Celebrating the greatness of "Party Hard"

theres like 47 Andrew WK threads btw.

N/a, you're a moron.

Hi there!

Neither. But on a "Party Hard" thread, party music would seem to be slightly relevant, I'd think.

x-post

x-post

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0431/eddy.php

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0430/eddy.php

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0425/eddy.php

(for starters. and just ignore the non-wimpy stuff, okay?)

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0427/eddy1.php

Another thought: Might 2 Live Crew and AWK have a connection. I mean, "party" and "pussy" aren;t too far off from one another.

And Chuck, why are people so obsessed with your tastes anyway? As if there's a rhyme and reason ...

Not to be taken seriously.

i think that points to a serious limitation of your critical mode (this explains why the editor thing is poss. problematic for me).... but again i've gone through this on other threads....

(Besides, I may have been shortchanging myself in my post above. I've often found plenty of things to say about stuff I find beautiful -- in my books, and elsewhere. And I avoid writing about plenty of stuff that I couldn't think of anything to say other than "good to pump your fist to," as well, come to think of it. But to assume any critic will have something intersting to say about *everything* he likes or dislikes is absurd. Give or take Christgau in his consumer guide, I can't think of any critics who've ever even *attempted* that.)

xposts

sorry this comes off as hostile and personal, but i don't know how else to put it.

i'm not the one to do the kind of music criticism i'd like to see (in addition to the kind that exists at present), since i don't have the musicological background. however i do wish to practice something similar w/r/t to film criticism and have similar feelings about that, though i think the situation is not as dire for a variety of reasons.

anyway that whole post is pretty poorly written, sorry.

and again, i'm not suggesting that i could do better necessarily.

I have no idea what "methods" you think are lacking, because you've never explained them with any coherence whatsoever, as far as I can remember. And that you seem to think every critic in the Voice uses the same ones is bizarre. (Not sure where I was being "defensive," either. You baited me like always, and I answered. But whatever.)

Sparks fanatics (of which I am one) often hold this to be the case, that Queen sorta revamped their approach a bit after Sparks came over and starting scoring some hits, resulting in Queen swiftly turning into chart monsters etc. Some folks I know who WERE THERE, MAN! that post on my mailing list even point to a specific show that I think both of them played, but I could be wrong there.

xpost

i've explained this elsewhere; i'll try to search for an example in a moment. briefly: one that is more attentive to how a piece of music functions as music--attentive to stylistic norms, etc. a musical analogue to something like ozu and the poetics of cinema. [[i will write more later, as i like to formulate my prescription carefully and that takes more time/concentration than i can afford while at work.]]

your type of criticism, as i've mentioned before as well = relying on rough analogy/comparison/impressionistic language. again, not problematic in itself, but when it's the dominant mode to the near-exclusion of others....

And that you seem to think every critic in the Voice uses the same ones is bizarre

i noted above that i think that some other VV critics have a very similar mode, with variations. note "with variations." also note "some other." i was being purposely tentative, not that it seemed to help.

Not sure where I was being "defensive," either

your responses to my thoughts on this issue never seem to evidence a willingness to engage me aside from defending yourself against criticism. occasionally this has degenerated into you hurling insults and epithets at me. thankfully that hasn't happened on this thread. i'm astonished and chagrined that someone who is editing a music section--at a weekly in new york city no less--seems so unwilling to seriously debate questions re. his profession.

i have learned more from gary giddins

And that you seem to think every critic in the Voice uses the same ones is bizarre

i noted above that i think that some other VV critics have a very similar mode, with variations. note "with variations." also note "some other." i was being purposely tentative, not that it seemed to help.

actually this gets right to heart of my frustration--you often mischaracterize what people are writing when they are criticizing you or rock criticism in general. rather than actually engage their criticisms, you form a caricature that you can rail against with due indignance. in short, you don't seem to want to LISTEN past a certain point (or perhaps just to people who don't share the requisite series of biases re. criticism).

this is an important issue to me.

(tons of xposts)

No, I don't. (Do I think music criticism could be better, or different? Of course; I've been saying that for 20 years. Do I think I'm limited in what criticism at the Voice is allowed to entail? Of course; I'm limited by space, by newspaper design, by lots of things. But do I think the Voice does not already contain a "relatively rigorous appreciation of how music is made and how it functions, formally speaking"? Inasmuch as I even understand what that phrase is supposed to mean, I actually think we do that pretty well here.)

Wynton Marsalis said on the Ken Burn's thing that his definition of jazz was music with a particular triplet-based rhythmic swing. (Despite having quoted WM twice approvingly on this thread I'm not a disciple or a particular fan). We are never going to get agreement on where the barrier between jazz and not-jazz should be drawn, but for various reasons I think this is the most practical place. The issue is clouded by the fact that "not-jazz" is too often used as a pejorative term by critics: in my view it should be a purely descriptive term with no value attached.

If you accept this definition "Bitches Brew", for example, is "not jazz" (I love "Bitches Brew" - this is not an attempt to sneak in a denigration of electric Miles).

You can see where my argument is headed: once you look at "jazz" that is influenced by Sly/JB, then if you accept my argument it is "not jazz" and even if you don't there is a quantum leap away from the jazz that went before. We are not talking subtle gradations of difference.

Looking at the characteristics of funk rhythm sections as opposed to jazz (caution: gross simplification/generalisations to follow)

- the implied triplet feel of jazz is replaced by a squarer 4/4 time where 8th beats are regularised.

- much more of the drum kit is given over to keeping time. Typically the bass drum and snare drum will play repetitive patterns as well as the cymbals. That so much more whole kit is dedicated to keeping time gives the drummer the choice of using cymbals to reinforce the regular pattern or frees them up for emphasis/decoration.

- These repetitive patterns can be extremely complex though. The mix of offbeats and on-beats is much more sophisticated than most earlier rock drumming. They would also vary between sections of the song (in some James Brown songs the tendency to stay on a single chord meant that subtle differences in the basic rhythm might be the only or main difference between verse and bridge, for example).

- Because many of the guys playing this style were virtuosi they could maintain and subtly vary these sophisticated patterns while

- The bassist will "lock" with this overall pattern (this is very different from the typical jazz pattern where, as mentioned, the bassist locks with the cymbal and the rest of the kit it freed up for more creative emphasis etc).

- The bassist will also play a repetitive rhythmic pattern, often on a single chord throughout. This has important implications:

1 In jazz the division of time into bars is much less obvious because there is a fairly even flow of quarter beats on cymbal and bass. In funk the more typical pattern is for the bass and drums to come together strongly on the "one" beat of the bar followed by the drums and bass playing divergent but complementary patterns of off and on beats. Hence in Funkadelic the constant quasi-mystical reference to the "One". (Just to illustrate how simplistic this is the repetition could be over two bars not one, so the "One" is emphasised only every second bar; and some patterns manage to emphasise the "One" even though neither the bass or drums play the one beat!

2 Funk tends to be harmonically very simple and is glued together by the bass playing a repetitive harmonic pattern. Jazz tunes tend to go on a harmonic journey coming "home" by resolving to the tonic periodically every 8 or 16 or 32 bars. Funk typically comes "home" harmonically at the beginning of every bar when the bass thumps out the root note of the chord. In any case the bass's use of repetitive patterns glues the harmony together.

One consequence of this is that extremely discordant elements can be introduced. The discordant elements in jazz tend to be "controlled": increasingly discordant harmonies are introduced as the music develops and the ear accepts these for two reasons:

1 These discordant harmonies are resolved to the more consonant tonic.

2. With familiarisation the jazz fan learns to regard these harmonies as beautiful (or semi-consonant) in themselves.

In funk the second reason can effectively be done away with: the "glue" of the harmonically repeated bassline and the return "home" to the root at the beginning of every bar means that the ear will tolerate a much greater amount of temporary dissonance, because it is so transient. There is no need for the dissonance to be controlled or consonant to the "educated" ear. This has huge implications for rap and other sample-based forms where the
samples of non-musical materials, or music from different keys can be collaged together and be made to sound congruous by the repetitive harmonic and rhythmic patterns of bass and drums.

(A similar effect is achieved in a lot of free jazz where the use of modal harmonic background means that extreme discordancy can be offset by a continual returning home to harmonic familiarity. That's why lots of listeners brought up on funk or certain rock forms can respond more easily to free jazz than to mainstream jazz: it's a smaller leap, because it's much closer to what they are musically familiar with).

-- ArfArf (ArfAr...) (webmail), January 16th, 2003 6:18 AM. (link)

that last revelation (which is more enlightening than anything i've read in the VV music section) would hardly have been possible without the preceding formal analysis. another positive feature: the clear way in which arfarf lays out his argument (i can't believe i just typed that) means that one can actually poses questions about it, argue with it in a rational manner.

To Live and Shave in L.A. - God and Country Rally! Tour

i was just frustrated that, per our previous arguments, it seemed to me that the person editing the music section didn't seem to evince an understanding that this sort of thing were desirable or even possible, or to recognize that it might bring something to the table that's very absent in most VV criticism.

p.s. to jordan: i think this sort of thing could be very well incorporated into a review (see the bruno and ross examples) without just seeming like showing-off...but it would take a lot of creativity and clear writing. also as noted in other threads i think perhaps this sort of writing can only flourish if it had institutional support (the academy, etc.). which explains *in part* why formal analysis of jazz is so much farther along than that of pop music, because "jazz studies" has been an academic discipline (albeit a small one) for a while now, or at least a subject acceptable to publishers etc. for a long time.

Half serious/half joke.

I will always love AWK!

i used to read popular music (sometimes) when i had university-library access. although i found it to be a bit more sociological-esque criticism than formal criticism. unless i'm thinking of a different journal.

(sniff i wish not all critics with musical knowledge would write about the beatles...seems like a cop out)

i know lots of musicological writing abt the blues, various "ethnic" musics, jazz, classical music of course.... each of which require a different musicological method of course, as would writing about hip-hop or reggae or whatever.

You're right that there's more sociologically-oriented stuff in Popular Music, buth there can be musicological articles, too. There was one on rhythms in the Incredible String Band a few years ago.

I'd love to see your article, Justin.

And this is why I really, really wanna celebrate songs like "Party Hard," because you can't *really* sell and/or publish anything about the *experience* of listening to popular music anymore.

What does this mean?

This is speaking as a man who once crowdsurfed across a London pub when We Want Fun was played.

He's also an outstanding songwriter.

Seriously, though, some of the best criticism I've seen comes from the critic relating his experience of listening to and figuring out an aritst or a work as part of the framework for the review. Bangs, obviously, was very good at this. Landau was as well -- his Blood on the Tracks review uses a comparison with Charlie Chaplain -- in terms of the way he felt both men created their own mythic America. Roger Ebert does this thing routinely in his movie reviews -- often, they;re as much about his consumption of the movie as they are about the film. Both Chucks (Eddy and Klosterman) and Sasha are also really good at that.

i remember that onion interview where he was asked very simple questions and for each answer he rambled for literally about 20 paragraphs, going into tons of biographical and emotional detail. he is so emo he transcends emo.

(so we can keep talking abt andrew wk)

It was his one brief shining moment with me. Emphasis on the word 'brief.' ;-)

S

Oh yeah, he is incredibly emo. Which is why I love him. (That and he can scissor kick.)

-- Je4nne ƒury (jeanneƒur...) (webmail), September 9th, 2004 4:26 PM. (Jeanne Fury) (later) (link)

not very gracefully, but that's part of the charm too...

Andrew WK should have been exponentially more famous than he was.

3AM
carly: pete, im sorry to wake you up, but theres someone who wants to talk to you.

pete: (groggily) ok...

andrew: pete? this is andrew wk! im sorry to wake you up, but carly wanted me to talk to you.

pete: (totally alert) its never too late for you, sir!

etc.

best late night phonecall ever.