The Big Green House

 

TODAY'S ALERT STATUS:

Favorite spam names

Flukier S. Curmudgeons

Autocracy M. Wallabies

Poohed H. Cathedrals

Aboding L. Charmingly

Carnivore I. Immobilize

Incombustible T. Rilling

Bacterium I. Cohabit

Jitney H. Cremation

Verna G. Lugubriousness

Circuitry S. Winsomely

Fleck F. Sleep

Hissing F. Preacher

Circuitous E. Property

Slops A. Brothering

Concentric L. Merchantman

Rosey Dionysus

Cholera O. Correspondent

Guadalupe Boudreaux

Guttural K. Olives

Favoritism M. Holed

Taiwan B. Hedgerows

Graying P. Kiwis

Ulysses Chung

Croupiest R. Hoses

Dunbar O’Monsters

Fidel Winkler

Coffeecake P. Rim

Jenkins L. Pothook

Hydrogenates S. Flushest

Rigidness H. Atrocity

Quincy Zapata

Synthesizer H. Dissenter

Bergerac J. Thrower

Reaped H. Humiliations

Buffing B. Carcinogens

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Tuesday, September 09, 2003

 

It�s all good



One thing I�ve never really understood is people who only listen to one genre of music. Even at my most dogmatic (and I really was a little asshole about such things, for longer than I care to mention), there were usually at least three or four different types of music I would deign to listen to. I�ll go through phases where I listen to a lot of, say, country, but I�ll still through some other stuff into the mix, just to keep things interesting. And that, for me, is the key. A steady diet of anything becomes tedious after awhile.

I�m not saying there�s anything inherently wrong with limiting one�s musical horizons, of course; that would be as foolish as insisting that everyone share my taste. (Of course, the world would be a better, happier place under such circumstances.)* But I do see it as self-limiting. If something is A and A only, it�s missing out on options B-Z, which can cover a lot of interesting territory.

Also, hopping genres allows one to hear the music in a new context. Playing Hank Williams next to Ernest Tubb next to Lefty Frizzell is fine, but playing �Lovesick Blues� next to X�s �Beyond and Back�, let�s say, or �See the Sky About to Rain� by Neil Young, or maybe Otis Redding singing �You Don�t Miss Your Water� (just to pick a few possibilities off the top of my head � I don�t know that they�d actually work together, but in my mind they do) is going to show each song in a different light. They all have some similar elements; they may not be obvious at first glance, but when played in that context they�d become clearer. At the very least, you might re-examine them.

All popular (western) music of the Twentieth Century (and the 21st, so far) is an amalgam of various predecessors. That�s what�s so cool about it. It�s a little of this and some of that, and suddenly you�ve got something new and exciting. Rock & roll is country + blues, more or less; R&B and soul came from a mixture of blues and gospel; country is based in part on English folk music and blues. And on and on. I�ve heard the argument that jazz is totally original, but my understanding of it is that it sprang from the blues, at least partially. The blues, in turn, originated from a mix of African music and old hymns, according to at least one theory.

These are all rough approximations, of course, and I�m not trying to downplay the work of the innovators who first thought to create new sounds from a combination of older ones. I'm over-simplifying things to make a point: there really isn�t any music that�s 100% �pure�. Everything is informed by everything else. So to say �I only listen to_________� is to miss the big picture, to my mind.

As always, I may be full of shit.

*Kidding now, but I meant it back in the day.