Been doing a lot of reading on the ship. A friend of mine got me the 33 1/3 of In Utero and OK Computer
A few quick thoughts.
The academic world has taken on Radiohead by storm in recent years. Young music theory professors who teach intro to counterpoint classes think they can relate to students by name dropping Radiohead because they "use this cadence" and "use this chord" etc. Jazz musicians for some reason find in the harmony of Radiohead something interesting to improvise over. It's as if there were no other pop group in the last 60 years to do things "out of the box." Like the academic world (classical and jazz) lives in a bubble where there's a gap from Beethoven to Johnny Greenwood or Bill Evans to Thom York.
This seems to be the problem with the 33 1/3 of OK Computer. 20 pages devoted to the useless distinction between "album" and "cd." Unnecessary diagrams representing song lengths and key areas. Random quotes from poets which may or may not actually relate to the music. A thematic discourse based on lyrics and then about 20 pages on the "future" of music, not related to Radiohead.
There's barely any indication that they released two rock and roll albums before OK Computer (ask a jazz guy or classical guy to name one song off either album and see what they say.) And no information about why the songs were written, any stories or quotes from the band members themselves. Essentially, unless your the kind of person that listens to a classical symphony for the changes in tonal centers, there's no reason to read this book; not surprisingly written by a professor of music at Oxford.
The opposite is the In Utero. Chock full of inside info from the mouths of Steve Albini and Krist Noveselic. Interesting back stories to why and how songs were created and the importance of the album to the rest of the bands musical output. At the same time, you won't find any information on the music itself. That is, how Nirvana uses rhythm/song form/melody/orchestration etc.
I'll I'm asking is for a balance. Why can't the music itself and the musicians, co-exist? I think it's because the audience doesn't co-exist. People who play an instrument hear music very differently than non-musicians. What they listen to and what they care about is a completely different criteria. I would gladly listen to Lurgee and not Karma Police. I will gladly take Scentless Apprentice over Teen Spirit. But nobody cares. In the end, I'm glad we're all still listening. But c'mon writers of "pop" music. Either write for a broad audience, or let the music speak for itself!
-
A few quick thoughts.
The academic world has taken on Radiohead by storm in recent years. Young music theory professors who teach intro to counterpoint classes think they can relate to students by name dropping Radiohead because they "use this cadence" and "use this chord" etc. Jazz musicians for some reason find in the harmony of Radiohead something interesting to improvise over. It's as if there were no other pop group in the last 60 years to do things "out of the box." Like the academic world (classical and jazz) lives in a bubble where there's a gap from Beethoven to Johnny Greenwood or Bill Evans to Thom York.
This seems to be the problem with the 33 1/3 of OK Computer. 20 pages devoted to the useless distinction between "album" and "cd." Unnecessary diagrams representing song lengths and key areas. Random quotes from poets which may or may not actually relate to the music. A thematic discourse based on lyrics and then about 20 pages on the "future" of music, not related to Radiohead.
There's barely any indication that they released two rock and roll albums before OK Computer (ask a jazz guy or classical guy to name one song off either album and see what they say.) And no information about why the songs were written, any stories or quotes from the band members themselves. Essentially, unless your the kind of person that listens to a classical symphony for the changes in tonal centers, there's no reason to read this book; not surprisingly written by a professor of music at Oxford.
The opposite is the In Utero. Chock full of inside info from the mouths of Steve Albini and Krist Noveselic. Interesting back stories to why and how songs were created and the importance of the album to the rest of the bands musical output. At the same time, you won't find any information on the music itself. That is, how Nirvana uses rhythm/song form/melody/orchestration etc.
I'll I'm asking is for a balance. Why can't the music itself and the musicians, co-exist? I think it's because the audience doesn't co-exist. People who play an instrument hear music very differently than non-musicians. What they listen to and what they care about is a completely different criteria. I would gladly listen to Lurgee and not Karma Police. I will gladly take Scentless Apprentice over Teen Spirit. But nobody cares. In the end, I'm glad we're all still listening. But c'mon writers of "pop" music. Either write for a broad audience, or let the music speak for itself!
-
