A Music Thread

[Asher]

Spammer.

[C0ckney]

He was an 80's crackhead like the rest of his generation in the Black community.

you are such a racist

[Al B. Sure!]

you are such a racist

It's called the crack epidemic. Maybe you should do some research.

And secondly, no responses to what I said about how those remixes are ass?

[C0ckney]

you just said that everyone in the black community was a crackhead in the 80s, you racist.

i liked jamie xx's remixes of gil scott heron, he's not a hip hop producer, he's in a band called the xx and does some other production work. the fact that you think not being a hip-hop producer is a criticism, is simply yet another example of your narrow focus.

[Al B. Sure!]

you just said that everyone in the black community was a crackhead in the 80s, you racist.

i liked jamie xx's remixes of gil scott heron, he's not a hip hop producer, he's in a band called the xx and does some other production work. the fact that you think not being a hip-hop producer is a criticism, is simply yet another example of your narrow focus.

No I did not say that. But if you want to ignore the systemic crack epidemic that occurred among that generation, particularly among those with Afrocentric and Black Nationalist backgrounds, in the Black community during the 1980's, well you're just being ignorant.


How can you like those remixes? Especially the second one you posted? He just snipped short samples from his song and spread them around. What the hell? That's a beat using a vocal sample. Not a remix.

Do you see what I mean about how this Jamie XX just overpowered the hollowed out voice of Scott-Heron?

In the 70's, the music was just a sonic landscape upon which Scott-Heron sung and rapped. Moreso than most artists, the music was ancillary to the main event which was Scott-Heron. Therefore, accompanying music was necessarily subdued and simplistic in comparison. Listen to those old Scott-Heron tracks and note the relationship between the man and the music, with the man overpowering the beat and being the focus. Hell, I could probably never recognize the music to Scott-Heron's songs (with the exception of maybe his singles) if I were to just hear the instrumental. But Scott-Heron's voice and lyrics are unmistakable. There is a reason for that. It is evidence of the asymmetry in the relationship between the man and the music.

Jamie XX like a vandal DESTROYED that relationship.

[Al B. Sure!]

I brought up Nat King Cole because that era of music was similar in the manner by which the singer was supreme, whereas the band was secondary to the singer's voice as the focus of the song. That was just the nature of music of the 1940's and 50's with regards to the powerful voices of the era: Sinatra, Martin, Crosby, Cole, etc.

For the Regenerations album (again, it was not perfect; I'm not saying it is), the producers were far less heavy handed than this Jamie XX with their beats. Nat King Cole remained the focus of the song, not some producer's beat.

See, maybe this divergence between you and I is evidence of a difference in mindset and of the nature of music. You like techno and punk rock; techno is all about the instrumentation itself and punk rock relies heavily on loud guitar riffs and drumming, right? In hip hop but also in older music as diverse as Scott-Heron's or Cole's, the instrumentation is secondary.

Think for a moment about all the tracks in which Scott-Heron declaimed over drummed congas... is there any doubt where the power lay in that relationship or where the focus was? Jamie XX turned Scott-Heron into an addition to Jamie XX's musical score, not the other way around.

[C0ckney]

well i disagree in part about your assessment of 40s and 50s. you obviously had music where the singer was the primary focus, but if you look at the jazz world, the most interesting and important stuff had no singer, it was just the music. early rock 'n' roll was often beat focused, or was just part of the whole package rather than a dominant force. you see a similar divergence today with different types of music.

and yes, the voice is simply another instrument, like the guitar, the bass, drums, synths etc. i don't see why any one instrument should be put on a pedestal. like everyone, i am fascinated by certain sounds, certain ideas and certain means of musical expression, but this doesn't mean that i think someone who can make some crazy arse sounds with a roland 303 is more worthy than a violin virtuoso or whatever.

also, i've said numerous times that we look at music in completely different ways, but it's nice to see you have finally realised this.

as for jamie xx, i think he's placed scott-heron's voice in a new musical landscape. he's done something which gil scott-heron on his own would not have done in a million years. that's the great thing for me.

[Al B. Sure!]

well i disagree in part about your assessment of 40s and 50s. you obviously had music where the singer was the primary focus, but if you look at the jazz world, the most interesting and important stuff had no singer, it was just the music. early rock 'n' roll was often beat focused, or was just part of the whole package rather than a dominant force. you see a similar divergence today with different types of music.

Interesting and important says who? Why is a jazz song with a singer less interesting and less important to you than a jazz song without one? But again, that is because a divergence in ideas around what music is as evidenced by...

and yes, the voice is simply another instrument, like the guitar, the bass, drums, synths etc. i don't see why any one instrument should be put on a pedestal. like everyone, i am fascinated by certain sounds, certain ideas and certain means of musical expression, but this doesn't mean that i think someone who can make some crazy arse sounds with a roland 303 is more worthy than a violin virtuoso or whatever.

I highly disagree with your assessment that a voice is 'simply another instrument'. The voice's ability to clearly communicate ideas in words places the voice far higher than any other instrument.

Yes, music can convey emotion but a voice can obviously do that as well. What no instrument can do is convey an intellectual idea!

This is especially so with Gil Scott-Heron. There is NO DOUBT what role his voice had over the music. It is clear. Jamie XX ignored that relationship. Now, that doesn't mean that that is so with other singers or other types of music. Just that it is most definitely true with Scott-Heron.

Remember, Scott-Heron is a man of ideas and social consciousness. He sung but he was a poet. He had to be the focus. No guitar could express social consciousness.

The voice is always mightier than the instrument.

[C0ckney]

also, where are the congos in ny is killing me? as far as the low end and percussion goes, i can hear a sub bass unit, a snare, a kick, some shakes, there's a cowbell in there too. where are the congos, is this another case of you talking out of your arse?

[Al B. Sure!]

also, where are the congos in ny is killing me? as far as the low end and percussion goes, i can hear a sub bass unit, a snare, a kick, some shakes, there's a cowbell in there too. where are the congos, is this another case of you talking out of your arse?

Huh? Did I say there were congas on NY is Killing Me?

I was referencing the congas on Scott-Heron's raps because there moreso than on his soul songs, the music was really really secondary to Scott-Heron's voice.

"Whitey on the Moon", "Sex Education Ghetto Style", "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised", "Small Talk at 125th and Lennox", etc. Congas. Congas. Congas. CONGAS!

All his raps were over congas.

[C0ckney]

of course you can convey an idea without words. ever looked at a painting or a photograph?

[Al B. Sure!]

of course you can convey an idea without words. ever looked at a painting or a photograph?

With respect to Scott-Heron's first album, wikipedia says:

The album's 15 tracks dealt with themes such as the superficiality of television and mass consumerism, the hypocrisy of some would-be Black revolutionaries, white middle-class ignorance of the difficulties faced by inner-city residents, and homophobia.

Okay. I'd like to hear you produce a musical score which will discuss such themes. Go ahead.


It is obvious that the voice's ability to express ideas places the voice atop all other instruments in value.

[C0ckney]

good grief. i simply provided some examples of artforms where ideas are expressed without using words.

i never claimed that the voice doesn't have unique qualities. in the same way, you can't make a (good) electric guitar sound with your mouth.

and your last claim is bogus of course. if you want your music to be about a particular idea which you need words to express, then obviously you're right. however, a lot of music is about something different, about ideas that don't need a voice...

and lastly, yeah sorry about the congas, i misread your post.

[Al B. Sure!]

good grief. i simply provided some examples of artforms where ideas are expressed without using words.

i never claimed that the voice doesn't have unique qualities. in the same way, you can't make a (good) electric guitar sound with your mouth.

and your last claim is bogus of course. if you want your music to be about a particular idea which you need words to express, then obviously you're right. however, a lot of music is about something different, about ideas that don't need a voice...

and lastly, yeah sorry about the congas, i misread your post.

And wouldn't Scott-Heron's entire repertoire fit under that idea of 'music about a particular idea'? That is why in all of Scott-Heron's songs that I have heard, he is the stronger instrument because his voice and the message it expresses is the focus. Jamie XX destroyed that relationship. He did not make remixes while keeping intact the spirit of Scott-Heron and the relationship between the man and the score. He made beats using Scott-Heron samples. That is the distinction.

And no, it's not just high-falooting political ideas that require a voice... even more basic things are communicated effectively through the human voice but not with instruments.

Emotional expression is the extent to which instruments can express. The voice can do that but also expresses ideas which can be anything from political ideas to a statement of love.

I don't know what music you listen to... well, I do know, and we've established I don't like it... but the difference in focus between genres or artists is huge here and may explain a lot of our differences.

I just don't see how you don't accept the supremacy of the human voice as the definitive instrument. It operates on a whole different level (the level of ideas) that no instrument does.

And if music is not a form of expression, what the hell else is it? The expression of ideas is the definitive form of human expression.

[C0ckney]

well i was talking about music in general. i hear what you are saying about gil scott-heron, but like i said, jamie has taken it in a different direction and that's what cool about it.

for some artists obviously, the voice is the most important instrument. for others it's not important at all. most fall somewhere in the middle. take for example one of my favourite bands, joy division. it's true that ian curtis' vocals are very important, vital in fact, but the joy division sound required the guitar of bernard sumner, the bass of peter hook and the drums of stephen morris. the point is that the whole package was important, if you take one element away then it's not joy division anymore and the vocals are simply one of the elements.

and it's funny you should mention expression, yet you reject punk music, which is all about expression...