This is my favourite current band, obviously they are heavily influenced by 60s and 70s music and it's great songwriting and melodies expertly performed....
They are actually quite ragged even though the music is quite simple. I always find Jools Holland's 'Later ' interesting for the fact that there is a massive gap in musicianship between the bands. It is a fascinating programme and I do wonder whst Jools thinks half of the time. I find older, established musicians tend to be better whereas a lot of white rock band like this could be heard in pubs around the country quite often. Always been the same , even before Quiny Jones skewered the Beatles as non-playing MFs. John Lennon has alot to answer for with his anti-technique diatribe. It is fascinating to separate the men from the boys. Sorry , Saints Alive, this is pretty poor.
NN I think you are correct about my comments regarding Jools might be seen to be subjective. The clip is more objective but I am more used to listening to jazz so I am.used to higher standards. I always find the drumming in rock bands telling. Hope I do not come across as snap !
Come on Ian, rock bands and rock drummers are performing very different roles to jazz drummers. That's not to say one or the other is better or worse, but it's like comparing a defender to a striker. As long as they are serving the song and the music, it's what they're there to do. To disparage rock drummers is to disparage people like this - Neil Peart - The awesome power and skill of John Bonham - The barely controlled madness of Keith Moon, Mitch Mitchell, Stewart Copeland, Bill Bruford, Steve Gadd - the list goes on and on.
Billy Cobham couldn't do what John Bonham does, as much as John Bonham couldn't do what Billy Cobham does. Billy Cobham wouldn't work playing for Led Zeppelin. John Bonham wouldn't work playing for Miles Davis. It serves the music. (Mind you, Neil Peart could do it all).
Ah . the BOC IF I had to chose one band who I listen to the most , it would be them . Never saw the never saw the Bouchard bros / Lanier /Bloom / Roeser line up . First saw them at the Brook in 2003 .
I agree that there are some very capable drummers in rock. You could add the drummer from Red Hot Chilli Peppers too. If I am honest, the 'problem' is often with British bands which led to producers using devices like Fairlight because human drummers were such an issue in the studio. The styles of drumming are massively different and the roles are opposite too. There are plenty of anecdotes about standards from Quincy Jones' dealings with Ringo Starr at a notorious recording studio through to Keith Moon wanting to study with Philly Joe Jones but who was rejected by the latter when he found our how much Moon earned....'I can teach you nothing! ' I agree that there are groups where the levels of musicianship are high. Nile Rodgers is the best example I can think of. Earth ' wind and Fire are another. But in both examples, they came from jazz and if you hear Rodgers now, the musicians all come out of jazz. You just have listen to the keyboards to suss that out I really think John Lennon's mistrust of musical technique and theory still resonates in UK. You can understand why he disliked a musician like Frank Zappa who took rock to a very sophisticated level. They are chalk and cheese. In uk, a working class , anti establishment approach really helps. It is not so much about the dots on the page. Granted you get bands like Radiohead who pull in another direction. It is an interesting debate. With drummers in jazz , there is over 100 years of evolution with drumming starting off from the likes of Baby Dodds. It was not until Chick Webb in the 1930s that the profile of the drummer recognised by the likes of Bobham appeared. After that, the floodgates opened and you get a whole host of different styles in all fields of jazz until you end up with players like Tyshawn Sorey today.
But music really isn’t about how technically good people are, or every band would be Rush or a math-rock outfit. Give me the range of emotion that David Gilmour can pull out of one note, over a technically brilliant guitarist with a meticulous grasp of music theory every day of the week.
This 100%. you beat me to it! His (2nd) solo in Comfortably Numb is cited by many many guitarists (including me) as their favourite of all time. Technically it's not complex but wow! - can he make that thing sing! His musicality is on another level for me. Similarly, I LOVE Rush for a whole lot of different reasons. A quote from Alan P. Merriam from his book: The Anthropology of Music. “Probably there is no other cultural activity that is so universal, that permeates, affects and shapes human behaviour as much as music.” My favourite music over the years can still provoke an emotional response today and only a small amount of that has to do with technique. This of course is mainly down to the memories it evokes. Don't get me wrong, I really like Jazz and I play it, I teach it but I learned a long time ago that simply stating that "this music is poor and this music is better" will quickly get you a reputation for being a little snobish. That actually happened to me when I tried to argue with my father-in-law that as a musical, West Side Story was "better" than Seven Brides For Seven Brothers. It turned out the latter was his favourite musical of all time - I didn't make that mistake again! Ian, with respect, you do seem to be saying that anyone who is technically proficient in the rock/pop world probably has a jazz background (at least that's how I percieve it and I apologise if that is not what you meant). I appreciate what you are saying to an extent but, to use an art analogy (and after all, music is just another art form), you wouldn't say that Monet was "better" than Turner or Picasso was "worse" than Lowry. Having said all that, I think this is a really good debate!
I have a confession to make though Jasper. Back in the day, I had a habit of buying albums based on hearing one track and then finding that that track was the standout and i didn't really get into the rest of them (and on "Agents of Fortune", you know which track I'm talking about! ) Because of this I never really knew too much about them and the lineups. I'm pretty sure I saw them in 1980 so a quick Google says that the lineup was as above but without Albert Bouchard (although that info came from Wikipedia so you never know). They never really clicked for me in the same way as maybe someone like Rush who I still listen to now. Having said that maybe I should give the album another try... EDIT: Turns out it was 1979 so maybe I did see the original lineup? https://www.concertarchives.org/concerts/mirrors-tour--5838071
This, 100%. Popular music is about expressing human emotions, not hitting every single note perfectly. Having said that, the beauty of music is in its infinite variety, so we don’t all have to like the same things. Neither should we be critical of what other people get off on.
Yes you would seen the best known line up . Albert and Joe Bouchard , Allen Lanier , Eric Bloom and Donald Roeser . Totally get the buying an entire album from hearing one track
I love so much of Rush's material but if you backed me in to the corner to choose just one of their albums to take on a desert island I think this would be it: Also really into Jacob Collier at the moment:
I probably need to clarify my earlier posts. I agree that technique is not the ultimate point of music. However, if you have technique and a good grounding in music theory, you will be equipped with the tools to expr3ss yourself better. Alot of the problem with modern pop is that the people making it are not musicians and therefore things which make music interesting like key changes , reharmonisation , poly rhythms , counter point and form are absent. We are at the point where one or two chord vamps is acceptable in pop music and without the kind of Coltrane -esque improvisation. I concur that simple ideas can be compelling and great music does not need to be complex either. There are plenty of instances where simple stiff works like Lester Young's sax solos and where I do not think it does. (Stand up , composer Frederico Mompou. ) i l ove blues and , although simple , the country blues artists of 20s and 30s are culturally and socially significant. Even John Lee Hooker spinning out an idea on one chord is great. Ditto, some complex stuff as diverse as Anthony Braxton , Schoenberg etc does not work for me either. Technically advanced music by the likes of Alkan leave me cold as it seems a pointless exercise learning something so physically demanding. There's an argument to be had to having a jazz education as no other popular music allows you to understand the Lego bricks which make music work. You will have a hands on , better ability in pop music if you can make the arrangement interesting. You do not need to play jazz to make pop music good but it is an advantage. Still, the point was that none of the above matters if the music is poorly played . There is a lot of crap out there and the rise of the Internet has exacerbated that by democratising popular music. For me, it is not about one style being better than another or musical taste ( Hands up here as I cannot abide Mozart ) but being aware what is rubbish. It is a good debate and happy to be challenged.
