Yeah, she switched between a few over the night, one of them was an Ovation, maybe the same one as she played on Letterman. I'm guessing that being a smallish woman with her up-neck playing style, the rounded body works well for her, and having the soundhole up near where she smacks the guitar body probably gives her some tonal options. She also played a Fender, not entirely sure of the model... body reminded me of a Jaguar, but the switchgear looked different. There was another electric that I didn't recognise, and then this four-stringed thing that I have no clue what it was. No, not a bass.
I just did a wikipedia read to see if it said anything about her guitars...
Quote:
After using guitars manufactured by the Ovation Guitar Company throughout her career, King was invited to design her own custom guitar. The result is her primary instrument, the 1581-KK custom Ovation Adamas acoustic guitar. King herself signs her name on each guitar.
I think there are two key types of musical artists (actually this is true of a number of forms of art): innovators and refiners. I've brought this up before in terms of the classic Radiohead/Coldplay debate. Radiohead is an innovator in the purest sense: a lot of ideas, many of them sounding a bit unfinished, and at least some stuff that's a complete miss and some stuff that at least a few people (and sometimes a great many people) will find brilliant. Coldplay has an idiom - guitar and keyboard dominated british pop - that they stick to pretty religiously and attempt to produce the best pop-songs possible with that. And they're successful at it. But they're a diametric opposite to Radiohead in what they're attempting to do. Most musicians aren't one or the other. You can think of it as a scale along which every musical artist fits. One isn't superior to the other, and musical progress sort of needs both: the innovators to go ahead and forge new ground and then the refiners to come along and fill in the gaps. In my music collection, I'd consider bands like Hold Steady, The National, Peter Gabriel, Suzanne Vega, Wilco, and Ben Folds to be very good refiners; while Flaming Lips, Modest Mouse, LCD Soundsystem, Pixies, Nick Cave, and Tom Waits would be some of the better innovators. Anyway, I think that refiners are sometimes called formulaic, and unfortunately that sort of detracts from the complexity or importance of what they're trying to accomplish.
I like your post but I disagree that Coldplay is trying to do the opposite of what Radiohead does. Radiohead while being innovative in form a lot of the time cares deeply about their content. The constantly strive to make insights in their music. Their songs often as philosophically complex as they are musically. Coldplay tries to refine Radiohead's sound into something more accessible and remove the edge from the content while maintaining the spirit of Radiohead. While fine and dandy, it's still a lesser form to Radiohead because of the loss of insight and creativity that comes from popularizing a sound. Radiohead is the superior band.
Furthermore, I think it's important to make value judgments such as "Radiohead is the superior band." Otherwise, we end up devaluing the art of music completely. If we say Let Down by Radiohead is equally as valuable as Fix You by Coldplay, we devalue Radiohead's more complex and honest content by not distinguishing it from the more simplistic and kitschy Fix You. The content of both songs shouldn't be accepted as equal but put up against one another to see which has the better insights. All ideas aren't created equal and we should be able to discuss music without going back towards the "everything is equally good" BS.
I'm not saying everyone has to agree with my assessment of Radiohead and Coldplay, I'm saying it's important to make an assessment. Then others can judge and debate your assessment, which is much more productive and interesting than an "everything is subjective" conversation.
__________________
As you can see, I'm completely ridiculous.
Of course music is formulaic, just like all sorts of enjoyable things are formulaic. The reason is because the structure is what really makes it interesting and enjoyable to us. It's comparable to trying to play a game of chess but not having any rules. You end up with just a bunch of meaningless pieces and a patchwork board. That structure is needed in order for it be something you'd call a game and for it to be really stimulating and enjoyable.
The same goes for music I think. Take the formulas away or make them unbalanced and nobody wants to listen. Whether a person's music is more like chess or more like tiddlywinks, I think it's true.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
However, I think there is a difference between "formula music" as you call it, and structure. Calling it formula music is a slap in the face. All music has some sort of structure to it. The only kind that doesn't is pure randomness and the argument could be made that that isn't music but rather just sound, or noise.
The Baroque period of music from the 1600s to 1750, was very mathematical in nature. J.S. Bach especially. The following Classical period had very rigid rules as to form, harmonic structure and such. The Romantic period brought with it more technically elaborate music, as well as chromatic harmonies all in the name of trying to be less structured and more emotional. Yet they could never escape structure completely.
The past century and this one has brought with it serialism, which is very formulated though in a different way, and chance music and randomness. The point here is that over the course of history, we have continually attempted to escape structure and the "rules" governing music. Yet as a society we end up right where we began. Because what is more popular today - the music of John Cage or the music of Lady Gaga? Yup...it's the music with the same 4 chords in it that we still listen to.
People love to pretend to be music connoisseurs but at the end of the day Nickelback still is one of the most artists around. Why? Because music in nature IS structured, it DOES have certain formulas....the formulas vary by genre and that's where our tastes differ....but we can't get away from formula music in general, because by in large, that's what music is. Some may have more basic, closed, rigid "formulas" to them (ie the same 4 chords) whereas other music is less rigid and more diverse, but all music is structured in one way or another.
This is a really good post. Makes me wonder, does anyone know of any good explanations for why we find the same chords so appealing. Is there some biological reason for this? Any kind of evolutionary antecedent?
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
all artists use formulas and copy other musicians to some extent. but to rip off yourself and rebrand it as a new song? that is super lame
Do you consider Antonio Vivaldi lame - composer of 500 concertos? One comment that has been leveled at him is that he wrote one concerto 500 times. Invariably some of his work is going to sound the same, in fact quite a bit of it. Is that something to be derided or is it impressive that he had the ability to write and compose so prolifically, with the vast body of his work flourishing 350 years after his death?
The music industry is a complex and cruel mistress. You have all sorts of bands/artists starting out that are all about 'the music'. After playing in crapholes to 30 people a night and sleeping in a van for 3 years their priorities change. Given the chance to sign a 3 record deal with a big label the overwhelming majority of them would. Once that happens you give up creative control, you work off of someone else's schedule and you write music that someone else suggests. All with the purpose of selling albums, with making money. Is this to be ridiculed? Artists are all too willing to give up creative control in order to make money. It is then later in their careers, after the successful world tours and platinum albums, that they can make music that they want to.
I'm a huge Neil Young fan and he is one of the only artists I can think of that has been able to write and record whatever he wants to - with the exception of his contract squabble with David Geffen. Most artists don't have the ability to record what they want while still selling albums and selling out concert venues. And I'd bet that a lot of Indie bands that claim they are in it 'for the music' would trade living in their parents' basement for a record deal, international tours and merchandise rights.
But maybe I'm wrong.
The Following User Says Thank You to NBC For This Useful Post:
I don't own a single Nickelback CD/mp3 file, but every time people start posting youtube clips of ubertalented innovative alternative indie artists (not musicians, artists!), I know I'll take a Nickelback song over any of them.
I'm a huge Neil Young fan and he is one of the only artists I can think of that has been able to write and record whatever he wants to - with the exception of his contract squabble with David Geffen. Most artists don't have the ability to record what they want while still selling albums and selling out concert venues.
Another example would be Rush. Again, not a band for everyone, and the radio is certainly not their friend. But having sold the most gold & platinum albums of any band other than the Beatles and Stones lets them laugh last, and best. And you'd have to be some kind of math genius to figure out their formula.
This is a really good post. Makes me wonder, does anyone know of any good explanations for why we find the same chords so appealing. Is there some biological reason for this? Any kind of evolutionary antecedent?
Yes there is actually...it's called the overtone system. Brief explanation here:
Basically, it's sound waves and their frequencies. The A that most instruments tune to, has a frequency of 440Hz. The A above that (an octave higher) has a frequency of 880Hz. It's all mathematically connected. Which is why if you play a note with 440Hz together with one that is 880Hz at the same time, it sounds "good" but playing 440Hz with say, 875Hz, would sound dissonant and "bad."
For the layman, the further away from the fundamental you get, the more dissonant the sound gets. Chords that have notes in them close to the fundamental, are the most popular ones today. That's why you can take the 4 chords that most pop songs use, and play them in any order and they'll sound different, but will all sound "good."
This is why music exists in every culture, society, etc. It is as natural to us as breathing.
Read this article on how music has similar effects on our brains as drugs and sex. Literally.
The music industry is a complex and cruel mistress. You have all sorts of bands/artists starting out that are all about 'the music'. After playing in crapholes to 30 people a night and sleeping in a van for 3 years their priorities change. Given the chance to sign a 3 record deal with a big label the overwhelming majority of them would. Once that happens you give up creative control, you work off of someone else's schedule and you write music that someone else suggests. All with the purpose of selling albums, with making money. Is this to be ridiculed? Artists are all too willing to give up creative control in order to make money. It is then later in their careers, after the successful world tours and platinum albums, that they can make music that they want to.
I'm a huge Neil Young fan and he is one of the only artists I can think of that has been able to write and record whatever he wants to - with the exception of his contract squabble with David Geffen. Most artists don't have the ability to record what they want while still selling albums and selling out concert venues. And I'd bet that a lot of Indie bands that claim they are in it 'for the music' would trade living in their parents' basement for a record deal, international tours and merchandise rights.
But maybe I'm wrong.
I love Neil Young's music too. He seems to be one of those artists who isn't pigeonholed into one genre either. He can record what he wants with who he wants and not be out of place. I love it when he would collaborate with Willie, Waylon, Cash, Emmylou Harris, and so on and still influence the likes of the grunge generation.
The music industry is a complex and cruel mistress. You have all sorts of bands/artists starting out that are all about 'the music'. After playing in crapholes to 30 people a night and sleeping in a van for 3 years their priorities change. Given the chance to sign a 3 record deal with a big label the overwhelming majority of them would. Once that happens you give up creative control, you work off of someone else's schedule and you write music that someone else suggests. All with the purpose of selling albums, with making money. Is this to be ridiculed? Artists are all too willing to give up creative control in order to make money. It is then later in their careers, after the successful world tours and platinum albums, that they can make music that they want to.
I'm a huge Neil Young fan and he is one of the only artists I can think of that has been able to write and record whatever he wants to - with the exception of his contract squabble with David Geffen. Most artists don't have the ability to record what they want while still selling albums and selling out concert venues. And I'd bet that a lot of Indie bands that claim they are in it 'for the music' would trade living in their parents' basement for a record deal, international tours and merchandise rights.
But maybe I'm wrong.
The internet has changed everything. Artists don't need record companies now.
Basically, it's sound waves and their frequencies. The A that most instruments tune to, has a frequency of 440Hz. The A above that (an octave higher) has a frequency of 880Hz. It's all mathematically connected. Which is why if you play a note with 440Hz together with one that is 880Hz at the same time, it sounds "good" but playing 440Hz with say, 875Hz, would sound dissonant and "bad."
For the layman, the further away from the fundamental you get, the more dissonant the sound gets. Chords that have notes in them close to the fundamental, are the most popular ones today. That's why you can take the 4 chords that most pop songs use, and play them in any order and they'll sound different, but will all sound "good."
This is why music exists in every culture, society, etc. It is as natural to us as breathing.
Read this article on how music has similar effects on our brains as drugs and sex. Literally.
I was eventually lucky to be able to work with many well-known musicians. But I also worked with dozens of musical no-names, people who are extremely talented but never made it. I began to wonder why some musicians become household names while others languish in obscurity. I also wondered why music seemed to come so easily to some and not others. Where does creativity come from? Why do some songs move us so and others leave us cold? And what about the role of perception in all of this, the uncanny ability of great musicians and engineers to hear nuances that most of us don't?
Music is unusual among all human activities for both its ubiquity and its antiquity . No known human culture now nor anytime in the recorded past lacked music. Some of the oldest physical artifacts found in human and proto-human excavation sites are musical instruments: bone flutes and animal skins stretched over tree stumps to make drums. Whenever humans come together for any reason, music is there: weddings, funerals, graduation from college, men marching off to war, stadium sporting events, prayer, a romantic dinner, mothers rocking their infants to sleep, and college students studying with music as a background. Even more so in non-industrialized cultures than in modern Western societies, music is and was part of the fabric of everyday life. Only relatively recently in our own culture, 500 years or so ago, a distinction arose that cut society in two, forming separate classes of musical performers and music listeners. Throughout most of the world and for most of human history, music making was as natural an activity as breathing and walking and everyone participated. Concert halls, dedicated to the performance of music, arose only in the last several centuries.
Americans spend more money on music than on sex or prescription drugs. I would say that most Americans qualify as expert music listeners. We have the cognitive capacity to detect wrong notes, to find music we enjoy, to remember hundreds of melodies, and to tap our feet in time with the music - an activity that involves a process of meter extraction so complicated that most computers cannot do it. Why do we listen to music, and why are we willing to spend so much money on music listening? Two concert tickets can easily cost as much as a week's food allowance for a family of four, and one CD costs about the same as a work shirt, 8 loaves of bread, or basic phone service for a month. Understanding why we like music and what draws us to it is a window into the essence of human nature.
This book is about the science of music, from the perspective of cognitive neuroscience - the field that is at the intersection of psychology and neurology. I'll discuss some of my own and the latest studies researchers in our field have conducted on music, musical meaning, and musical pleasure. They offer new insights into profound questions. If all of us hear music differently, how can we account for pieces that seem to move so many people - Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, or Don McLean's "Vincent (Starry Starry Night (Vincent)" for example? On the other hand, if we all hear music in the same way, how can we account for wide differences in musical preference - why is it that one man's Mozart is another man's Madonna?
Last edited by troutman; 11-23-2010 at 09:28 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to troutman For This Useful Post:
I'm in the camp of music lover, its hard for me not to like music of all types and I can even enjoy top 40 music.
But there is a vast difference in the music industry in the US compared to say the UK where yes there is a lot of top 40 stuff but you have a very vibrant club and massive concert scene which promotes all kinds of music/bands.
I think thats the gripe a lot of music fans have, in the US you have such a strong factory feel to the production and release of music, the radio and TV stations all seem to play the same stuff and its a challenge to hear many types of popular music in other parts of the world.
I just downloaded Glastonbury 2010 the othe other day and reminded myself of how much I love Muse of whom never really gets big play in the US but is huge out here. It been great coming to Iceland and getting to hear all the local music which for a tiny nation is very vibrant, but having access again to the music from all the various EU nations on satellite has been even more fun.
But music is very personal, thats why it invokes so much passion and debate. Two people can absolutely loathe and love the same song and have no clue as to why the other feels that way.
Since its almost time for class I'll leave you with Muse from Glastonbury, not because they are incredible or amazing or innovative but because I love this song, you may choose not to, or whatever
