Hear, hear! - rant on my friend! "Welcome to the wonderful world of show business!" - oy.

What's really sad is that I know 'engineers' who work at maximum stun volume levels 24/7, so you KNOW that's not a good sign either.

I think the pendulum swings both ways here...I know when I was younger I used to crank my car stereo up (mostly to look cool - hey, we were all young once) but as I 'grew up' I wised my ass up and stopped doing it (I wanted to be able to use my ears to make a living one day).

To me, the people who make spectacles of themselves and their competiton car audio do it just for that reason - to get attention. I hate to stereotype and rationalize like this (but I'm gonna), but they don't even seem to be into music for the sake of music. all I hear is blasting subwoofers and pseudo-death-metal wanking. Looking at today's most popular music 'artists' - and I use that term loosely - it's no wonder the average kid/young adult can't appreciate any other form of music that isn't spoon-fed to them via MTV and commercial radio.

If they honestly like 'music' so much that they want everyone within a 10-block radius to share in the joy, for chrissakes play something that doesn't suck.

thinkin out loud/my 2 cents.

weezy

Durn kids these days. Blastin' that damn Led Zeppelin stuff out of those huge AR speakers so loud. They wouldn't know how good a Dorsey glassy sounds outta' my RCA.

ooops.....wrong decade.

lol..

My biggest joy when hearing mega-loud car stereos is the certain knowlege that the offending vehicle is owned and operated by someone that either lives with mommy and daddy, or at best lives in a apartment.

Big people rock out in their house, studio, practice space or other music venues. No sane person with options would put big bucks audio in a place as easy to rip-off as a car.

hmmm, i do. But i live with mommy and daddy.

PS - there is no such thing as too much rocking out(at least at my age)

i have a pretty sweet system in one of my cars, getting ready to upgrade it to DVD w/surround and video. it goes louder than i need it to before distortion. my wifes car has one of those full blown stock systems in her suv, not as nice as my system... she USED to have 2x12"'s in her trunk before we had our son and sold that car. getting ready to hook up a system in my truck also. i dont live with my parents. i own a house.

aside from the head unit, the system is "stealth" so you wouldnt even know its in there.

what really trips me out are people who crank an obviously POS system like they are cool and the speakers started breaking up long ago.

Ahhhhh... all is not lost! While I admit that the majority of the "younger generation" wouldn't know good (that means ahem, talented) music if it bit their ears off, not all are like this! I, myself, am but of the tender age of 20 and have a deep appreciation for music. Virtuosity is something to be respected and even (GASP!) enjoyed. I prefer the rock, progressive rock/metal genre, but even within that you have greats such as Dream Theater (everyone in that band is insane), Seve Vai, Satch, Spock's Beard, etc... It makes me sad that so many people (young and old) have been so conditioned to 4/4 that anything other than that is percived as wrong and that "those guys suck", even if it sounds extremly musical (and it mostly does). Lightning fast lines (tastefully done, of course) and odd time signatures are anything but foriegn to my CD player and surprisingly many of my friends'.

...And MTV has long since degenerated into a mindless steaming pile. For one, all they show is quasi-soap operas... MTV.... didn't the M stand for Music at one point? When they do play videos, its all the crap that's on the radio today. Same old bland, regurgitated garbage that somebody thinks they can make a profit off of. It seems that having any sort of musical talent and/or being able to play more than 3 chords excludes you from the "music" industry. I don't know how this happened, but I am on a constant crusade to expose anybody I can to music as played by real musicians. Granted modern music may have some merits, but nothing compared to the stuff that doesn't get airplay. Even older stuff... ever hear of Yes? Jeff Beck? Frank Zappa? all great! I honestly don't understand the attraction to the modern sound. From an engineering standpoint, its a lot more fun (not to mention easier) to work with a band that really knows thier stuff. Not only do you not waste as much time with "uhhh... where do I come in... what fret are you on?", but things just seem to sit better in the mix because a better player usually favors a clearer tone (not the muddy, detuned 7-string muck that is spewed out randomly by so many an "artist"). They understand the relationship between the instruments and how they interact with eachother. I realize this is a generalization (and a little bit of exageration), and that I am going off on a rant of my own, but this sort of thing really strikes a nerve with me, particuarly when I end up working with these "modern" people on any given project.

As for car systems....

I see no problem with it if you are intelligent in how you listen to it. First off, you need more than just subs. High end... what that? A balanced sound is important. Once you have that, which I do in my car, having power keeps everything clean. Just don't abuse the power and your hearing. Its fun to crank every now and then, but not all the time. I feel that I need a better sound system in my car because I spend more listening time there than anywhere else. It just depends on where you listen most.

I realize this is a really long post, but I have a lot to say on the subject. So here's my $.47 worth. (Its too long to only be 2)

Say what you will about the "youth of today" because for the most part you are right, but understand that there ARE some of us who are on the same page and can appreciate quality when s/he hears or records it.

-Chris

Maybe there is hope :)

dk

i call BS on all this younger generation listening to talentless music. EVERY generation has said the exact same thing probably since the dawn of time. and i dont consider "lightening fast licks" even tastefully done to be talent... nor do i really think steve vai and stach are that great. both play fairly souless music. id rather hear some 3 chord punk band playing from their heart over those two schmucks or better yet, mr. bungle if you are looking for something odd.

What's the deal? My first small-minded spewtation on loud car stereos only belonging to kids living with their parents draws no flames, despite casting aspersions on many RO members.....

I stand corrected, and Mr. Bungle rules.

"ears are ringin'. ears are ring-in'. ears are ringin'. ears are ring-in'......"

[Deep Breath]

There's nothing wrong with playing your heart out on three chords, but by the same token, there is something to be said for technique. No, technique is not everything, and "soulfullness" is very much subjective, but I have a hard time taking a band seriously that isn't serious enough about their music to learn thier instruments (I'd like to hear any of the "modern" bands play Vai's "For The Love of God"). Not to say that all are bad, but it seems to me that too many people (mostly kids) pick up instruments and form "3 chord bands" for the sake of being in a band and having that image. Maybe they want attention, maybe some of them want to make some money (if they can get picked up by a label), I don't know, but it doesn't seem like many of them care enough about the actual music to better themselves at it. Maybe it's just me, but if I'm going to try to do something for the rest of my life, I want to be as good as I can possibly be. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that these are not creative individuals, because many of them are. And, contrary to what you may think after reading these posts, I am open minded to new things. I appreciate music that sounds good and is played well. Sounding good is another very subjective thing, but played well is pretty cut and dry. Being a serious musician, I find it hard to listen to some stuff where it seems like the artist doesn't care that s/he (gotta be PC) can't play well, or worse yet, is PROUD that s/he can't play well. It's not as much the fact that they can or can't, but whether or not they care. In a lot of cases, it shows.

It is also important to make the distinction between "I don't like it" and "It's no good" or "It sucks". There's lots of stuff out there I don't like or particuarly care for (a lot of R&B stuff for instance) but respect tremendously (Lots of great R&B vocalists, for instance). It really irks me when someone trashes a band/artist just because they don't like them even though they are very good at what they do. I myself have been guilty of it, but I try very hard not to. But.... There is also a lot of crap out there. So, alphajerk, I can respect your opinion if you can respect mine.

I know this sound like "if you can't play 32nd note triplets at 180 bpm, you suck and I don't want to hear it", but it's not.
Like I said, I can appreciate all kinds and levels of music, but I deffinately have more respect for players with higher ability. As far as I'm concerned, it's to each his own. I also admidt that my previous post was a bit of a rant (hey, I told you it was, didn't I?!),and I'm not here to make enemies, but there are more levels to talent than energy and/or soulfullness.

Food for thought

-Chris

I'll buy that. However, when I think of things tastefully done, I generally think first of those people who are in what I consider the next level *above* playing choppy licks- the guys/girls that play stuff that's perfect, and not particularly hard. Think of BB King's often simple solos- almost anyone could learn most of them, but the good ones are brilliance and mastery, because they are _right_. Not that I'm a huge BB King fan, really, but you get the picture.

I have always (and not perjoratively, BTW), thought the development of most creative musicians follows the same path- pick up instrument, learn a few things, play, write within your ability, get better, discover chops, use chops a lot while & after developing them, and then... the select few get to the place where they don't need to throw around a lot of notes unless they're necessary, often as a short contrast to simple beauty. Most musicians, IMO, don't get there. More serious bass players and drummers seem to (because if they didn't they wouldn't get work).

So I respect ultra-choppy music, but I can't help but hear it as a stage of the development of a musician, and generally am not thinking so much about the song as how good these musicians might be someday.

I guess I'm talking about a whole different group of 'simple playing' musicians- there's the bunch of people who aren't that good, and apparently are happy there, there' the smaller group of people with monster chops, and there is the smallest group with the chops that don't need to sling them. They're my favorite. :)

i frankly dont care if anyone can play vai's whatever. that doesnt make someone good. if you want that practice mentality, check out some asian dudes who can rip circles around steve vai. [not to stereotype... but i know a lot of those guys/gals usually spawning from a classical background initiated by their parents, more cultural than stereotypical] it might be one form of talent but its not the ideal form. maybe it is to you if thats what you listen to... or listen to classical music if thats the sort of musician you are looking for. i USED to be able to play all that shit [vai/satch] until i actually discovered what GOOD music was... and those guys, well i have my own opinions of them. id rather hear the textured cacophony of sonic youth.

jon, we must be on the exact same wavelength... bb kings one note solos are perfect examples. who i thought of immediately.

being the best you can be has nothing to do with how many notes you can play as quickly as you can in succession "tastefully" or "wingie malmsteen" style. what about rhythym guitarists who never play leads? does keith richards suck by your logic? what about the velvet underground?

and a technically practiced guitarist can easily be upstaged by less technical musicians as a band are "in tune" with each other.

one of my favorite bands [you should know these guys being from bawlmore] is clutch, tim sult is certainly no steve vai but i think he rocks on guitar and IMO a FAR BETTER musician than vai and satch put together ESPECIALLY playing with the other guys in that band. they are a UNIT. or another sorta local band karma to burn who dont play solos [or have a singer for that matter]

I think perhaps that you are missing my point. I use Vai and Satch as an example because they DO possess incredible chops. I think Keith Richards is great. He may not be the best player technically, but in a unit as you put it, he's a perfect match. Part of being a good musician is knowing what to play not just how fast you can spew notes. I do realize this. BB King is a perfect example btw, Jon. What you don't play is just as important as what you do play. I'm trying not to generalize, but it's very hard not to without writing a novel on the subject. You make very valid points, but I think I do too. BTW, I rarely say someone sucks unless they REALLY do. Also, don't take the Vai thing too far. I do listen to other stuff, he's just an example. For example, the Beatles weren't the best players in the world from a technical standpoint, but as a group they were phenomenal. Same with a lot of groups. Technical insanity is not a requirement for "goodness", but it certainly doesn't hurt either. I would write more, but I must go... perhaps to be continued.....

-Chris :)

Allow me to add to my previous post now that I have a little more time....

Let me say that the whole thing that started this discussion was the evaluation of "talentless music". You mentioned that you would rather hear a 3-chord punk band over vai or satch (which is fine if you like it), but all of the counter-examples of vai/satch you mention are definately above the 3-chord, be in a band cuz its cool type bands. All the bands you mention are serious musicians. I give credit where credit is due. I would definately NOT say that any of them suck ("according to my logic"). My main point is/was that too many (younger) people form bands solely for the image and wouldn't recognize serious musicianship if they saw it (be it sheer technical skill or otherwise). High school wasn't that long ago for me... I remember quite a few bands and people like that. Also, that technical ability is almost taboo anymore. It's simply the mindset of the younger generation. It bothers me that it is practically forbidden to be able to play your instrument well (ie having chops). I am not disputing the fact that a group of people can create great music wheter or not they are virtuosos. Music is one of the most subjective things in the universe. It basically boils down to what you like.

-Chris

:D :D

I think that we've all missed the point. It's not about playing with skill but writing, and growing as a musician while writing. Look at Green Day. I don't like them at all but if you listen to their latest singles they're growing as a band. Same with the Clash. Their first CD sucked, but London Calling? It's the best damn album by a punk band ever, and it's not even punk. Remember those guys called the Beatles? I'm sorry but I'll take "Happiness is a warm gun" over "I wanna hold your hand" any day of the week. I think every generations musicians just need time to grow.

Also, about rapping and the seven string guitar. I don't play a seven string but i can see the importance of it. It is an evolution in the guitar, exactly like a 5 string bass or the double bass pedal. There will be a time when accomplished blues musicians will use those guitar. Hell, a lot jazz musicians use them (Charlie Hunter plays an eight string). It's the same with rapping, it's new vocal style. Rap isn't a type of music, it's a flow of words. Personally though, i really don't like any rap/rock bands, but i see they're importance as trendsetters in musical innovation. I mean they're doing nothing spectacular except making a hybrid between two styles of music. Hey isn't rock n' roll really just a hybrid of blues and folk/country?

well there's my buck and a half.

>

Sorry, but I think you've still missed the point, at least as far as mainstream pop is concerned. The music industry is like any other industry, it's run by accountants, lawyers and business men. Most of whom have little or no experience or understanding of music as an art form but understand it purely as a business. Baring in mind that 9-16 year old girls make up the largest demographic of the record buying public, this is who the major record companies mainly target. So what is it that girls want? They want pretty boys that they can giggle over or other girls as a role model. So what's important isn't talent or skill but marketability. Look at the Spice Girls, Boyzone, Ricky Martin and a whole list of other talentless musicians/bands. They have been moulded into marketing dreams with music being nothing more than the medium used to market these people to their target audience.

This has been how the industry has been run for quite some time now but what is worrying me is that it's spreading into other areas of music too. Even classical music is starting to suffer, especially over here in the UK. Vanessa Mae, Charlotte Church and Bond might be reasonably talented compared to most pop musicians but compared to other classical musicians they are almost completely talentless.

Thanks for giving me space to rant! :)

Greg

The day I turned on Mtv & realized how badly it sucked was the same day I realized I had started to become old.

This is an interesting discussion. I used to get het up about the state of music but it is really only one part of a much bigger picture.

Example: Is Andy Warhol's silkscreen soup can better than a Picasso?

Picasso had more technique ('chops' (horrible word!)or whatever)

My answer is that I prefer the Warhol, it's easier, he made those paintings in an afternoon and so shouldn't be as 'good'. Thing is, there is no such thing as 'good', 'better;, or 'best'. As Lenny Bruce said, it's just 'your right, my wrong'.

Example: Is War & Peace better than The Little Prince?

Well you get more 'bang for your buck' (another horrible phrase!) with Tolstoy but I prefer The Little Prince, it's economic, and both shallow and deep at the same time.

Example: Is The Matrix better than Bad Day at Black Rock? etc. etc. etc.

Music is never isolated from culture it's a part of it - usually at the forefront of defining movements in 'popular' culture. Art in the form of album sleeves and, more recently, Film (MTV) have been attached to it so everything is so close together these days, especially here, on the internet.

I don't know what I'm trying to say her really, apart from that 'thinking out of the box' as creatives say, helps put things into perspective, and without perspective (both in terms of past/present/future and also across all forms of 'art') you can't see the wood for the trees.

Here endeth the rant :)

My main point is/was that too many (younger) people form bands solely for the image and wouldn't recognize serious musicianship if they saw it.....

In most of the interviews I've seen of highly successful acts they started playing in a band to get laid, the rest was a bonus. After that they worried about musicianship. ;)

As Zappa said the guitarist goes wheeldle wheedle to an explosive frenzy and then gets the blow job.
:roll: :roll:

Originally posted by Yuri:
As Zappa said the guitarist goes wheeldle wheedle to an explosive frenzy and then gets the blow job.
:roll: :roll:

amen brotha

i acknowledge your points.

but i also think that while some people who think its cool to suck, deep down want to be good and behind closed doors do work on their abilities.

i am probably one of those people, i think i suck at most instruments i play [but i can play them, and am always working on making myself understand them better in order to play better...], it kind of pushes off criticism. i dont really care if someone thinks i suck at guitar... so do i. but what i envision as good isnt being full of "chops", at one time in my life i COULD play like that... i still sucked.

what i think sucks are people like eric clapton and eddie van halen who can play SO MANY styles of music yet put out stupid cheesy shit year after year. van halen has sucked since 1984 and the general public has only heard 10% of what eddie can REALLY play. i think its a shame.

and andy warhol is the one to blame for all mediocre pop BS. cans o soup... come on. what about jasper johns who just flicked some paint on a canvas... or some guy who just painted really big canvases grey and has them hanging in a museum... i have REALLY tried to understand that series of paintings but they just remind me of that debit card commercial where they go one about the motivation but its really that they couldnt get the paint to use...

i think its funny too about ringo starr metioned somewhere [above maybe, i dunno] but a lot of people thought he sucked in his heyday... now his style is greatly appreciated and imitated.

i wont even go into the countless artists that died penniless whose talent was not understood by the society at the time only to be "figured out" by future generations and hailed as genius.

thats why i call BS on all this new generation has no talent comments. im afraid that eminem will be looked at 100 years from now as genius with his socialogical commentry on our times we live in now. he certainly has talent but few can get past the vulgarity to see it, same with south park. that shit is genius. but mass america is so fucking blind, dense, and stupid right now its considered offensive by the majority of the sheep.

I agree Alphajerk...

The best are the ones who are open to learning new skills and taking their talent to uncharted territory....that does NOT suck.

Look at how terrible the intonation of the early Beatles work was and how by 1968 they were beginning to become good musicians. As a group, the best work was not achieved, just cut short. The separate work although quite noteworthy could have been stellar if the group could have evolved another 30 years...but like the Stones, you think they would have sold out in the middle to late seventies with some disco hits? You betcha...Paul did a few himself...go grab them dollars boys.

That takes us around to the topic of Loud. In 1973 I had fun putting Altec lansing theater components in a 1964 Plymouth Valliant with an honest 8 watt 8 track and that was terribly loud (811 B horns on the rear deck of a Valliant?..Yep)15's in enclosures as well in the trunk. Bass power that could be felt at 100 feet.I may well be one of the ones who started all this super loud car stereo stuff. I was looked at as being a complete fool...now it is a Billion (with a B) dollar business..(again the dollars)..I even tamed the horns so they sounded musical! (with crossover network modifications).

Last week on Vacation I stopped by a Buddys' car stereo shop and they were working on a Chevrolet Caprice station wagon (the one that looks like a Whale on wheels) it had 20" rims, super (less than an inch) low profile tires, Vette engine, 3 video monitors, 22 speakers, (4) 15" woofers mounted in a huge 1000 pound folded bass horn, 1 ton truck suspention, over 1000 pounds more of steel reinforcement and they were shooting for the sub 170(!) dB level at 52HZ. I think 12 batteries in that car?

They fired it up and the air motion was tremendous...and that was at a Lowly 150dB. It shook the concrete slab it was parked on and the discussion was centered on out of phase panels absorbing the dB's and how to get the 168dB they were hopeing for. I asked about what that car cost and they has 20,000 in Labor alone for the audio system. We did not discuss the 7000 watts of power and how much that cost..or even the power supply system.

I also use to run house front. In the days (daze) I would bring my trusty Bruel&Kjaer decibel meter to the event and 114dB was where I like to have the PEAKS at the console...running the amplification about 5dB (33%) of rated maximum. It absolutly should not sound painful at the desk and the bass power had to go right through you and clean.

Like a Horsepower race...how loud can you get seems to be the norm. This year at a classical outdoor concert for the fourth of July the sound msystem (none really was needed at all) for the orchestra was so painful and horrible that I could not believe it. Their was a constant 600hz feedback running and it was just absolutly rotten sounding...and the guy running the console must have been a complete imbecel.

IF you want to really hit the jackpot in future years, invest in the hearing recovery industry. Trillions will be made.

I simply do not, at 42 years old like the sound of any average level above 103dB.

Bass at 125 to 135 although it is not uncomfomrtable to the ears...is still doing damage.

When the car stereo was unleashed, I experienced the 150dB at 35hz for 5 seconds to see what it was like. My Tympanic membranes were actually "bottoming out"...all they could possibly move...you felt the tickle in your inner ear and throat.

Hope this was entertaining...

quite enjoyable.

man, i dont listen to much loud stuff anymore. i just like to FEEL the bass [and you dont have to have it all the way up to do so with a good sub... like a macintosh if ya got the trunk room], my poor eclipse is have to get a heavily choked cabinet with its tiny trunk. i have this thing about taking the spare tire out for a stereo... screw that. THATS when you get a flat tire.

but to be a teenager... who cares if they ternitup?

now LOUDly mastered CD's are the real problem.

Shoot.... I come in here looking for Mastering techniques and wind up gettin' all caught up in a car stereo thread. :p

Michael Campbell
AX/VA/USA

Originally posted by Michael Campbell:
While on the subject of 3 chorders... It's not limited to Punk or Rage music. Em/D/C is the only progression in a very "polished" tune by Mike and the Mechanics....
"SilentRunning".

I lost the thread, is this good or bad? We could start talking of U2's "Bad" where the chords simply alternate from A to D throughout the entire 6-15 minutes of the song.

Maybe it's not quite the right pondering for this particular thread, but speaking of loudness--what about the 'quiet' masters, where your limiter is stopping the peaks from overflowing but you still have to turn the disc up a few notches? Do you guys like these? Or is this irritating?

(I'm not talking "Chess" quiet, either, but rather something that's loud enough to be heard, but sounds pathetic next to some ear-numbing madness or another.)

Gabriel

I have a feeling, or at least I hope, that someone has put this through before me:

There's a lot of great music out there, old and new, that has been made without any "musical knowledge" in terms of technical skill, arranging or harmonic structures.

I'm infinitely thankful that so many "idiot savants" has made it their own way and not anyone elses. Without them we'd be nowhere.

My highly personal feelings:
I'm not shunning knowledge, but there's a common misconception that formal training is required before music can be made or played and that the more formal training you have, the better equipped you are to contribe.
Theory springs from practice, a mere description of reality. It's useful in so far that it provides easy access to brutal amounts of accumulated experience. The question is if brutal amounts of accumulated experience is what everyone automatically needs to be a musician. I work daily with artists and musicians that, in my opinion, are too conditioned.

What I'm really trying to say here is that there's not necesarily any relationship between lack of training and the "obese loudness self-mutilation" trend, something that to my surprise was indicated in a few posts.

Well, a couple of cents.

Ben