Aphorisms Part 2

Hardly aphorisms. More like ‘I’m too tired to write a proper post.’

Here goes:

The shit that Adorno talked about jazz is literally true about Led Zeppelin.

You need entry-level rock, for people who are too timorous to feel anything intensely. In the 70s it was provided by Status Quo; in the 80s, nobody provided it; in the 90s, Oasis.

As anyone who’s listened to his recordings can confirm, reports of Charlie Parker’s death have been exaggerated.

Haydn and Sterne: the originators are the greatest jokers.

The general lack of enthusiasm for Haydn goes to show that the lip-service we pay to innovation in music is nothing more than that.

Nobody likes to admit the extent to which any one period in music history exactly resembles every other.

It is high time that two things were established once and for all:

1.) The Beatles‘ pre-eminence in the history of post-WW2 popular music;
2.) The exact nature of what The Beatles were crap at.

.

Advertisements
Aphorisms Part 2

2 thoughts on “Aphorisms Part 2

  1. Good calls, both. But the difference is that people in the 80s experienced U2 not as entry-level but as the greatest rock band in the world. U2 got an astonishing amount of good press in the 80s, and people genuinely claimed that they were the best, overlooking their pomposity, banality, empty uplift, all that stuff that we can’t now stand about them. Back in the 80s, U2 ws one of the few bands delivering that completely uncut, and they were thanked for it.

    Whereas, Status Quo and Oasis were always appreciated with a certain level of defensiveness — and still are, in the case of Oasis, as a read of the comments on my Noel Gallagher post will show. Oasis fans describe their own predilection for Oasis not so much in terms of genuinely loving the music. It’s more that they love what they think Oasis represents: a working class band made good, a bunch of guys who came from nowhere but became world-famous, that kind of thing; a provider not of songs that console or heal or invigorate, but ‘anthems’, songs that provide a rallying point. You don’t get a lot of confessions from Oasis fans that this or that song really speaks to them in some personal intimate way, or that Oasis makes them happy, or makes them cry. Oasis’ success makes their fans proud, and I suspect that the fans like the music in much the same sort of let’s-drink-beer-and-get-off-our-heads way that Quo fans liked Quo’s music. The strictly musical difference is that Status Quo, on early 70s albums such as Quo and Hello!, could summon up genuine energy, whereas Oasis songs vary from mid-tempo to sluggish, because the band were too self-consciously cool to play fast, and nothing like as competent as players as the classic lineup of Status Quo.

    I can’t speak for or about Coldplay fans, as I have never met anyone who will admit to being one. And yet they sell a lot of albums.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s