Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Joe Ramire » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:41:00



Quote:




> >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if you
> > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought possible.

> I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the Ramones "art
> rock".

> The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played aggresively.

> About as non-art rock as they come.

I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
out of the "art rock" camp.

However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
commerce.

To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
claims:
*Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
intent, goes the argument.
*Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
"now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
*Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
relate to them differently nowadays).

Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
just two things in response:

The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
derives from a few key facts:
*The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
and campy form of rock.
*They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
*They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
quality in their songs.
*They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
more complicated material.

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Rich » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:45:30


Quote:





> > > > >>>Art rock is a term used by some to describe rock music that is
> > > > >>>characterized by ambitious or avant-garde lyrical themes and/or
> > > > >>>melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic experimentation, often extending
beyond
> > > > >>>standard modern popular music forms and genres, toward influences
in
> > > > >>>jazz, classical, world music or the experimental avant-garde.

> > > > >>whose absurd definition is that?

> > > > > I thought that was prog.  I always thought art rock was more
straight
> > > > > up and less musically experimental though more visually
orientated.

> > > > > When I think of art rock I think of early Bowie, New York Dolls,
early
> > > > > Queen and so on.  Maybe I'm thinking of glam rock?

> > > > i think most folks call queen, bowie, t-rex, alice cooper, etc. as
"glam".

> > > > but regardless of how most folks use the term "art rock", IMO it's
silly
> > > > to apply it to bands like Yes, Floyd (other than arguably the really
> > > > early sid barret late 60s stuff) Genesis, Zep, etc. There's no "art"
> > > > content in any of that. no more than there is in Yngwie Malms***
> > > > playing Bach passages on an electric geetar.

> > > > the last vibrant art-music scene in the USA was the early 80s
hip-hop
> > > > scene in NYC, where the music was melded in with graffiti art,
> > > > breakdancing, and DJing to form a 4-component form of artistic
expression.

> > > These forms of expression are folk arts at best. The term "art music"
> > > is virtually never used to apply to folk music, vibrant or otherwise.
> > > (Folk music can evolve into art music, but that's another story.) If
> > > you use the term that way in order to pay a compliment to forms of
> > > expression that you like, fine, but other musically competent people
> > > will not understand you.

> > > Joe Ramirez

> > Nah. Huge gray-area there. Steely Dan *officially sanctioned* Art-
> > Rock?
> > Hunh. They weren't even a band, per se. Fagen and Becker and some
> > studio guys.. and that's what they sounded like, imo. The Kenny G of
> > Rock.
> > YMMV..- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> And thats why I hate them. Polished smoothed studio crap. Anybody who
> thinks that is art is clearly retarded. Can was real art. Velvet
> Underground was art. Not polished stuff like Dire Straits, Steely  Dan
> or Eagles.

Yeah that "polished stuff" was really crap.  Imagine, people playing the
right notes all the time.

You must love Blink182.

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Joe Ramire » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:46:30


Quote:




> > > >>>Art rock is a term used by some to describe rock music that is
> > > >>>characterized by ambitious or avant-garde lyrical themes and/or
> > > >>>melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic experimentation, often extending beyond
> > > >>>standard modern popular music forms and genres, toward influences in
> > > >>>jazz, classical, world music or the experimental avant-garde.

> > > >>whose absurd definition is that?

> > > > I thought that was prog.  I always thought art rock was more straight
> > > > up and less musically experimental though more visually orientated.

> > > > When I think of art rock I think of early Bowie, New York Dolls, early
> > > > Queen and so on.  Maybe I'm thinking of glam rock?

> > > i think most folks call queen, bowie, t-rex, alice cooper, etc. as "glam".

> > > but regardless of how most folks use the term "art rock", IMO it's silly
> > > to apply it to bands like Yes, Floyd (other than arguably the really
> > > early sid barret late 60s stuff) Genesis, Zep, etc. There's no "art"
> > > content in any of that. no more than there is in Yngwie Malms***
> > > playing Bach passages on an electric geetar.

> > > the last vibrant art-music scene in the USA was the early 80s hip-hop
> > > scene in NYC, where the music was melded in with graffiti art,
> > > breakdancing, and DJing to form a 4-component form of artistic expression.

> > These forms of expression are folk arts at best. The term "art music"
> > is virtually never used to apply to folk music, vibrant or otherwise.
> > (Folk music can evolve into art music, but that's another story.) If
> > you use the term that way in order to pay a compliment to forms of
> > expression that you like, fine, but other musically competent people
> > will not understand you.

> > Joe Ramirez

> Nah. Huge gray-area there. Steely Dan *officially sanctioned* Art-
> Rock?
> Hunh. They weren't even a band, per se. Fagen and Becker and some
> studio guys.. and that's what they sounded like, imo. The Kenny G of
> Rock.
> YMMV

Are you sure you are replying to right message? Honestly, I don't see
any connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. I discussed
Steely Dan in some other messages, but not in the one to which you're
responding. And I never used the term "officially sanctioned."

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Rich » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 13:52:23


<snip>

Quote:
> The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> whole, pretty dumb.
> *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> and campy form of rock.
> *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> quality in their songs.
> *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> more complicated material.

<snip>

Bingo.  On these five comments at least.  The rest is BS IMO.

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Care » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:05:32

Quote:






> > > > >>>Art rock is a term used by some to describe rock music that is
> > > > >>>characterized by ambitious or avant-garde lyrical themes and/or
> > > > >>>melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic experimentation, often extending beyond
> > > > >>>standard modern popular music forms and genres, toward influences in
> > > > >>>jazz, classical, world music or the experimental avant-garde.

> > > > >>whose absurd definition is that?

> > > > > I thought that was prog.  I always thought art rock was more straight
> > > > > up and less musically experimental though more visually orientated.

> > > > > When I think of art rock I think of early Bowie, New York Dolls, early
> > > > > Queen and so on.  Maybe I'm thinking of glam rock?

> > > > i think most folks call queen, bowie, t-rex, alice cooper, etc. as "glam".

> > > > but regardless of how most folks use the term "art rock", IMO it's silly
> > > > to apply it to bands like Yes, Floyd (other than arguably the really
> > > > early sid barret late 60s stuff) Genesis, Zep, etc. There's no "art"
> > > > content in any of that. no more than there is in Yngwie Malms***
> > > > playing Bach passages on an electric geetar.

> > > > the last vibrant art-music scene in the USA was the early 80s hip-hop
> > > > scene in NYC, where the music was melded in with graffiti art,
> > > > breakdancing, and DJing to form a 4-component form of artistic expression.

> > > These forms of expression are folk arts at best. The term "art music"
> > > is virtually never used to apply to folk music, vibrant or otherwise.
> > > (Folk music can evolve into art music, but that's another story.) If
> > > you use the term that way in order to pay a compliment to forms of
> > > expression that you like, fine, but other musically competent people
> > > will not understand you.

> > > Joe Ramirez

> > Nah. Huge gray-area there. Steely Dan *officially sanctioned* Art-
> > Rock?
> > Hunh. They weren't even a band, per se. Fagen and Becker and some
> > studio guys.. and that's what they sounded like, imo. The Kenny G of
> > Rock.
> > YMMV

> Are you sure you are replying to right message? Honestly, I don't see
> any connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. I discussed
> Steely Dan in some other messages, but not in the one to which you're
> responding. And I never used the term "officially sanctioned."

> Joe Ramirez

No.
 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by zepflo.. » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:11:12


Quote:





> > >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if you
> > > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought possible.

> > I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the Ramones "art
> > rock".

> > The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> > There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played aggresively.

> > About as non-art rock as they come.

> I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
> a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> out of the "art rock" camp.

> However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> commerce.

> To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
> claims:
> *Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
> same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
> stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
> music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
> on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
> Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
> intent, goes the argument.
> *Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
> "now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
> not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
> throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
> *Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
> music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
> antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
> splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
> Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
> their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
> relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
> because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
> strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
> relate to them differently nowadays).

> Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
> I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
> just two things in response:

> The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
> cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
> to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
> material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
> the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

> Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
> derives from a few key facts:
> *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> and campy form of rock.
> *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> quality in their songs.
> *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> more complicated material.

> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Ramones are not art rock. You wrote antire thesis on it. But anyone on
the road will say that you RAMONES IS NOT ART ROCK = EARTH REVOVLES
AROUND THE SUN
There is really no need to give any credibility to Stephen Ja Roast's
trolling commments.

I like Ramones by the way. Their debut album absolutely kicked ass.
But they were dumb and makes me feel dumb when I listen to them. So I
dont listen to them often.

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Care » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:19:01

Quote:







> > > >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > > > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if you
> > > > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought possible.

> > > I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the Ramones "art
> > > rock".

> > > The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> > > There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played aggresively.

> > > About as non-art rock as they come.

> > I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
> > a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> > to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> > Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> > out of the "art rock" camp.

> > However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> > Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> > view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> > making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> > early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> > Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> > commerce.

> > To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
> > claims:
> > *Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
> > same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
> > stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
> > music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
> > on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
> > Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
> > intent, goes the argument.
> > *Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
> > "now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
> > not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
> > throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
> > *Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
> > music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
> > antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
> > splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
> > Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
> > their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
> > relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
> > because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
> > strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
> > relate to them differently nowadays).

> > Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
> > I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
> > just two things in response:

> > The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> > whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
> > cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
> > to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
> > material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
> > the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

> > Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
> > derives from a few key facts:
> > *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> > and campy form of rock.
> > *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> > *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> > quality in their songs.
> > *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> > more complicated material.

> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Ramones are not art rock. You wrote antire thesis on it. But anyone on
> the road will say that you RAMONES IS NOT ART ROCK = EARTH REVOVLES
> AROUND THE SUN
> There is really no need to give any credibility to Stephen Ja Roast's
> trolling commments.

> I like Ramones by the way. Their debut album absolutely kicked ass.
> But they were dumb and makes me feel dumb when I listen to them. So I
> dont listen to them often.

This entire thread seems to consist of people speaking past each
other..
a meeting of the minds, even on a single point, gives a nice point of
departure
for the inevitable differences.
 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Joe Ramire » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:25:38


Quote:






> > > >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > > > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if you
> > > > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought possible.

> > > I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the Ramones "art
> > > rock".

> > > The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> > > There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played aggresively.

> > > About as non-art rock as they come.

> > I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
> > a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> > to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> > Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> > out of the "art rock" camp.

> > However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> > Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> > view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> > making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> > early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> > Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> > commerce.

> > To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
> > claims:
> > *Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
> > same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
> > stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
> > music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
> > on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
> > Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
> > intent, goes the argument.
> > *Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
> > "now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
> > not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
> > throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
> > *Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
> > music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
> > antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
> > splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
> > Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
> > their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
> > relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
> > because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
> > strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
> > relate to them differently nowadays).

> > Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
> > I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
> > just two things in response:

> > The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> > whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
> > cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
> > to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
> > material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
> > the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

> > Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
> > derives from a few key facts:
> > *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> > and campy form of rock.
> > *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> > *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> > quality in their songs.
> > *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> > more complicated material.

> > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> > - Show quoted text -

> Ramones are not art rock. You wrote antire thesis on it. But anyone on
> the road will say that you RAMONES IS NOT ART ROCK = EARTH REVOVLES
> AROUND THE SUN
> There is really no need to give any credibility to Stephen Ja Roast's
> trolling commments.

:)  I enjoy writing about music. And one of the most difficult but
most useful skills in any kind of writing is being able to give a
clear and fair explanation of a view you don't accept.

Quote:
> I like Ramones by the way. Their debut album absolutely kicked ass.
> But they were dumb and makes me feel dumb when I listen to them. So I
> dont listen to them often.

A little Ramones goes a long way. With some artists, I can listen to
six albums in a row and love every minute of it. But with the Ramones,
one is usually enough.

A group I dislike because of the dumbness factor is the Red Hot Chili
Peppers. It's not their music, which is typically OK (and Flea is a
superior musician). But lead singer Anthony K. simply oozes stupidity,
at least to my ears. I cannot stand that guy's singing.

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Care » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:29:50

Quote:








> > > > >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > > > > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if you
> > > > > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought possible.

> > > > I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the Ramones "art
> > > > rock".

> > > > The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> > > > There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played aggresively.

> > > > About as non-art rock as they come.

> > > I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
> > > a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> > > to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> > > Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> > > out of the "art rock" camp.

> > > However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> > > Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> > > view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> > > making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> > > early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> > > Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> > > commerce.

> > > To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
> > > claims:
> > > *Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
> > > same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
> > > stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
> > > music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
> > > on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
> > > Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
> > > intent, goes the argument.
> > > *Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
> > > "now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
> > > not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
> > > throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
> > > *Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
> > > music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
> > > antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
> > > splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
> > > Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
> > > their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
> > > relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
> > > because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
> > > strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
> > > relate to them differently nowadays).

> > > Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
> > > I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
> > > just two things in response:

> > > The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> > > whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
> > > cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
> > > to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
> > > material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
> > > the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

> > > Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
> > > derives from a few key facts:
> > > *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> > > and campy form of rock.
> > > *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> > > *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> > > quality in their songs.
> > > *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> > > more complicated material.

> > > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > Ramones are not art rock. You wrote antire thesis on it. But anyone on
> > the road will say that you RAMONES IS NOT ART ROCK = EARTH REVOVLES
> > AROUND THE SUN
> > There is really no need to give any credibility to Stephen Ja Roast's
> > trolling commments.

> :)  I enjoy writing about music. And one of the most difficult but
> most useful skills in any kind of writing is being able to give a
> clear and fair explanation of a view you don't accept.

> > I like Ramones by the way. Their debut album absolutely kicked ass.
> > But they were dumb and makes me feel dumb when I listen to them. So I
> > dont listen to them often.

> A little Ramones goes a long way. With some artists, I can listen to
> six albums in a row and love every minute of it. But with the Ramones,
> one is usually enough.

> A group I dislike because of the dumbness factor is the Red Hot Chili
> Peppers. It's not their music, which is typically OK (and Flea is a
> superior musician). But lead singer Anthony K. simply oozes stupidity,
> at least to my ears. I cannot stand that guy's singing.

> Joe Ramirez

Nice first paragraph. Strike 'music' and it could nicely apply to
anything here.
 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Rich » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 14:41:17


Quote:







> > > > >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > > > > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if
you
> > > > > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought
possible.

> > > > I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the
Ramones "art
> > > > rock".

> > > > The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> > > > There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played
aggresively.

> > > > About as non-art rock as they come.

> > > I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
> > > a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> > > to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> > > Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> > > out of the "art rock" camp.

> > > However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> > > Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> > > view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> > > making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> > > early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> > > Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> > > commerce.

> > > To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
> > > claims:
> > > *Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
> > > same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
> > > stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
> > > music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
> > > on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
> > > Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
> > > intent, goes the argument.
> > > *Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
> > > "now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
> > > not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
> > > throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
> > > *Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
> > > music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
> > > antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
> > > splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
> > > Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
> > > their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
> > > relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
> > > because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
> > > strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
> > > relate to them differently nowadays).

> > > Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
> > > I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
> > > just two things in response:

> > > The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> > > whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
> > > cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
> > > to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
> > > material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
> > > the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

> > > Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
> > > derives from a few key facts:
> > > *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> > > and campy form of rock.
> > > *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> > > *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> > > quality in their songs.
> > > *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> > > more complicated material.

> > > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > Ramones are not art rock. You wrote antire thesis on it. But anyone on
> > the road will say that you RAMONES IS NOT ART ROCK = EARTH REVOVLES
> > AROUND THE SUN
> > There is really no need to give any credibility to Stephen Ja Roast's
> > trolling commments.

> :)  I enjoy writing about music. And one of the most difficult but
> most useful skills in any kind of writing is being able to give a
> clear and fair explanation of a view you don't accept.

> > I like Ramones by the way. Their debut album absolutely kicked ass.
> > But they were dumb and makes me feel dumb when I listen to them. So I
> > dont listen to them often.

> A little Ramones goes a long way. With some artists, I can listen to
> six albums in a row and love every minute of it. But with the Ramones,
> one is usually enough.

> A group I dislike because of the dumbness factor is the Red Hot Chili
> Peppers. It's not their music, which is typically OK (and Flea is a
> superior musician). But lead singer Anthony K. simply oozes stupidity,
> at least to my ears. I cannot stand that guy's singing.

> Joe Ramirez

I think he sings well on the ballads.  And I love John Frusciante's playing
and I think RHCP are better off with him back on board.
(Just one 58-year-old's opinion).
 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by zepflo.. » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 15:00:31


Quote:







> > > > >> Ramones - art rock? LOLOL.... wat an idiot!

> > > > > the ramones were the leading art rock act of the mid-late 70s. if you
> > > > > don't know that, you are are even more clueless than i thought possible.

> > > > I hate to agree with RAJA but YOU are clueless if you think the Ramones "art
> > > > rock".

> > > > The Ramones were one thing. Punk. They invented it. They defined it.

> > > > There was nothing "art" about it. It was three chords played aggresively.

> > > > About as non-art rock as they come.

> > > I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has
> > > a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> > > to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> > > Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> > > out of the "art rock" camp.

> > > However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> > > Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> > > view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> > > making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> > > early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> > > Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> > > commerce.

> > > To elaborate a bit, the "Ramones are art" argument rests on several
> > > claims:
> > > *Packaging -- Everyone in the band took the same name and dressed the
> > > same way, in a ripped-jeans-and-leather-jacket parody of the rocker
> > > stereotype. This could only have meant as a knowing wink at pop
> > > music's history. The Ramones also had an art director/graphic designer
> > > on staff; he designed the famous "presidential seal" Ramones logo.
> > > Self-consciousness about visual presentation is a sign of artistic
> > > intent, goes the argument.
> > > *Lyrics -- The Ramones' lyrics were dumb -- really dumb. Lines like
> > > "now I wanna sniff some glue," in fact, were so dumb that they could
> > > not have been intended literally, or even merely as silly, humorous
> > > throwaways. They must really have been Dadaistic poetry, right?
> > > *Music -- The mid-70s were a time of a fascination with minimalism in
> > > music. "Einstein on the Beach" and "Music for 18 Musicians" (and their
> > > antecedents), while largely unknown to the general public, made a huge
> > > splash among the avant-garde and bohemian sects in New York City. The
> > > Ramones simply applied this rigororous aesthetic to rock by stripping
> > > their music of everything save raw energy and a few chords,
> > > relentlessly repeated. They were thus the most artistic of rock bands
> > > because they made rock songs into art objects that were simultaneously
> > > strikingly familiar yet intensely foreign (to mid-70s audiences; we
> > > relate to them differently nowadays).

> > > Well, that's a fair bit of space devoted to articulating a theory that
> > > I don't fully accept, although it makes some valid points. Let me say
> > > just two things in response:

> > > The Ramones' lyrics were dumb because the guys in band were, on the
> > > whole, pretty dumb. They were just trying to be funny or, in some
> > > cases, writing about what they actually knew. When the Ramones tried
> > > to write more serious lyrics later in their career, we were treated to
> > > material like, "Our jails are filled to the max/Discrimination against
> > > the blacks" (from "Planet Earth 1988").

> > > Musically, I think the better explanation for the Ramones' style
> > > derives from a few key facts:
> > > *The Ramones really did want to return to a simpler, less grandiose
> > > and campy form of rock.
> > > *They liked fast, aggressive music, and therefore played that way.
> > > *They actually wanted to write pop hits, and so retained a bubblegummy
> > > quality in their songs.
> > > *They were technically limited on their instruments and couldn't play
> > > more complicated material.

> > > Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> > > - Show quoted text -

> > Ramones are not art rock. You wrote antire thesis on it. But anyone on
> > the road will say that you RAMONES IS NOT ART ROCK = EARTH REVOVLES
> > AROUND THE SUN
> > There is really no need to give any credibility to Stephen Ja Roast's
> > trolling commments.

> :)  I enjoy writing about music. And one of the most difficult but
> most useful skills in any kind of writing is being able to give a
> clear and fair explanation of a view you don't accept.

> > I like Ramones by the way. Their debut album absolutely kicked ass.
> > But they were dumb and makes me feel dumb when I listen to them. So I
> > dont listen to them often.

> A little Ramones goes a long way. With some artists, I can listen to
> six albums in a row and love every minute of it. But with the Ramones,
> one is usually enough.

> A group I dislike because of the dumbness factor is the Red Hot Chili
> Peppers. It's not their music, which is typically OK (and Flea is a
> superior musician). But lead singer Anthony K. simply oozes stupidity,
> at least to my ears. I cannot stand that guy's singing.

> Joe Ramirez- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Flea is a good bassist. But I never thought RHCP could write good
songs.
 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by stephen » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:15:16

Quote:




>>>>>Art rock is a term used by some to describe rock music that is
>>>>>characterized by ambitious or avant-garde lyrical themes and/or
>>>>>melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic experimentation, often extending beyond
>>>>>standard modern popular music forms and genres, toward influences in
>>>>>jazz, classical, world music or the experimental avant-garde.

>>>>whose absurd definition is that?

>>>I thought that was prog.  I always thought art rock was more straight
>>>up and less musically experimental though more visually orientated.

>>>When I think of art rock I think of early Bowie, New York Dolls, early
>>>Queen and so on.  Maybe I'm thinking of glam rock?

>>i think most folks call queen, bowie, t-rex, alice cooper, etc. as "glam".

>>but regardless of how most folks use the term "art rock", IMO it's silly
>>to apply it to bands like Yes, Floyd (other than arguably the really
>>early sid barret late 60s stuff) Genesis, Zep, etc. There's no "art"
>>content in any of that. no more than there is in Yngwie Malms***
>>playing Bach passages on an electric geetar.

>>the last vibrant art-music scene in the USA was the early 80s hip-hop
>>scene in NYC, where the music was melded in with graffiti art,
>>breakdancing, and DJing to form a 4-component form of artistic expression.
> These forms of expression are folk arts at best.

what on earth does that mean?

Quote:
> The term "art music"
> is virtually never used to apply to folk music, vibrant or otherwise.

in a general sense, all music is "art", since music is a form of
artistic expression. but surely to have any legitimate meaning, the term
"art music" should apply to music that has linkages to some theory of
art, artistic school, art movement, etc.

by that standard, the only sensible one, early 80s hip-hop obviously
qualifies while 70s genesis, yes, and floyd .. do not.

--
"when i visited Aden before collectivization,
all the markets were full of fish product. After
collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

- Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by stephen » Sun, 17 Jun 2007 21:30:49

  > I do not consider the Ramones art rock because the term "art rock" has

Quote:
> a reasonably well-understood meaning that can't be stretched to apply
> to them. As I mentioned earlier, the Wikipedia definition cribbed by
> Raja is pretty accurate, and sufficiently clear to rule bands in or
> out of the "art rock" camp.

I agree that by conventional usage, the ramones were not "art rock"
while bands like yes and some of those other acts listed are. Back in
the 70s, "art rock" was indeed used to refer to those kinds of acts, and
the wiki definition is consistent with that.

My point is that the wiki definition and that conventional usage is ...
wrong. it's a miapplication of the term "art", as superficial and un-art
as the pseudo-classical noodlings of the bands it was applied to.

In contrast, bands like the V. Underground, the Ramones and Talking
Heads and others of that ilk were a  product of the NY modern art scene
of the 60s and 70s, exemplified by andy warhol and his ilk. Like it or
not (and fwiw, i don't, i've never been a fan of warhol or that whole
scene) that is a recognized artistic movement, artistic theory, etc.

In the same way, early 80s hip-hop was too.

Quote:
> However, a school of thought does exist that is consistent with what
> Jaros is trying to argue here about the Ramones. According to this
> view, the entire project of the Ramones was a form of conceptual art,
> making them an "arty" band in the same way that Devo (particularly
> early Devo) was. They were, in effect, a 1970s version of the 1960s
> Warholian full-time ironic commentary on the worlds of art and
> commerce.

Yes, and this "school of thought" is the only one in the discussion that
understands what it is talking about.

:)

--
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature,
the heart of a heartless world and the soul of soulless conditions.
It is the *** of the people.

- Karl Marx

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by Joe Ramire » Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:21:31


Quote:




> >>>>>Art rock is a term used by some to describe rock music that is
> >>>>>characterized by ambitious or avant-garde lyrical themes and/or
> >>>>>melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic experimentation, often extending beyond
> >>>>>standard modern popular music forms and genres, toward influences in
> >>>>>jazz, classical, world music or the experimental avant-garde.

> >>>>whose absurd definition is that?

> >>>I thought that was prog.  I always thought art rock was more straight
> >>>up and less musically experimental though more visually orientated.

> >>>When I think of art rock I think of early Bowie, New York Dolls, early
> >>>Queen and so on.  Maybe I'm thinking of glam rock?

> >>i think most folks call queen, bowie, t-rex, alice cooper, etc. as "glam".

> >>but regardless of how most folks use the term "art rock", IMO it's silly
> >>to apply it to bands like Yes, Floyd (other than arguably the really
> >>early sid barret late 60s stuff) Genesis, Zep, etc. There's no "art"
> >>content in any of that. no more than there is in Yngwie Malms***
> >>playing Bach passages on an electric geetar.

> >>the last vibrant art-music scene in the USA was the early 80s hip-hop
> >>scene in NYC, where the music was melded in with graffiti art,
> >>breakdancing, and DJing to form a 4-component form of artistic expression.
> > These forms of expression are folk arts at best.

> what on earth does that mean?

Folk arts are forms of expression that emerge in communities without
the backing of an academy for training, elaborate theoretical support,
or a sophisticated body of approved performance techniques. They are
often functional, i.e., they are part of everyday community activities
or common rituals. Usually there is little or none of the "art for
art's" sake mentality that characterizes the fine arts. Attend a
wedding in a little European village somewhere and you might find a
small band playing traditional, lively celebratory music -- folk
music. Go to an inner city and watch competing gangs or individuals
use elaborate graffiti to mark their territories or just to announce
their presence -- folk art. This is not a controversial concept. The
fine arts often borrow from folk arts, and they also evolved from folk
arts, so the boundary is not static.

Quote:
> > The term "art music"
> > is virtually never used to apply to folk music, vibrant or otherwise.

> in a general sense, all music is "art", since music is a form of
> artistic expression. but surely to have any legitimate meaning, the term
> "art music" should apply to music that has linkages to some theory of
> art, artistic school, art movement, etc.

First sentence is correct -- all music is art in the general sense.
Second sentence is not quite correct; "art music" applies to
particular forms of musical expression that occur within highly
sophisticated, structured traditions that have replaced the folk
traditions from which the music originally developed. It's not enough
for the music to be "linked" to other forms of art, or even to a more
general artistic worldview; the music *itself* must be governed by a
comprehensive aesthetic tradition that defines its purpose and
catalogs its techniques. In the past, the term "art music" was applied
only to western classical music (thus implying that notation was a
prerequisite for qualifying as art music). More recently, the term has
been expanded somewhat to apply to jazz and Indian classical music,
which share many of the characteristics of western classical music. I
might argue that the most complicated forms of bluegrass have moved
into the category as well, but we'll save that for another thread.

Quote:
> by that standard, the only sensible one, early 80s hip-hop obviously
> qualifies while 70s genesis, yes, and floyd .. do not.

Neither one qualifies. "Art rock" is not the same thing as "art
music." Indeed, the term "art rock" was coined to describe varieties
of rock that seemed to be emulating the music classified as "art
music." Pink Floyd (and Talking Heads) are art rock, but not art
music. Hip-hop is neither art rock nor art music. However, both Floyd
and hip-hop certainly are forms of art in the broad sense of the term.

Joe Ramirez

 
 
 

Art bands that art rock critics rave about the most?

Post by ^R^A^J^A » Mon, 18 Jun 2007 01:39:22


Quote:




> >>>>>Art rock is a term used by some to describe rock music that is
> >>>>>characterized by ambitious or avant-garde lyrical themes and/or
> >>>>>melodic, harmonic, or rhythmic experimentation, often extending beyond
> >>>>>standard modern popular music forms and genres, toward influences in
> >>>>>jazz, classical, world music or the experimental avant-garde.

> >>>>whose absurd definition is that?

> >>>I thought that was prog.  I always thought art rock was more straight
> >>>up and less musically experimental though more visually orientated.

> >>>When I think of art rock I think of early Bowie, New York Dolls, early
> >>>Queen and so on.  Maybe I'm thinking of glam rock?

> >>i think most folks call queen, bowie, t-rex, alice cooper, etc. as "glam".

> >>but regardless of how most folks use the term "art rock", IMO it's silly
> >>to apply it to bands like Yes, Floyd (other than arguably the really
> >>early sid barret late 60s stuff) Genesis, Zep, etc. There's no "art"
> >>content in any of that. no more than there is in Yngwie Malms***
> >>playing Bach passages on an electric geetar.

> >>the last vibrant art-music scene in the USA was the early 80s hip-hop
> >>scene in NYC, where the music was melded in with graffiti art,
> >>breakdancing, and DJing to form a 4-component form of artistic expression.
> > These forms of expression are folk arts at best.

> what on earth does that mean?

> > The term "art music"
> > is virtually never used to apply to folk music, vibrant or otherwise.

> in a general sense, all music is "art", since music is a form of
> artistic expression. but surely to have any legitimate meaning, the term
> "art music" should apply to music that has linkages to some theory of
> art, artistic school, art movement, etc.

> by that standard, the only sensible one, early 80s hip-hop obviously
> qualifies while 70s genesis, yes, and floyd .. do not.

> --
> "when i visited Aden before collectivization,
> all the markets were full of fish product. After
> collectivization, the fish immediately disappeared."

> - Aleksandr Vassiliev, Soviet KGB official- Hide quoted text -

> - Show quoted text -

Floyd, Yes and Genesis came from an art background. Their influence
wasnt rock n roll. Rick Wright was influenced by Miles Davis. Syd
Barrett was an avant-garde musician who pretty much started his own
style. There was nothing like Interstellar Overdrive in rock before.
May be in avantgarde jazz or something, but it would have not been in
a rock context. Rick Wakeman was into classical. Steve Howe had a
unique guitaring style in which he melded blues, country, classical
and jazz. Chris Squire was quite funky as well as jazzy. Bill Bruford
was hardly a rock drummer, he was a jazz drummer period. Nothing was
rock n roll about Genesis's approach. Gabriel was bringing medieval
style into their music. Most of these guys were from ART school.

You think the morons from Ramones who could hardly sing, reused the
same riffs in almost every song and could hardly play their own
instruments are arty? And these guys are not? You must be on dope.

Dont get me wrong Ramones is a great band, and I do like Floyd and Yes
a lot more too, but they are not ART ROCK. I probably like Ramones
more than Genesis though. Anyway bands like Velvet Underground, Roxy
Music, T.Rex, that were proto punk were arty, but not the real punk
bands.

The main reason VU was arty was because of John Cale who was from an
avant-garde background. Too bad, they lost him by the second album.