on 3/16/03 7:59 PM, Julian at germ@iinet.net.au wrote:
There's one thing that's kind of bothered me about this whole discussion, and it's really just a minor point, but have you guys considered the many people (both at the time of release, and now) who don't really care for albums such as 'Revolver', 'Kind Of Blue', 'Trout Mask Replica', 'The Shape Of Jazz To Come' or whatever, regardless of their timeless or touchstone quality?
actually, I'm right there with you as to a lot of the stuff that's lasted through the ages (trout mask has never done it for me the way certain other beefheart has, and my feelings about ornette coleman are well-documented in these parts).
At the same time, there may be people who flip through their parents' record collections, finds some 70s record which has been deemed as crap by 'anyone who matters' and simply love it. That's really one of the great beauties of music, it can hit different people in such different ways.
well, that's the stuff that becomes timeless for you and forms some part of your tradition. i kind of doubt that KIND OF BLUE fits into Weezer's aesthetic tradition, and certainly this has done nothing to negatively impact Weezer's ability to speak in their musical language.
But screw this musician vs. non-musician thing (I am a musician, in case you're wondering) - a musician certainly may hear things that non-musicians don't, but similarly a non-musician may hear things that a musician doesn't. I don't know about anyone else, but I'm happy to have complex music like Stravinsky as background music, or listen closely to Weezer to analyse their melodic structures and chordal movements...
Musicians really have to struggle to maintain their innocence with regards to how other people make their music work (which may explain why, for me, the Ramones represent a certain mysterious perfection). as for complex music as backgound, why not? sometimes the more complex stuff fits the mood. -- skip h http://www.skipheller.com