I have a question for those of you who know something about music theory and song writing.
Why is it that the Doors, Led Zepplin, Pink Floyd, U2, and Guns ‘n’ Roses are widely considered great bands, Journey, Def Leppard, and REO Speedwagon are considered candy rock bands, getting only a grain of critical respect, and Winger, Warrent, and Slaughter are consigned to the slag heap of rock history?
Mind you, I agree with these assessments, but why are they so universally accepted? What is it about the above bands that everybody seems to recognize? It’s not just lyrical content. GnR isn’t exactly world-class poetry. And how many “baby-baby-baby” lyrics did Robert Plant sing? But still, there’s a quality to the songs that everyone seems to know.
Is there some quantitative (or something) way to say what is so much better about the first group, what is marginally good about the second, and almost just bad about the third? Can this be explained using specific points from music theory? I realize this is close to “teach me to be a world-famous songwriter,” but that’s not what I mean.
It’s the “Elder Statesman of Rock” complex… group one are the seminal innovators who get inducted into the Mistake at the Mistake by the Lake, group two are the midly with-it imitators, and group three are the cynical record industry cash-in.
I wouldn’t be so hard on GnR, myself… at the time “Appetite for Destruction” was released, no major rock musician was doing anything half as raw.
Speaking of poetry that ain’t exactly world class, I think Jim Morrison was perhaps the biggest wanker you alluded to, closely followed by Bono. At least Slaughter never appeared to have any pretentions about their own highfalutin artistic talent.
As a part-time Rock Critic, I assure that my colleagues and I are all completely full of shit, anyway.
Zodiac Mindwarp and the Love Reaction… now that’s ART.
i’ll take a stab at it from a guitarist’s viewpoint but this is really just mho. a lot of what separates great bands from lame bands is what’s known as ‘attack’. on the guitar it’s how the musician picks the strings, mutes with his hands, plays certain notes and not others, plays softly here and loudly there, etc. it can be very subtle or right in your face. as a musician who learns songs off the album/cd, i find recognizing attack is just as critical as hearing the individual notes and chords. it’s what makes one “1-4-5” progression (standard blues) different from another. i believe it’s the collective attack of a band that separates greatness from ok-ness.
I don’t know that that’s a satisfactory answer to the OP though, zwaldd. Say what you will about Journey, to use an example from the OP, but Neal Schon has some great chops. The guy came up with Santana and can easily play arena rock, Latin rock, and jazz fusion. Gary Richrath from REO Speedwagon is a pretty damned good guitar player, too; “Roll With The Changes” and “Riding The Storm Out” have some excellent work in them.
I don’t think there’s anything from a music theory standpoint that can explain the OP, at least to the extent I understand theory. The Doors’ most well-known song, “Light My Fire,” contains only four or five chords, and the verses and solos are nothing more than a G-Am vamp. And that’s a pretty complicated song for them! Led Zeppelin was just cranked-up blues, more or less. The other bands didn’t do too many things that were musically more sophisticated then the 2nd and 3rd tier bands you mention.
I think black455’s answer is probably closest to the truth. Some bands are originators in their categories, or at least become popular first. Some bands are borderline cases–would you put Boston in the first group or the second? How about the Sex Pistols, with only one album?
It’s really more about music production than music theory. Supertramp, Journey or even James Taylor had songs that were way more complicated theroetically than anything Zeppelin or Pink Floyd did.
The way John Bonham’s drums were recorded, and the layer upon layer of Page’s guitar gives Led Zep their particular crunch. Same with Guns n Roses. Aerosmith is of the same school. Nirvana kind of put a Beatle-esque spin on it.
Also keep in mind that a lot of the 60’s and 70’s musician-heros (page, clapton, beck, townsend, bonham, moon, santana, garcia, etc.) came from a jazz-blues-r&b tradition, so their music has more of a gritty, improvisational element to it.
The way a band delivers a song live is key to the difference, also. You look at band like Winger, for instance, and it takes about 5 seconds to see through all the phony strutting, costumes, posing, dancing around. Zeppelin, although they were entertainers with an act that included a lot of strutting and posing, had a different stage presence. They looked like they were there to rock.
I’m not sure if you really want a music theorists reply, but I’ve taught composition and music theory at universities for a few years and can give you at least somewhat of a bullshit response (that is, afterall, what theorists do…)
The thing that really defines the first group is timbral innovation. That is, their sound colours are varied, unique and difficult to emulate accurately. For example, Axl Rose really has a huge repertoire of vocal colors. In one tune, he may go from growling to screaming to (somewhat) pleasant singing. All of these sounds are quite intriguing The Doors created a unique sound, combining Jim Morrison’s deep voice (not so common in rock (consider Plant, Perry, Rose, etc.) and the electric piano.
Sometimes, though, a band can develop a unique color then ruin themselves by not evolving and becoming a “one-sound” band. I think U2 would fall in this category.
Also, harmonic innovation is an important, but not necessary, aspect. The Beatles are credited with reintroducing the minor chord to rock. Bands that exceed the mandatory 3-chord (tonic, subdominant, dominant)harmonic structure are often more interesting. Def Leppard has an interesting formula for building drama in their choruses: they modulate up a half step for the chorus, thus increasing harmonic tension (we feel it move higher).
So… long story short… some knowledge of theory can provide more interest in the music and give it longevity, but too much can land you in a college, teaching snot-nosed punks who are going to starve.
Many years ago, I studied music theory and composition (not with conductorman, however. At least I don’t THINK my teachers had quite the contempt for their students he seems to). However, I certainly agree with him that music theory doesn’t really inform an answer to your question. As he and mack point out, it’s really something quite different that explains, if not the quality of the music, then certainly some of its appeal. For those of us who like to listen to interesting MUSIC - technically, theoretically, harmonically, then most of the groups you’ve mentioned are pretty boring. But, if you like to listen to certain BANDS and the way they perform, and their works, well, that’s another thing. I’ll suggest, in expectations of starting a mess that I don’t really want to start, that as far as innovative, interesting music is concerned, there haven’t been more than a few decent bands since the Beatles. Most of what passes for music is, as some have pointed out here, little more than conventional harmonies, and simple ones at that. Heck, the Beatles had secondary dominance and more - circles of 5ths, etc, 6th chords, wondrous rhythmic and structural play, and on and on. Barely ever hear that stuff anymore - right Conductorman?
Actually CC– If anything, I think that Conductorman’s post points out that music theory does have some relevance to the OP. Granted, limited relevance…
Another perspective is that the bands identified as “great” all had dynamic and easily identifiable lead singers–I think almost all great bands do. This one quality certainly doesn’t guarantee success, but it certainly helps. Anyone familiar with even a small portion of the music of those groups can conjure up a memory of Robert Plant’s voice, or Bono’s, or John Lennon’s.
By contrast, the loser’s in the OP all had, in my opinion, generic vocals that blend into the crowd in their respective genres.
I agree that the issue is not primarily one of music theory, but of music criticism, which is in the realm of aesthetics, not theory. Theory analyses the nuts ‘n’ bolts of how a piece is constructed. It’s helpful to have a background acquaintance with theory when it comes to criticism, but that isn’t the main aesthetical focus. Finding a band’s appeal in the élan of their delivery is an aesthetical issue that theory just cannot cover.
Not much actual theory that analyzes rock ‘n’ roll has been written. The pioneer of this was Wilfrid Mellers, who published the book Twilight of the Gods: the Beatles in Retrospect with theoretical analyses of song structures, chord progressions, and melodies of Beatles songs. When this came out back in 1974, people thought he was daft for even attempting such a thing. But it was a interesting book if you know theory and love the Beatles. You get a fuller appreciation of the Beatles’ groundbreaking innovations. Definitely worthwhile.
The only other book I know of that does this is Music of Yes: Structure and Vision in Progressive Rock by Bill Martin (1996). I have not read it but I want to, being a Yes fan.
If you really want to see what happens when you know a little too much, listen to John Zorn or Mr. Bungle. They may not make tons o’ bucks or go down in history, but that’s probably because they are too innovative.
To truly understand why some bands withstand the test of time and some just…well…don’t, I think we only have to look to U2 and INXS. At one time, INXS was fairly equal in popularity to U2 at that band’s height of popularity (don’t have specific chart listings off the top of my head for either band, but if anyone so desires, I can drag some up,) but what differentiated the two was how each band dealt with its time period. INXS was indicative of the times. The INXS appearance and sound was a combination of many of the most recognizeable and vital aspects of the eighties, but because of this they all but died out in the nineties when the times changed. In my experience, most teenagers won’t even know who INXS is, unless they have a bit of a sweet tooth for eighties music. U2, defined their time. I’d venture to say that they were hardly at all influenced by the eighties pop music scene, and instead made music that wasn’t intended to define their time. Luckily for them, these songs struck a chord. Therefore, even though the eighties are over, U2 was never particularly bound to the eighties, and could move beyond that time period, both with albums that continued to sell, and with a message on their older albums that people were still willing to hear.
Notice that I am not saying whether one of these bands is better than the other (or, if you like, whether or not either of these bands are any good at all), but that when it comes down to it, the longevity of any band depends greatly on its ability to not be tied down to one specific time. Whew!
I’m not a music theorist but i’ll give this a shot …
Music comes and goes in trends. If a band just follows a trend to make a quick buck, they’ll be considered the “slag heap” in a few years, when the trend dies out. If a band actually makes new and innovative music, it will be considered one of the “greats” … of course, this is assuming that the music is good in the first place.
This can be easily seen by looking at the difference between rock n roll and “pop” music. Pop music means, of course, popular, as in “what’s hip at the time”. Look at the music charts for that last 20 years - dominated by pop bands. But where are any of those bands today? Dead with the trend. Many rock n roll bands who made poor showings on the music charts then, are still around now. There’s only one pop star i can think of that has lasted more than a decade, yet i can think of a dozen rock stars off the top of my head that have lasted that long.
To sum it all up:
trendy music = big popularity short term, laughing stock long term
good innovative music = mediocre popularity short term, huge popularity long term
Another question is why do the critics hate disco, such as classic Eurodisco of Kraftwerk,and Giorgio Moroder with his early experimental album EINZELGANGER and his early Donna Summer work, as in her immortal I Feel Love, I Know We can Make it (18 minutes), their immortal double album including Faster and Faster to Nowhere, Midnight Shift, Now I Need You, Fairy Tale High, Love’s Unkind. Why do the critics hate these and Cerrone (the immortal Supernature),
on up to the Pet Shop Boys, especially It’s A Sin, and whoever made that incredible version of Carl Orff’s O Fortuna from the CARMINA BURANA that was taken off the market because it was still in copyright. The tradition of steady beat and artificial-sounding effects, along with classic lyrics that are about nothing or else sex, dancing, and fun ( Claudja Berry’s Boogie Oogie Dancin’ Shoes from the old Russian tale THE RED SHOES, Tarzan Boy, Boom Boom Boom Let Me Take you to my Room, et. al.) and are often -for being about those subjects -even COUNTERCULTURAL (I Will Survive as opposed to if you leave me I’ll die)–HOW CAN ANYBODY HATE THIS GREAT MUSIC? Speaking of theory, it is more like man’s supposed first music than any other kind because of that steady beat with some rhythm patterns, but the steady beat hypnotizes people and is found in so-called primitive music of societies where the people spend much of their time dancing. Eurodisco (I must not forget the divine Amanda Lear and esp. her "I vaunt to change your dehstiny) provides that hypnotic beat that like aerobics or repeating a mantra change your brain waves to a high, but there is also enough interest in the strange synth sounds and the various added rhythms to help. Regular rock doesn’t do this as well since the beat doesn’t go on like it does in Eurodisco (I just thought that I have forgotten ABBA, for instance Dancing Queen and where can I get them in Swedish by the way?) and rap music is the opposite, along with jazz, for putting you into that hypnotic state. When Ihear any of my favorites in this genre I have a certain feeling or something in the back right part of my head, not an actual feeling, but more of I’m going into Dance Energy Ecstasy Now idea. (I’ve had my head examined and they found nothing, so I am technically well). Rap and jazz keep you out of a trance, especially rap, and make you feel unbelievably irritable and outraged, and yet the critics rave about both of them, especially rap and how inventive it is. I hear only one rhythmic figure in it repeated over and over but instead of hypnotizing me it just makes me want to get away from it.
When oh when will critics wise up?
The critic’s job is to sell papers, magazines, etc, so don’t feel to bad if they don’t like what you like.
Musical aesthetics do suggest that one receives more satisfaction from works that can be appreciated on many levels. A good steady beat and repetitive rhythms do not disqualify a work from being identified as superior, but if that’s all it offers, it is going to have a tough time when compared to music by, for example, the Beatles (good steady beat, cool chord progressions, tasty (but sometimes cheesy) lyrics, and nifty timbral explorations.)
But hey, if you just wanna dance, bizarre rhythmic juxtaposition can be a detriment. After all, how much RUSH was played at the high school prom?
Rock on!
keep in mind that a lot of critics, both amateur and pro-fessional, objected to the cynical way this music was mass marketed(I counted myself among them at the time). However, at least for this armchair critic, I have found that a lot of this music has withstood the test of time. Stuff that i used to absolutely LOATHE in high school, I find myself humming and bopping to on the way home from work. In other words, not being told that I have to like this music liberates me from being judgemental about it’s “Trendiness”, and lets me concentrate on the chord changes, the production values, the arrangements.