Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Radio & Music >

Work at it

23:40 / 25.04.03

This is springing off from the Royal Trux thread, and it's something I've been meaning to post about for a while: why do you need to work at some acts before you understand what the big thing is, and does that make the music they produce any less.. I dunno... valid?.. effective?.. than something that hits you square in the chest the moment you hear it?

There's tons of acts I've encountered this with in the past: the most noticable time it happened was with Gram Parsons. For weeks I kept trying, but just couldn't get anything from it. Then it clicked - Grievous Angel's been one of my most cherished albums ever since.

I tend to stick with stuff because of the people the recommendations have come from. There's the factor that Riz mentions in that RT thread: everything about the act seems to fit in so well with your tastes that it makes no sense for it not to appeal. A lot of the time I'll also find a hint of what makes it special just out of the corner of my hearing. Like an optical illusion, the more you try and concentrate on it the less obvious it becomes; it's only when you stop trying that you see it.

I still don't get it, though. Why does some stuff need working at and does it mean anything?

The Return Of Rothkoid

00:16 / 26.04.03

I think sometimes it's just unfamiliarity that makes you need to work at it. Like Tom Waits; the first disc of his I got was an Early Years compile, so it was all very singer-songwriter, fairly standard, if gruff stuff. Next disc I get is Bone Machine: holy fuck! Cacophony, yowling, and terrible (I then thought) production. But it also had meaty bass sax, and that pretty much kept me there, perservering until I could put the thing in a "ah - recorded in a shed by some fucked-up hillbilly on the sauce" kind of frame that enabled me to dig on with it. (I hadn't heard much non-standard stuff at that point.) A bit like lit - some authors you can't get without context, or without a glossary, or whatever; sometimes music's like that.

I find it's avant or classical-style music that has this response most often. Microtonal music, say, forces you to readjust the way you listen to things; it's perhaps a bit like reading theory lit - you have to click into a certain mindspace before you can go "ah! I SEE!", whereas big-ass riffage has a bit more of a mainline into you because it's very beat-focused, very basic (usually) and anthemic.

at the scarwash

01:38 / 26.04.03

See, with me it's the opposite. I'm way too easily drawn into music because it sounds different or ugly or hurtful. It's more straight singer-songwriterly guitarry stuff that takes a long time to seduce me. Still can't fucking stand radiohead (singer songwriterly with a special effects budget). And I try! I fell in love with the Fall with my first listen, and it wasn't really a good record. I couldn't stand Zydeco until I left Louisiana and was able to hear it with out the associations of fat drunks at festivals. Now I think it's one of the most space age roots genres america has ever produced.

Matthew Fluxington

02:39 / 26.04.03

Cross posted/adapted from my post in the Trux thread:

I think it has a lot to do with dealing with expectations and preconceived notions that you pick up from the media around you, and you sort of get programmed to take things in a roughly standardized way, and there are just some people like Royal Trux who are using all of these sounds and ideas that you know but in a way that means something different from what you've been conditioned to understand.

I think some people misunderstand a lot of the best rock music of the 90s (particularly Pavement, Sonic Youth, and Royal Trux) as being 'ironic', but I don't think that is the appropriate word for it at all. I think that what was really happening was creative people appropriating all sorts of cultural detritus and creating their own aesthetic systems, so what some people took as "oh, they are goofing on this or that because they are arch and snobby" was really just a very smart and intuitive person giving the listener another spin on a familiar idea, almost like "this is what that sounds like with my ears and filtered through my head."

In other words, a lot of the time you need to get yourself around to thinking/listening in a way similar to the musician/artist to really get it.

Understanding context goes a long way in understanding music, too. What sounds dated or ordinary to a layperson's ears can become quite profound once background information is understood. No man is an island, after all - I don't think it is fair to expect all music and art to be effective without knowing the who, what, when, where, and why's of it all.

The Return Of Rothkoid

05:31 / 26.04.03

I think the context has a bigger role to play than is usually recognised. I can't remember the conductor that said this, but I read it a couple of years ago in relation to understanding scores: "You can't understand Bruckner if your ears are full of Beethoven". Meaning that some stuff has a lineage that's important to be aware of in order to enjoy it. Yeah, lots of people rag a lot of music, but perhaps the bits of the music that're found to be dull or uninspiring are - when viewed in context, compared with what came immediately before, or whatever - can take on a new light and importance. Dunno. YMMV.

And now, I'm definitely drawn to fucked-upedness or difficulty in music. It intrigues me just as much as ass-rockin' chunky goodness does.

07:13 / 26.04.03

For the longest time I hated the Melvins, never understood why people made such a big fuss over them. About a year and a half ago I pick up this Gimme Indie Rock comp that has the Melvins on it, wasn't paying attention for a bit and then noticed the Melvins song and loved it, went out and bought a Melvins cd and loved it, I finally "got it" as far as the Melvins were concerned. I think a lot of it has to do with my expectations of what the music was supposed to be in comparison to what the music actually was, but once the music was taken for what it was, or understood it ruled. I always thought the Melvins should have at least gotten fast once or twice in the song -- even Nirvana could pull that off -- but they never did, then I realized that was the point the whole time and enjoyed it much more.

20:41 / 26.04.03

I find that a lot of music that isn't straightforward, hardhitting [insert name of whatever genre it is here]takes me a while to come around to.

I have to confess that the first time I heard such wonderful groups as Mogwai, Pavement, Television and the Fall, I didn't think much of them at all.. I don't recall the exact moment when my opinion on each went full circle, it just gradually seeps in..

(That's one of the reasons why the standard music media hierarchy of cool/important artists and records can sometimes be a good thing - if any of the above were completely obscure, I probably wouldn't have bothered paying attention to them after they initially failed to make an impression..)

Perhaps that'll happen with Royal Trux - give it time.

Actually, it's almost a cliche for me to buy a record and initially tell people "hmm.. don't like it much, pretty overrated, it's really dull.." and then a fortnight later change my opinion to "I was wrong - it's fucking genius! Go buy it!"

It makes me quite worried that I somewhere along the line must have proclaimed some of my favourite albums to be crap, and never got round to correcting the hearers.. (as if it even remotely matters).

I definitely see Rothkoid's point about the universal appeal of Big Riffs though - when it comes to straight up uncomplicated rock and roll, I'd like to think I can straight away identify ROCKIN'. That's probably why the Trux bamboozled me - given their image etc., I was expecting them to ROCK. They didn't. Now next time I suppose I'll put in a bit more concentration and see what else they're doing.

00:21 / 27.04.03

When I was 16, I found Aphex Twin hard work. I could see the goodness, etc, but I found listening to a whole album pretty hard going; the music required active concentration. Now, it's a lot easier, because I'm older and more used to that kind of thing. But it was certainly music I appreciated without necessarily finding pleasurable, for quite a while.

13:23 / 27.04.03

And similarly, as I have been reminded today, Messaien.