Wednesday, December 30

The New Canon of Great Guitar Solos

This is a list I officially cannot admit wanting to make, because it's a little bit stupid. But given the amount of literature about which doesn't take into account the fact that Satriani, Vai, and Slash are wankers, I thought I'd at least present an alternative list of the most important guitar solos in rock history - solos which should be studied by any prospective student for their poise, construction and effect.

1. Jimi Hendrix - Little Wing
This one's beyond question. It's one of the shortest on the list, and almost painful to listen to for that fact. One wishes it went on.
2. Eric Clapton - Crossroads
This one's textbook. It goes up, and it keeps going up. Going up is a good thing for solos to do in rock music.
3. Kurt Cobain - In Bloom
Oh yes, I did. Listen to it over and over and over again. This is the culmination of three decades of noise-guitar technique from Iggy and the Stooges and the VU down through Sonic Youth and Yo La Tengo.
4. Neil Young - Down By the River
Neil's idiosyncracies carry this one. The one-note motif at the start is really nice.
5. Eric Clapton - Sunshine of Your Love
6. Stevie Ray Vaughan - Little Wing
It's many many times longer than the original. This is how a solo should develop and how it should maintain interest.

I should note that I missed out many important instrumental tracks simply because they don't count as guitar solos and I wish to examine the solo as an institution in rock music, because that's what it is. No doubt other aspects of playing are important - but as I said before, setting the record straight on this issue, especially for beginners needing someone to look up to, is something I consider important.

Tuesday, December 29

Garfunkel and Oates

'Things White People Like' had some informative comments on the subject of musical comedy - that you can combine not-very-good jokes and not-very-good music and get something that's a little bit entertaining. A justified viewpoint I think, considering how much crap out there gets passed for comedy. That said, I have a recommendation to make, and in the full knowledge that premature recommendations are like premature ejaculations in that they're always embarrassing afterward, let me just put in a plug for Garfunkel and Oates.

The folk-comedy duo (are there any other sort? besides Primus, the occasionally likeable funk-metal comedy band) consisting of Kate Micucci and Riki Lindhome (of Million Dollar Baby fame) plumb the depths of domestic agony ('Present Face') and the ins and outs (well mostly outs) of working-class love with tunes that are much more than send-ups of some well-hated musical cliche. The vocal style invokes Blink-182, and the lyrical style is pure punk in its considered, rhythmic pedantry. These are pretty good jokes framed with actually-very-good music, making it a comedy band that's listenable as a bona-fide band, and to prove it they've written some serious tunes which are impressive in their scope and lyricism ('Silver Lining').

How about that, a comedy band transcends the tired send-ups of pop music with some actual skill. Props - and tell the Flight of the Conchords that their loser schtick is getting old - write some tunes, yo?

Also - that Kate Micucci is a real talent. One to watch.

adam

Friday, December 18

six sentences

My feet are unsurprisingly a little cracked after the month in the field.

There are two crickets mating on the wall above my bookshelf.

Outside the construction workers banter and play their loud music on an outdated radio.

Doorknobs, which stabilise our plane of existence like cosmic anchors, stretch across dimensions and yet are confined to a single quasi-spherical region with a keyhole.

What is the whiskey bottle but a third empty and trembling with the key-strokes like the portent of something dire, is it even a whiskey bottle at all or just a figment of my senses like the dream of an alcoholic butterfly?

Take me away from here, take me away, even if it kills, even if there's nothing left to take but take that anyway, there are tissues on the left if you need them but the door is on the right and keep walking once you're out and pretend that nothing happened, nonchalant.

Wednesday, December 9

faith in a manner of speaking

This is an issue which I for very long had no intention whatsoever of dealing with, because it is so complicated and (more importantly) because it is represented by people on either side who love to spend their precious time shin-kicking and name-calling. (Christopher Hitchens, you are guilty of this.)

What does faith in God require? I would say : the burden of proof is on the theists because they assert the larger number of required entities. I believe Occam's razor applies here because it is the only reasonable attitude an entity in our bewildering position can take - an existence we have no explanation for. We understand aspects of this existence, but know nothing of causes or explanations. Hence, it is one thing to assert that there must be a creator (which can reasonably be supposed to be the simplest explanation) and totally another to assert that it is a specific Creator who was specifically involved in our history. Christians especially have a lot to prove - specifically, they must prove that belief in their God is an attitude compatible with being a rational human being.

The clarifications for this discussion: First, that any theistic argument must prove that faith is compatible with rationality, because this is a rational discussion. If the discussion leads to the conclusion that faith and rationality are incompatible, then it shall follow that faith necessitates a non-rational world view and hence is outside the realm of discussion.
Second, that the argument here is specifically about the Christian God and not a creator-figure in general and hence to prove that a belief in a God that is all-powerful, all-good, and who came down to Earth as Jesus Christ is not incompatible with a rational world view i.e. principles for action derived from logical deduction and induction.

The first subject of discussion is the problem of pain. There is an agreed-upon standard for good (1)- including but not limited to health, absence of needless pain, presence of pleasure, and the presence of such conditions for as many people as possible. This view is utilitarian but seems to be the underlying assumption many people make when discussing the problem of pain. It means that actions which cause pain without ensuing benefit are to be judged as not Good, and any situation in which people are in needless suffering is to be judged as not Good. There is another standard for Good often propounded by Christians which is to be defined as spiritual well-being - closeness to God, absence of sin, presence of virtue, and perhaps importantly in theology, the presence of free will which chooses the above mentioned qualities. (2) Evil is to be defined as the lack of these characteristics. (3)

The problem of pain goes as such: The hypothesis of a benevolent creator who is all-powerful cannot be accepted due to the prevalence of pain and suffering in the world. A creator who is benevolent would do all in his power to alleviate suffering and hence cause Good by definition (1). Hence, the existence of suffering (not Good) means the creator cannot be all-powerful or cannot be benevolent.

The rebuttal to this argument takes a few forms. First, that suffering in the present may be justified by future Good that we are unaware of or incapable of understanding. Hence, the supposed Evil in the world does not exist.
Second, that Good cannot be experienced without the possibility for the opposite, and that the possibility of evil was created along with Good. Third, that suffering (not Good by definition (1)) exists to create Good by definition (2), which is to lead people to repent and to lead virtuous lives.

My first point is that accepting definition (2) of Good invalidates the premise, or at least compromises it. If we accept that only definiton (2) of Good is true, then the Evil accepted in the premise does not exist because disasters, starvation and suffering are not considered Evil - a person may be starving but still be close to God, for example. Which is not to say that the lack of Good does not exist at all, for there are surely plenty of spiritually poor people. A quibble - on to the argument.

My second point is is that the second rebuttal is incompatible with an all-powerful God. It supposes constraint on his Creation - that he had to create the possibility for evil in order to accomodate Good, even if he did not create evil. I actually agree that it is logical for a creator to have done this if what he wanted was human beings capable of Good. But this creates difficulty with the Christian God because it supposes Him subordinate to logic. The Christian God must be all-powerful and unknowable by human reason - and if He is subordinate to our logic then we must know, by virtue of knowing His constraints, Him.

My third point deals with the third rebuttal. In this case I believe the Christians are guilty of inexcusable definition-switching. Either Good exists or it doesn't, and either definition (1) or definition (2) are true, but not both, since it is a logical impossibility for a starving person who is nonetheless devout to be in a state of both Good and Evil. Either his devoutness and closeness to God confirms his situation is Good, or his suffering confirms his situation is Evil by our definition (3).
Their argument goes like this: If Evil exists to ensure Good (2) then the overall situation is Good because it results in Good and hence our God can be all-good and all-powerful and yet allow Evil.
Yet the premise 'Evil exists' is predicated on definition (1), which I have proven is incompatible with definition (2). So either we take definition (2) consistently, which raises the issue 'why are there un-devout, unholy people?' and also makes the argument sound like this:
'Un-devout, sinful people exist to make other people repent and become closer to God'. Which may be logical in some way but is hardly what the Christians seem to be arguing since all people, by their doctrine, exist to be close to God.
If we take definition (1) consistently, which means there is no Good done by suffering and hence the Christian God is rendered yet again incompatible.
Another thing which is problematic is that accepting rebuttal (3) in any form means that we no longer have any moral impetus to alleviate physical suffering, as it is no longer considered an Evil by definition (2). As most Christians accept the view that it is Good to help the suffering, this is an inconsistency that must be addressed.

Not finished but maybe i'll continue this sometime!

in a startling change of direction

Blogging in the daytime! Which shall be this week's adventure. I'm off exxon mobil duty for now (the crushing despair posts will ensue next week, for those awaiting the latest instalment)

Things:

1. Firefly. I watched 'Train Job' and 'Bushwhacked' and turns out the series only gets better after that. Am now judiciously pirating it.
2. Apps. Need to get the forms to my teachers. NYU submitted - must finish Stanford and Columbia.
Fingers crossed for Brown!
3. Borderlands. Good fun. It's like diablo with guns, which always make things better, except maybe Lebanon.
4. Two months to ORD. My disgust with the army has transcended complaint.

adam

Sunday, December 6

Two Thoughts

1. Songwriting - it's only so difficult because we insist it should be easy.

2. I need a new bike. I borrowed JX's to make a trip to Serene Centre. On the way, a motorist honked at me and drove past - I caught up to him, gave him the finger and shouted something rude before pulling away. Best bike ride ever.

Friday, December 4

Joni Mitchell - Chelsea Morning

Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning, and the first thing that I heard
Was a song outside my window, and the traffic wrote the words
It came ringing up like Christmas bells, and rapping up like pipes and drums

Oh, won't you stay
We'll put on the day
And we'll wear it till the night comes

Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning, and the first thing that I saw
Was the sun through yellow curtain, and a rainbow on the wall
Blue, red, green and gold to welcome you, crimson crystal beads to beckon

Oh, won't you stay,
We'll put on the day
There's a sun show every second

Now the curtain opens on a portrait of today
And the streets are paved with passers-by
And pigeons fly
And papers lie
Waiting to blow away

Woke up, it was a Chelsea morning, and the first thing that I knew
there was milk and toast and honey and a bowl of oranges, too
And the sun poured in like butterscotch and stuck to all my senses

Oh, won't you stay
We'll put on the day
And we'll talk in present tenses

When the curtain closes and the rainbow runs away
I will bring you incense owls by night, by candlelight
By jewel-light
If only you will stay
Pretty baby, won't you wake up, it's a Chelsea morning!



Wednesday, December 2

Nirvana - Nevermind

I think something that the music world needs to know is the reason why Nirvana was a great band. Not just a good band, or even a talented band. A great band - and after hearing this album there is no doubt that Cobain, Grohl and Novoselic belong in the company of the Beatles.

Part of the reason is Pop, because Nirvana is a pop band. Their appeal is firstly melodic, then visceral, then formal, and it is satisfying on all three levels.
Part of the reason must be cultural, because the subject matter was groundbreaking. Not that Kurt was much of a lyricist in the formal sense - but he had a knack for refrains that were revealing if not technically facile. But nobody had written music about how little they cared before. If anything, the history of rock n' roll was a series of ever-more-violent ways of caring. And of course the mere novelty of Cobain's lyrics wouldn't have carried if it didn't signify to a generation of jaded youths.
Part of the reason is Cobain himself, who was a personality as well as a frontman, like any proper rock star. He especially reminds us of John Lennon, whose life was submitted to the media as the ultimate art project. And Cobain the man greatly informs the music, which is self-deprecating, often darkly funny, and never cares as little as it claims because it always sounds so good.
Cobain's myth was compelling, and Nirvana's myth was compelling because it gave the new generation an ideal free of self-importance. But perhaps his cultural importance is overstated.
The main thing here is the music, which is pop at its best - tuneful, uncultured, uncluttered, and playful.

EDIT: shall I presume to define pop? Let me put forward a hypothesis. Pop is non-idiomatic, audience-oriented music. Non idiomatic as in free of a unifying aesthetic (radiohead, for example, is Not Pop. )
adam

wb :

Blog Archive