ilovefuzz.com

O Drones wrote:I'd rather be consumed by a vat of boiling acid than click a Daily Mail link tbh

Your call, but I did include a NYT link also.

Yeah, maybe. Don't know that I'd put a lot of stock in this, as most of the people they're surveying (14-15 year olds) don't have much of a political orientation. But it's an interesting idea. The logic seems to hinge on this idea that everyone swings back and forth on a political pendulum from one generation to the next, and that they're always looking at Presidents or prominent politicians and thinking: 'he's a democrat. He isn't solving the worlds' problems. Republicans must know better,' which I can only hope is too reductive even for a summary of a 14 year-old's thinking habits.

BossMann73 wrote:Awesome thread so far and if the sentiments expressed here are any indication of a wider trend in music, perhaps we will be returning to better days. IMO, the last few years in music has been "hey, I just discovered this new noisemaker so I'm gonna bludgeon the world with it." But the most memorable songs have always had sparser production values and relied on good melody, structure and universal lyrics rather than assaulting the audience with noise.

The trend towards noise does make sense though given the younger generations (millenials) general world view of "if it feels good, do it" coupled with their general feeling that they "discovered" everything (that people were actually doing better in the 50's, 60's and 70's), but luckily the new crop of kids coming up behind them is substantially more conservative in their world view and I think personally that it will result in a better musical environment.

I'd actually say that noise has more in common in a couple of ways with rock and roll and punk and things like that which have a low financial barrier to entry as well as a low learning curve (as far as getting from idea to BzzzzzT BzzzzzzRT).

But, you know, that's could just be idealism coming from someone who likes and engages in the format. I do think the best noise tends to come from people who have more in common with the acoustic-electric and classical schools of minimalism than the more beat-oriented stuff.

There's an aspect to the aesthetic of minimalism that I wanted to talk about. Minimalism doesn't have to be forced on you by financial situation. There's perhaps an assumption that if money were no issue, you'd be totally hedonistic in your gear acquisition. Fair enough.

But another way to look at it is that the minimalist setup does not (necessarily) require the funds of the hedonistic approach. To steal from the book Siddartha:

Conversation between Siddhartha, who has temporarily given up all worldly possessions in order to experience total poverty first hand, talks to a merchant.

"That seems to be the way of things. Everyone takes, everyone gives. Life is like that" (said Siddhartha)

"Ah, but if you are without possessions, how can you give?"

"Everyone gives what he has. The soldier gives strength, the merchant goods, the teacher instructions, the farmer rice, the fisherman fish."

"Very well and what can you give? What have you learned that you can give(the merchant asks of Siddhartha)

"I can think, I can wait, I can fast."

"Is that all?"

"I think that is all."

"And of what use are they? For example, fasting, what good is that?"

"It is of great value, sir. If a man has nothing to eat, fasting is the most intelligent thing he can do. If, for instance, Siddhartha had not learned to fast, he would have had to seek some kind of work today, either with you, or elsewhere, for hunger would have driven him. But, as it is, Siddhartha can wait calmly. He is not impatient, he is not in need, he can ward off hunger for a long time and laugh at it. Therefore, fasting is useful, sir.

A musician who has learned to work with what they have not need be constrained by financial situation, but instead could create art from that constraint. Just a thought.

I also want to question the idea that doing more with less is somehow more traditionalist. Tradition dictates certain constraints because they existed at the time the tradition recalls. But those aren't necessarily the constraints of a minimalist approach. To go further, I think minimalism can be radical.

Conservative thinking in all aspects of life is not radical, and does not seek to create new order. It simply wants to preserve the old order. Art creates new order.

People love insisting that going back to the thing everyone was doing right before what everyone is doing right now, is radical.

Ex: I remember reading an interview with Dave Grohl in a guitar magazine right when the first Foo Fighters album came out. The big hook was that they DIDN'T USE ANY PEDALS! Which was ground breaking and radical, because everyone was obsessed with vintage fuzz and delays and modulation and he decided to just plug guitars into amps and rock out, like all the cool bands of his childhood used to do.


...and so on...

mathias wrote:I also want to question the idea that doing more with less is somehow more traditionalist. Tradition dictates certain constraints because they existed at the time the tradition recalls. But those aren't necessarily the constraints of a minimalist approach. To go further, I think minimalism can be radical.

Conservative thinking in all aspects of life is not radical, and does not seek to create new order. It simply wants to preserve the old order. Art creates new order.

>Conservative thinking in all aspects of life is not radical.
Is that not the very definition of radical? Both old world [rooted] and new world [extreme partisan politics]
taken beyond the tangible and intangible, to the abstract [applied as an absolute ideology]

FMU trad-conservative attitudes tend to seek preservation of legacy, tradition and celebration of various milestone achievements.
Art can be conservative, especially in the far east where great cultural emphasis is placed on respect for craftsmanship & tradition.
I don't think art creates new order in so much as it can be used to challenge old order and facilitate the rise of new order.
I do acknowledge it plays a part in the cyclical nature of culture... but art doesn't inherently create new order.

Also I recall reading the s/t Foo Fighters record has Rat+AC30 on it, particularly the glorious riff of Exhausted
Sounds legit.

Invisible Man wrote:Yeah, maybe. Don't know that I'd put a lot of stock in this, as most of the people they're surveying (14-15 year olds) don't have much of a political orientation. But it's an interesting idea. The logic seems to hinge on this idea that everyone swings back and forth on a political pendulum from one generation to the next, and that they're always looking at Presidents or prominent politicians and thinking: 'he's a democrat. He isn't solving the worlds' problems. Republicans must know better,' which I can only hope is too reductive even for a summary of a 14 year-old's thinking habits.

Exactly. Something similar happened in the early 80's. The 60's and 70's had gotten so far out there with the hedonism that the next generation ended up becoming Reagan freaks. Something similar is happening now. The kids are seeing the 20 and early 30 year old completely shit the bed as a generation that they are rebelling. I always say to my friends to not be too cool with their kids becuase they may rebel and become accountants, bankers or, god forbid, politicians. And relating all this back to music and minimalism, a definite minimalism occurred in the 80's as a pushback against the Yes's, Rush's and ELP's of the world. We still think of many of those great songs of the 80's as the best the music industry ever put out, and I'm not talking about the big hits, but also the underground as well. Shit, hardcore, which was some of my favorite back in the 80's, was just 50's Elvis Presley just sped up. I am hopeful for the future of music now that we are parsing all this out.

And PS- I love Rush, Yes and ELP too. But no denying that prog in the 70's got to be a bit too self-indulgent.

D.o.S. wrote:

BossMann73 wrote:Awesome thread so far and if the sentiments expressed here are any indication of a wider trend in music, perhaps we will be returning to better days. IMO, the last few years in music has been "hey, I just discovered this new noisemaker so I'm gonna bludgeon the world with it." But the most memorable songs have always had sparser production values and relied on good melody, structure and universal lyrics rather than assaulting the audience with noise.

The trend towards noise does make sense though given the younger generations (millenials) general world view of "if it feels good, do it" coupled with their general feeling that they "discovered" everything (that people were actually doing better in the 50's, 60's and 70's), but luckily the new crop of kids coming up behind them is substantially more conservative in their world view and I think personally that it will result in a better musical environment.

I'd actually say that noise has more in common in a couple of ways with rock and roll and punk and things like that which have a low financial barrier to entry as well as a low learning curve (as far as getting from idea to BzzzzzT BzzzzzzRT).

But, you know, that's could just be idealism coming from someone who likes and engages in the format. I do think the best noise tends to come from people who have more in common with the acoustic-electric and classical schools of minimalism than the more beat-oriented stuff.

I'd also like to add, these days, it's a noisy world we live in.

Chankgeez wrote:

D.o.S. wrote:

BossMann73 wrote:Awesome thread so far and if the sentiments expressed here are any indication of a wider trend in music, perhaps we will be returning to better days. IMO, the last few years in music has been "hey, I just discovered this new noisemaker so I'm gonna bludgeon the world with it." But the most memorable songs have always had sparser production values and relied on good melody, structure and universal lyrics rather than assaulting the audience with noise.

The trend towards noise does make sense though given the younger generations (millenials) general world view of "if it feels good, do it" coupled with their general feeling that they "discovered" everything (that people were actually doing better in the 50's, 60's and 70's), but luckily the new crop of kids coming up behind them is substantially more conservative in their world view and I think personally that it will result in a better musical environment.

I'd actually say that noise has more in common in a couple of ways with rock and roll and punk and things like that which have a low financial barrier to entry as well as a low learning curve (as far as getting from idea to BzzzzzT BzzzzzzRT).

But, you know, that's could just be idealism coming from someone who likes and engages in the format. I do think the best noise tends to come from people who have more in common with the acoustic-electric and classical schools of minimalism than the more beat-oriented stuff.

I'd also like to add, these days, it's a noisy world we live in.

Sho muthafuckin is. Right now listening to jackhammers, ambulances, the highway and my upstairs neighbor clomping around.

Just a few random thoughts after reading this thread as I've also been struggling with this topic for a bit now..

I had been away from playing in bands for many years at this point and over that time my gear collection has doubled and probably then some. I def subscribe to the idle hands theory mentioned above where lack of a creative outlet feeds GAS.

So at this point I have 8 guitars and 50 pedals to choose from. What I tend to do when I'm writing material for myself I chain together maybe 2-4 effects from off the shelf, grab a guitar and see what I come up with. I have found that a new piece will almost always inspire at least a few new songs/song ideas..but a new piece is not necessary for inspiration

I've also recently got back into a band where I am the guitar player and not the primary songwriter (songwriter also plays guitar, mostly rhythm). My job is to come up with guitar parts that fit for someone else's songs and convey the mood/direction/sound he is going for. (or my interpretation of it) So what I've done is lay out like 20 or so boxes and rotate others in and out as I search for the right tools. This is where I'm finding that I have maybe a bit too much choice, especially if I hit a rut. The danger is relying too much on an effect itself instead of writing a really good part. Maybe if I didn't have the pedal shelf I'd be able to focus on creating more interesting parts, or at least more skillful vs lazy ? I dunno. Part of the reason I'm around is for my effects usage, but that was a much rarer commodity 15yrs ago when I started than it is today..

I also feel like what a lot of effects companies have done is take certain sounds, previously obtained by tweaking pedals or from certain patches on multi effects, and turn them into pedals unto themselves and boom you have something "new". All of the variations on a theme have gotten a bit extreme in some cases imo...

At the end of the day is anyone's creativity validated one way or the other by a minimilast approach, be it by choice or by financial limitations or whatever? I don't think so. For me, too much choice can be both beneficial and a hinderance. Just like with any approach to art, there probably is no right answer. I would add that, I do aspire to become more minimalisic when it comes to gear. In every other aspect of my life I tend to favor that approach, I'm just not a "having stuff" kind of person. I wish I could explain why I have no self control when it comes to gear

rustywire wrote: but art doesn't inherently create new order.

But new order creates Blue Monday.

Checkmate,art-theists

BossMann73 wrote: "hey, I just discovered this new noisemaker so I'm gonna bludgeon the world with it."

Oh, you mean King Gizzard?

D.o.S. wrote:

rustywire wrote: but art doesn't inherently create new order.

But new order creates Blue Monday.

Checkmate,art-theists

True faith, this one has