NerblyBear wrote: The notes are all that matter.

Right, cuz all music is note-based, right? Steve Reich, John Cage, the Bomb Squad, Merzbow, et. al. always carefully work out their scores, right?
Right, cuz listening to a muzak version of a song provides the same experience as the original, right?
Right, cuz a G-Emin-D chord progression in 4/4 played by Pete Townshend provides the same experience as the same progression played by Sheryl Crow, right?
Right, cuz all cover versions are an exercise in redundancy, right?
Right, cuz you don't know what the hell you are talking about, as usual, right?
Right.

Dr. O' Nothing wrote:Right, cuz all music is note-based, right? Steve Reich, John Cage, the Bomb Squad, Merzbow, et. al. always carefully work out their scores, right?
Right, cuz listening to a muzak version of a song provides the same experience as the original, right?
Right, cuz a G-Emin-D chord progression in 4/4 played by Pete Townshend provides the same experience as the same progression played by Sheryl Crow, right?
Right, cuz all cover versions are an exercise in redundancy, right?
Right, cuz you don't know what the hell you are talking about, as usual, right?
Right.

Which record store do you work in?

big dave wrote:"Revolution #9"

How does it get any more constructed than that??...but yeah, I think that "Revolution #9" is incredibly awesome.

The larger point is that the Beatles could hardly stand each other at this point (White Album), and did overdubs on each other's shit instead of working together. While the Beatles messed with their recorded output to no end, what better example of a fantastic constructed record could there possibly be??...they played none of those songs live, and they could hardly be bothered to even work with each other...how "dishonorable."


Speaking of "Revolution #9," and hatin' on "studio perfection" records, the first thing I thought of was Negativland...but I didn't think that those fully solid records (Escape From Noise, Helter Stupid) would be fair to compare to Steely Dan, Prince, My Bloody Valentine...or on the other end of the spectrum, any number of Albini-type bands (I'll just cite Tar. Tar is good!).

Minotaur029 wrote:The larger point is that the Beatles could hardly stand each other at this point (White Album), and did overdubs on each other's shit instead of working together. While the Beatles messed with their recorded output to no end, what better example of a fantastic constructed record could there possibly be!

Spot on. And I can think of any number of terrific albums which I know for a fact were slaved over for at least a year. One that springs to mind is Deerhoof's The Runners Four, possibly the greatest rock album of this fledgling century. After having worked on the writing and recording processes for months and months, they had it all set to go, and, after listening to it on a final run-through, they decided to scrap it and start all over again. Perfectionists to the bone. And it turned out great.

Or how would we handle someone like Stravinsky? The period between his first conception of "The Rite of Spring" and the premier performance lasted for over three years. During that time, the piece was re-worked innumerable times. Another perfectionist. If someone had gone up to him and told him that he could have just relaxed and coasted through the execution of his ideas since he had already come up with good ones, he probably would have thought that person crazy. "Everything depends on the final execution," he would have said. "So much work has gone into this massive thing, if there were any mis-steps the whole effort would have been for naught."

Of course if the talent or the (okay) ideas aren't there, any amount of obsessive combing over of the final product isn't going to matter at all. And of course, since not everyone is a genius like Stravinsky or John Lennon, there will always be albums you can point to in order to ridicule all of the wasted effort. But there are also a bunch of great performances and albums where the exact opposite was the case. This wide diversity in case studies makes me hesitant to give any ultimate credence to any performance or recording philosophy that is too streamlined.

Minotaur029 wrote:

big dave wrote:"Revolution #9"

How does it get any more constructed than that?

The reason that track exists is that the Beatles were in love with the process of making tape music. They didn't really have a set goal in mind to work towards, it was about the making and not the final product. I'll cite the comedic overdubs put onto it to make it more palitable and comprehensive to their audience. Take this brother, may it serve you well.

This is different to the pre-planned sound-collage John made for "The Benefit of Mr Kite", where he definitely had a set idea in mind and perfected it. It is still a good song, just not a "Revolution #9".

I've always found Donald Fagen, as a solo artist, to have a great ability in creating interesting chord progressions. I think that may be something he's somewhat under-appreciated for.

steve wrote: When I see someone obsessed with a particular sound or performance subtlety or production detail, when there are other, more substantial omissions unrepented, I can tell that the train is off the tracks.

I see this happen over and over again.

steve wrote:My point is that the effort spent "perfecting" a record by retards is evidence of a substandard foundational idea -- good ideas need much less attention from retards to be palatable.

Since I'm interested in the ideas behind the music at least as much as the mere sound coming out of the speakers, I allow myself to remain unimpressed by the tits and eyebrows of the presentation.

Am I making myself clear? I don't think the presentation of good ideas is that important to the end result. As a corollary, meticulous (retard) perfectionism with respect to the presentation is irrelevant in redeeming substandard ideas.

I have no respect for this kind of delusion, and I think the evidence is there that it makes for shitty, self-obsessed, superficial records.

No, perfectionism is not irrelevant. It's not irrelevant to the composer(s) for whom the details are as important to the work as the chord structure, instrumentation and meter.
Your 'retard' perfectionism is someone else's hard won vision. Everyone, in any given skill, has the right to labor as obsessively as one needs to see that vision actualized.
For some, myself included, hard work merits reward(i.e. actually liking it when it's complete).
The details and subtlties are quite essential to the kind of music I make, and I really get off on them.

steely dan gargles my balls

steve wrote:Since I'm interested in the ideas behind the music at least as much as the mere sound coming out of the speakers, I allow myself to remain unimpressed by the tits and eyebrows of the presentation.

"mere sound". ha.

steve, are you suggesting that any good song should be stripped of its arrangement, because that's just presentation, just tit jobs and makeup? that it should still sound good if recorded like shit, because it's like your mom's voice? well then it's funny that you bother to learn to record things well, that you bother to find the equipment that makes things sound a certain way.

why doesn't shellac play $100 squiers into boss ds-1s and marshall half-stacks with the eq flat? or better yet, acoustic guitar?

because your aluminum-necked "tit job" and your harmonic percolator "plucked eyebrow" aren't presentation -- they're product.

album art is presentation. laser light show and pyrotechnics is presentation. press shots is presentation. the sound on the record is not presentation -- it's product.

the chuck rainey bass lines and larry carlton guitar solos aren't presentation, they are part of the steely dan records that i love. but even if you stripped those all away to get to the "foundation" that is supposedly the only thing that counts, the foundation is songwriting that i find distinctive and excellent. i like the chord progressions, i like the lyrics; neither are written by session guys. they are written by fagen (usually writes the chords) and becker (usually writes the lyrics). then they hire their very talented "monkeys on typewriters" to help flesh out the arrangement and i'm glad they do.