The Community
ROCK AND ROLL! => All Them Other Guys => Topic started by: Zzzptm on September 05, 2024, 09:05:10 AM
-
In general, do you like your rock and roll straightforward and simple verse-chorus-verse-chorus-solo-chorus-end stuff or do you like it with twists and turns and sections and time changes and key changes and maybe even lineup changes in the same song?
Asking because I'm looking at when rock got complicated, and it's a question pertinent to my interests. Back in the 50s, it was pretty much a 2:30 song and there wasn't much room for faffing about. Some great tracks without any nonsense. Punk rock brought rock back to that standard after the forays with folk-psych-prog.
But those folk-psych-prog things happened as rock incorporated more elements from classical music, Broadway, and pop in general. Around 1964 or so, that's when I think the balance tipped in favor of songs getting longer and with added complications that were possible in another 30 to 60 seconds of length.
At the same time there was the big prog thing, there were also songs that did the groove thing, going on for five minutes or more, but not having deep explorations of the musical space. Rather, they just kept playing the groove because it was solid and it rocked and didn't need any decorations. I'd consider those to be "simple" songs, even if the guitar solo was a brain-melting monster. Something like "Mistreated" that has a minimum of variation in its main guitar-driven message.
-
Well it depends a whole lot on the music...But being a big dooom metal fan ofcourse those more complicated structures appeal to me more. But sometimes a very simple verse chorus verse chorus solo chorus stuff works well too...especially in more straight forward heavy metal and power metal.
But I do think some of the best songs out there do not rely on that formula...but they often tend to be on the longer side too...
Going all prog with 20+ minute songs with virtually no structure at all tends to be bit much for me and they can get bit tideous already.
-
It's like rock took a split into music for dancing and music for listening to while sitting down. Keeping it simple with a continuous groove and beat is the secret to a great dance track. Or, if not dancing, just standing up and doing a little boogie or air guitar. Like "Cat Scratch Fever" or "Ace of Spades".
Then there's Deep Purple's "Fools." You don't stand on your feet and pump your fists shouting YEAAAAAHHH as that plays live. Or "Heaven and Hell", where there's a time for singing along and a time for zoning out with the guitar solo.
And then there's the math rock stuff where these guys are talking about doing 3 measures of 7/4 followed by a 1/2 measure and then 4 measures of 5/8 that switches to a 10/4 section for 5 measures and then an unmetered section for 37 seconds and I'm like WHY??? How is that in any way fun to listen to? Most of the time, I find it's not.
-
To an extent I think Prog evolved from Psychedelia, take Pink Floyd, their ealry stuff was psychelic rather than Prog. It's generally felt that the first Prog evolved around 1966 with Frank Zappa, but he did jazz and fusion too. The Moody Blues developed it further before King Crimson released the first fully prog album in '69. Other early pointers to prog might be Pet Sounds and Sgt Peppers, but neither was full on prog.
I like the complicated stuff when I'm in the mood for it... and when I'm not I put on Motorhead! ;)
-
I was thinking about Sgt. Pepper this morning and a handful of songs on that album are multi-part and involved. The rest, straightforward one theme, get the job done. The styles on different songs are all over the place, though.
Definitely a link between jazz, classical, and Broadway elements working into the rock and roll that got it to go multi-part proggo. ELP and Yes brought lots of classical, as did Deep Purple in its early years. Jethro Tull and Black Sabbath had the jazz. David Bowie and the late Beatles era brought in loads of theatrics.
-
Good point about theatrics. I heard "Fire," on the radio - the Crazy World of Arthur Brown. In the context of musical complexity, I'm not sure it really is, but it is certainly theatrical. His entire shtick was theatrics, yet the music itself, despite serving those theatrics, was quite simple and straightforward.
Much like KDC, I enjoy stretching out musically, and when I don't, it's Motorhead. Or AC/DC. Or The Ramones, et. al.
-
I can't remember the band, but I remember listening to a song that was being done in 5/4 time because... well, they wanted to show the world they could count to 5, I guess. It was sloppy and made me skip over buying the album, final nail in the coffin, so to speak.
And then I recall Primus' "Eleven" which is in 11/8 and that one actually makes sense in that meter. Primus was able to pull it off successfully.
-
And then I recall Primus' "Eleven" which is in 11/8 and that one actually makes sense in that meter. Primus was able to pull it off successfully.
Primus able to pull something off successfully? I doubt that! :smug:
Talking about theatrical...I love Fire by the way!
Then Alice Cooper comes to mind...he can do both pretty well...the more complex stuff (Halo Of Flies) and the more simple stuff (Shcool's Out) and beyond. Both when it comes to the original group of the later stuff.
-
Agree about Alice Cooper, band and solo, was/is capable of pulling off both complex and simple songs. Which kind of ties into what Z was saying about that unknown band banging on 5/4 time, to their detriment. Done well, exotic timing/chord progressions/instrumentation/etc. is awesome and I love finding tunes like that. And then there are groups that feel the "exoticism" itself should be enough. But it never is, it just takes suckage to new levels of suck.
-
I think because some bands are able to pull off the complex stuff for effects they're seeking to attain, other bands go for the complex thinking that's sufficient for getting good effects. But it just gets effects. The good part needs to be supplied via other means.
And I've heard bands doing terrible jobs with simple songs because they just don't get the material at all. This happened a lot in the 50s and 60s with tunes going crossover via an artist that didn't do the original, like Pat Boone covering Little Richard tunes. Ouch.
-
Now go listen to the Paranoid album... "War Pigs" is a prog tune, no question in my mind about that...
-
Hmmm....I haven't really thought of it that way...but it does have some prog elements to it for sure....maybe bit low on wankery though...
-
Absolutely low on the wankometer, for sure! But it's definitely blues-based rock that has had a high infusion of jazz improv elements. The shifts between sections are something quite foreign to early rock and roll, beyond something like a false introduction.