Grohl the most accomplished musician of the last 25yrs?

[K Fleur]

I don't know about you but I am having a lot of fun. It's been a pretty good time. It just sucks for rock fans. It's probably as stinky as the 1960s and 1970s for jazz - if all you could think for accomplished musicians were ones who played jazz, you would be ignoring John Lennon and gang.

Even then there has been some good music released in that genre over the last 25 years. Nowhere near as much as in previous eras, but still.

Other genres, hip/hop, r&b, electronic, alternative rock etc. have been producing fantastic music over the last 25 years as well.

 

[Xelebes]

Even then there has been some good music released in that genre over the last 25 years. Nowhere near as much as in previous eras, but still.

Other genres, hip/hop, r&b, electronic, alternative rock etc. have been producing fantastic music over the last 25 years as well.

And rock will keep on producing very good (nay excellent) music. But that's not the point. The question is who is atop of everyone else. And that answer might lay outside of the rock genre. Perhaps it is hiphop, perhaps it is in any post-disco form (house, trance, jungle, trap.)

Another name to throw in the mix: Armin van Buuren. While Tiësto has had perhaps the bigger hits, van Buuren has the perseverence on his side.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I don't know about you but I am having a lot of fun. It's been a pretty good time. It just sucks for rock fans. It's probably as stinky as the 1960s and 1970s for jazz - if all you could think for accomplished musicians were ones who played jazz, you would be ignoring John Lennon and gang.

You and I evaluate '60s jazz much differently, but I have no desire to revisit that topic.

Rock or otherwise, I don't think much released over the last 25 years holds up to the best of the '70s and earlier.

 

[Shareefruck]

I don't know about you but I am having a lot of fun. It's been a pretty good time. It just sucks for rock fans. It's probably as stinky as the 1960s and 1970s for jazz - if all you could think for accomplished musicians were ones who played jazz, you would be ignoring John Lennon and gang.

Isn't it presumptuous to automatically imply that people who hold that view are doing so because they are only accepting of rock or jazz acts, though?

I definitely agree that the best music now pales in comparison to the best music then, at least based what gets critical attention.

 

[Xelebes]

Isn't it presumptuous to automatically imply that people who hold that view are doing so because they are only accepting of rock or jazz acts, though?

Not entirely when the frame of reference for the whole conversation for many participants (i.e. not you) is delimited to the rock genre.

 

[Shareefruck]

Not entirely when the frame of reference for the whole conversation for many participants (i.e. not you) is delimited to the rock genre.

Fair enough. I've just become very allergic to how, whenever this topic comes up, those defensive of modern music always seem to be so quick to point to possible biases to try and explain away the perception, as if the only possible way to arrive at it is through ignorance (it's either stuff about not digging hard enough, drinking the Koolaid of historical reverence, being blinded by nostalgia that you grew up with, focusing on the bad acts and ignoring the good acts, etc. It's entirely valid to be similarly exposed to modern music as 60s-70s music and feel that the latter has reached greater heights, and it would be good if we could avoid devolving into those types of dismissive generalizations and hints if possible. Generalizations in the opposite direction can just as easily be thrown, and it gets nobody anywhere unless we have the impossible evidence of knowing which bias is stronger. (fully acknowledging that you may not be doing that, but there's a danger of it that we should be aware of)

 

[OzzyFan]

I don't see how "good clear vocalist and more sensical lyrics with deep meaning" could fit well with the similarly jarring, unorthodox style of the music, though (even though it's calculated, the illusion/feeling it gives you isn't that). Seems like that would be a fundamental mismatch. It would be like hearing Frank Sinatra crooning to free jazz or punk, wouldn't it?

Think of it like a lot of metal, some "lesser"/laid back rhythm periods with no vocals over extended "solos". Or it could be like smooth/jazz vocalists, something like a lingering Jones/Krall "over a chorus" or even try tracking it over free jazz movements. The softer/slower/clearer delivery could make it work and make an interesting sound together, maybe. Just a guess/possibility. I'd be interested in hearing that, depending on the instruments obviously.

 

[Shareefruck]

Think of it like a lot of metal, some "lesser"/laid back rhythm periods with no vocals over extended "solos". Or it could be like smooth/jazz vocalists, something like a lingering Jones/Krall "over a chorus" or even try tracking it over free jazz movements. The softer/slower/clearer delivery could make it work and make an interesting sound together, maybe. Just a guess/possibility. I'd be interested in hearing that, depending on the instruments obviously.

Wishing that there would be more instrumental-only sections (or wishing if he would take down the volume just a small notch) I get. But I don't understand this idea that having vocals that clash/counter the mood of the music could work (or at least, I'm not aware of any examples where it does). Smooth, crooning jazz vocalists would similarly feel out of place if the instrumentals are really rough, wild, skronky, and dissonant rather than smooth, wouldn't it?

The music of Captain Beefheart is so chaotic, unorthodox, unhinged, and dissonant that I feel like, if you're going to have vocals at all, it's got to have some of those qualities, in my mind (at a bare minimum something like a barking/mumbling messy punk vocal where the words are direct and blunt rather than non-sensical). The last thing I would want from it is clean, polished, and brimming with straight-laced meaning.

In talking about this, I'm actually becoming more and more impressed that he was somehow able to add any vocals to that music at all in a way that complements such odd music, without being devoid of artistic sensibility. Free-association phrasing that still sounds bizarrely poetic, humorous, and phonetically interesting seems more and more like the only way it could be done, the more I imagine alternatives. Maybe the sound of it can stand to be less harsh, but... I dunno.

To each there own, but I can't say I understand that.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Wishing that there would be more instrumental-only sections (or wishing if he would take down the volume just a small notch) I get. But I don't understand this idea that having vocals that clash/counter the mood of the music could work (or at least, I'm not aware of any examples where it does). Smooth, crooning jazz vocalists would similarly feel out of place if the instrumentals are really rough, wild, skronky, and dissonant rather than smooth, wouldn't it?

The music of Captain Beefheart is so chaotic, unorthodox, unhinged, and dissonant that I feel like, if you're going to have vocals at all, it's got to have some of those qualities, in my mind (at a bare minimum something like a barking/mumbling messy punk vocal where the words are direct and blunt rather than non-sensical). The last thing I would want from it is clean, polished, and brimming with straight-laced meaning.

In talking about this, I'm actually becoming more and more impressed that he was somehow able to add any vocals to that music at all in a way that complements such odd music, without being devoid of artistic sensibility. Free-association phrasing that still sounds bizarrely poetic, humorous, and phonetically interesting seems more and more like the only way it could be done, the more I imagine alternatives. Maybe the sound of it can stand to be less harsh, but... I dunno.

To each there own, but I can't say I understand that.

Nah, you're right...the music was meant to jar people out of catatonia. It's raw and uncompromising, and comes down from the Delta blues. Smooth vocals would be counter to everything Vliet was going for - if people want to hear that they can listen to garbage like Bluejeans and Moonbeams.

It's funny to imagine alternative approaches, but I wouldn't change it for anything.

Out of curiosity, have you read any interviews with CB? They're usually as entertaining as his music haha.

 

[Shareefruck]

Nah, you're right...the music was meant to jar people out of catatonia. It's raw and uncompromising, and comes down from the Delta blues. Smooth vocals would be counter to everything Vliet was going for - if people want to hear that they can listen to garbage like Bluejeans and Moonbeams.

It's funny to imagine alternative approaches, but I wouldn't change it for anything.

Out of curiosity, have you read any interviews with CB? They're usually as entertaining as his music haha.

I kind of see it like this. I dislike Elton John's music because I find it flowery, bland, overly polished, cloying, melodramatic, and self-important. I prefer music that's more raw unhinged and incisive. But if you tried to improve Elton John's music by making the vocals sound more like Mark E. Smith, that would just be weird.

I've seen a few, but which ones did you have in mind?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

I kind of see it like this. I dislike Elton John's music because I find it flowery, bland, overly polished, cloying, melodramatic, and self-important. I prefer music that's more raw unhinged and incisive. But if you tried to improve Elton John's music by making the vocals sound more like Mark E. Smith, that would just be weird.

I've seen a few, but which ones did you have in mind?

I've always liked this one:

http://www.freewebs.com/teejo/argue/maiden.html

And there's a nice little repository here if you get the time/inclination:

http://www.freewebs.com/teejo/argue/argue.html

 

[SidGenoMario]

Devin Townsend.

EDIT: Or Steven Wilson.