz big band when competing with those much louder horns and saxes and drums (oh my). So even the #1 instrument of modern rock (and CETAINLY metal), and arguably the most important instrument of the last 60 years, has to give props to it's jazz heritage. (BTW, where did Adolph Rickenbacker, Les Paul and Leo Fender hail from?* )

And metal, for better or worse, has had a measurable classical influence from day one (I'm not sure where you want to start - Iron Butterfly seems as good a place as any for proto-metal, and "In A Gadda Da Vida" definitely has baroque influences - if you want to go later, Richie Blackmore is an obvious name to drop, and his clear influence on Yngwie. And then there's every clean electric Metallica intro...).

That's a good point I never really thought of, but yeah, metal does tend to be quite anthem-y, doesn't it. If John Phillip Souza loved paganism as much as he loved the USA, we may have head metal a lot earlier than we did .

I'm not so sure about the actual musical roots aspect of it, though honestly I haven't really analyzed that. No question that Iron Butterfly was quite obviously the son of blues rock. That guitar riff in "Gadda" is pretty obvious in it's heritage in that way.Richie Blackmore (I was a big fan of the Rainbow "Rising" album back then) still had rock very much his it's musical core, but tinged with all the dramatic musical flair of Mozart's "Requiem". How much those observations at still may be true with the more modern incarnations of metal I couldn't say, as I moved past my Blackmore/Montrose/Scorpions/Rush period about the time I reached twenty. Like my second girlfriend, I'll have fond memories of those times, but my personal interests mutated and took me elsewhere.

* OK, technically Rickenbacker was born in Switzerland. But he was still a little kid when he emigrated to the States, and when he grew up his company was fully American.

G.

 

[legionserial]

Most of the music I enjoy is American in origin and possibly influence too. However, I'm of the opinion that if the inventor of something never existed, it's only a matter of time before someone else would have come up with it.

I also don't beleive that whole genres can stem back to one thing. This isn't a family tree. And it's ridiculous to assume that every mind in the world is 100% unique.

The whole Elisha Gray/Graham Bell thing springs to mind. It not neccessarily about who invents something, it's about who brings it to your attention first.

And of course, there's the fact that music itself predates the founding of the United States by many thousands of years. Classical music, tribal music etc, is the core influence of what followed. What we hear now may not sound the same as what they were making back then (although a lot of metal has very clear classical influence), but then we (with the exception of some) aren't gobs of slime anymore either. It's evolution. America did not invent music, and it's foolish to assume that if there was no America the natural evolution of music would have been stunted in some way.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

loads o' stuff

:lol: I'd LOVE to have this conversation at length with you sometime, not because I think you're wrong and I'm right, or even the reverse, but rather because I just think it'd be pretty damned interesting.

You're spot-on re: the need to make the guitar louder to cut through a swing band - the only "difference" you can point to is that it was really the early blues guys who realized that an amp could be used for something other than merely making a guitar louder (though, to be fair a lot of them hated the distortion they got when they had to turn up - Elmore James might be the first guy I can think of who intentionally overdrove his amps).

Also, re: Iron Butterfly, there are definitely blues influences in there, but the keyboard cadenza that opens it is pure baroque, and the verse riff has that same sort of slinky minor key thing going on as something like "In the Hall of the Mountain King." Chorus too, come to think of it. Damned cool track, anyway - I can't imagine tossing that on a stereo back in 1968.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

Not necessarily. We are specifically comparing Pop (not popular music) pop as in Michael Jackson, Brittney Spears, Madonna, Celine Dion and the like.

Well, you were originally talking about American pop music in any era (your words). And I got news for you, Louis Armstrong *was* American pop in the 20s-30s, Benny Goodman *was* American pop in the 40s, Sinatra *was* American pop in the 50s, the Beatles were American pop in the 60s, etc.

Most of our disagreement at this point it seems is that we're talking about two different "pops", and that you're no longer talking about "any era" of American pop as you were earlier on. If you want to limit yourself to the Britney class and era of non-musicians (essentially later day versions of The Monkees, - which, BTW, I would not include Jackson in; say whatever you will say about the guy, he *was* a dedicated musician in many ways at least), then yeah, the McDonalds thing stars making more sense and I'll agree with you much more.

In the US yes, but not the rest of the world. And by the rest of the world I don't mean the UK. You complain that I make "goofy" blanket statements and you go and make one yourself.

but you've already agreed to this one, now you're turning back? Name one non-American genre of music of the last 100 years that has penetrated any country of the world (except maybe India) more than rock, jazz, blues or hip hop. I'll agree that many of the Latin American rhythms and music have widespread appeal, but as big as Tito Puente was, he was never even close to (your favorite mainstream rock band or hip hop artist here) in popularity, recognition or influence.

G.

 

[gcapel]

Everyone knows all music came from lionel ritchie and phil collins.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It's foolish to assume that if there was no America the natural evolution of music would have been stunted in some way.

I get where you're coming from on the evolution thing, and I agree. Einstein did not come up with Relativity out of the blue. Even if he never left the patent office, someone would have hit upon it within a few years, because there was already a lot of foundation laid for it by others.

But two difference here; first is that we are specifically talking about 20th-21st century popular music (basically coinciding more or less with the advent of recording). It simply amazes me that anybody with a whit of knowledge can deny that virtually every A-list trend in music, "pop" or not, in that time either radiates out from, or has been filtered through, the development of American roots music styles during that time. It's not jingoism, xenophobia or any other "damn yankee" stubborness that says that; it's simply true. the reasons why it happened that way are manifold, and have more to do with history than with music itself and probably require a whole different thread, but that's pretty much the way the cookie crumbled.

But just to touch upon the history thing for a second, the second difference is that, sure; music would continue marching on, but unlike science and technology, there is no path of nature or physics to be uncovered or discovered. The course of music is more based upon political, social, geographic, and economic influences than it is by any such "laws of music", to be discovered and developed equally by anybody anywhere. And the popular music of the 20th century is largely molded by the uniquely American experience.

Of course, as everyone knows, the #1 factor there has to do with the slave trade and the subsequent fight for racial rights here. Consider for a moment what music might sound like today if tobacco and cotton were not the major livelihood of the American Southeast. Probably no slaves, definitely no Holler blues, no underground railroad, etc. And where would jazz be if the French and the Arcadians had not gotten to Louisana before the British, and if subsequently Jefferson did not later buy it from the French and incorporate it into the US? How about if Chicago lost it's bid to New York for the Columbian Exposition and stayed only a ditry, smelly slaughterhouse instead of an attractive destination for the delta cotton pickers?

On less racial lines, what would have happened to music in the 60s and 70s without Vietnam and Watergate? Or before that, if Japan had never bombed Perl Harbor?

Music would live on (though the entertainment music industry is trying to kill it now), but the influences and sources would be different. Maybe it would be better, maybe it would be worse. Who knows? But it would be different, for sure.

And, just to be clear to George: I couldn't care less what the story of music was, whether American or not. If 20th cetury popular music had it's roots on a Norwegian fishing expedtion (the ship was rocking and rolling ) or from a sect of Taoist monks in the Gobi desert, I don't care; I'd still be fascinated by it and defend the position just as much. Frankly it's a crying shame, and a bit of an embarassment - really a good subject for a song in an of itself - that so much of our happiness as music lovers is dependent on my country's founding fathers' greed and inhumanity to other men. (Though I don't know why I should be embarrassed;, I wasn't a sharecropper and my family didn't come to America until after the Civil War.)

So none of this is motivated by the fact that I happen to be an American citizen. I'm proud of my country in many ways, and I love it, but I don't wrap myself in the flag nor think that we are superior to everyone else in everything and every way. Nor is it because I am an ignorant American who is blind to what's going on all over the planet. My eyes are open as an internationalist. On the same token, George, as a foreign national, you shouldn't have to feel so defensive about the fact that America is the major musical influence of the last 100 years. That's just how it goes. No need to get upset about that.

And I might also add, what makes anybody think that even if America were not pulling those levers, that "pop" music would not still become marginalized and commercialized the way it has. In the light of legionserial's point about natural order, that is kind of how the global economic trends have been going the past 5 decades anyway, with or without America's help.

G.

 

[noisewreck]

's

but you've already agreed to this one, now you're turning back? Name one non-American genre of music of the last 100 years that has penetrated any country of the world (except maybe India) more than rock, jazz, blues or hip hop.

Not turning back, and I agree with you on the influence, when it comes to genres such as rock, jazz and the like. However you specifically said:

The fact is that the vast majority of the music performed and played in technological countries with radio and phonographs

I got news for you. In many countries, rock and jazz are not what's mostly played on radio in many countries. Also, in those same countries what passes for Pop (the genre) or "Estrada" as many of them call it is much more influenced by local folklore and music roots. So, I don't disagree with you that American music influences the rest of the world much more than any other country (although, by your own admission American music itself is an amalgam of music of Africa with some european influence, at its origins at least), I disagree that the "majority of music" that's played on Radio and TV in those countries is necessarily of the type that's influenced by American music.

So, I am not going back on what I said.

As for the confusion regarding pop and music in any era, in my rant (yeah it was a rant... a damn good one too, look at the conversation we are having now because of it ) I specifically said:

Pop... is that music?

In fact, I hate 90% of the music that has topped the charts of any era, and/or has gone gold/platinum/whatever.

Most american (pop, and by that I mean what is and has been on radio, MTV, VH1, etc) music sucks, and pretty much all of russian music reeks of mothballs AND sucks.

I highly doubt Louis Armstrong has appeared on MTV. At least not when he was alive.

I should've perhaps been more careful in my rant and specify that I mainly had the music of 60's 70's and later in my mind when I was going on that diatribe, but well there you go. I am not perfect. Plus it WAS a rant, mostly meant to be ridiculous and tongue-in-cheek.

However, it's funny that when you came back, you started listing stuff from early 20th century, perhaps the peak of American music, at least when it came to innovation, and boom of many genres Latter half of that century... meh, sure there is some good stuff, and there are a few that did push their genre (and Jackson is no exception BTW, and I definitely value him), but by end large it consists of the equivalent of junk food. It may sound appealing and easy to swallow, but ultimately it has no nutritional value.

Another thing I want to point out that while in the early 20th century there was a lot of great development going on in what was then populare genres, that declined immensely in the latter part of the century.

Nowdays, any innovation or boundry pushing that's going on is firmly in the underground, in the kind of music that wouldn't get airplay on the Clear Channel. And then what happens is these sounds, methods eventually make their way into current pop music in watered down form, easy to digest for the general public. It's been a while since there has been a Frank Zappa around

So, yeah, if you wanna look at the 20's-40's and say Louis Armstrong was "pop" back then, well OK, I am not gonna argue with that. And you can say Mozart was "pop" in the 1700s.

 

[tc4b]

Glad to be of service But I wouldn't call Merzbow's stuff "music" I love noise though, so totally works for me. I even find it relaxing although most people just run away!

That stuff reminded me of this guy. If you live near one of these installations (artworks? whatever they are) do yourself a huge favor and visit one.

 

[DrewPeterson7]

You know, here's an interesting thought - maybe America was such a melting pot for musical styles simply because it had no musical heritage of its own. Most of what we consider "world" music styles have long histories behind them. Indian tabla or sitar playing, for instance, allegedly takes years to become proficient in and decades to master. African percussion is also way more structured than many outsiders give it credit for, and can take a similarly long time to become versed in the style (despite what hippie drum circles everywhere will have you believe ).

Obviously, a lot of the blending that occurred was due to the fact that so many different styles came to exist in such geographically close proximity, but part of me also has to wonder if the fact that there WAS no "American" music so the overbearing weight of tradition wasn't quite so oppressive in America may have had something to do with it, too.

Anyway, I think there's absolutely no denying that, whatever the reason, "modern" music would be very different without America.

So, yeah, if you wanna look at the 20's-40's and say Louis Armstrong was "pop" back then, well OK, I am not gonna argue with that. And you can say Mozart was "pop" in the 1700s.

Um, Louis Armstrong WAS pop back in the 20s-40s, or at the very least he dabbled in it - "What a Wonderful World" wasn't exactly deep jazz or swing.

 

[Seafroggys]

That is a good point....aside from aboriginal tribal music, the US didn't really have a musical heritage, probably until the late 19th century, both in ragtime and the rise of homogenous classical composers like Copland.

 

[darrin_h2000]

Anyway, I think there's absolutely no denying that, whatever the reason, "modern" music would be very different without America.

Nice to see "Muskrat Love" has influinced so many people.

 

[XLR]

Mods, since this wankfest of pseudo-ethnomusicology has nothing to do with recording I suggest you move it to the Cave.

Or the Cat forum.

 

[NYMorningstar]

To the original OP - When writing your thesis, if you include everything in this thread and change the topic to "Why You Shouldn't consider Music as a Career" I think you'll have a hit!