Do you hate soulless music?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Why is it considered an inherently bad thing? A lot of reviews will dismiss something as lacking in "soul" or emotion, without any further explanation as to why this makes the record a less satisfying listening experience.

I personally have no problem with music lacking emotion. I like cold sounds, and lyrics which reveal little. Sometimes I crave some emotionally impacting music, but sometimes I find emotion wearisome. I want to listen to patterns and textures devoid of any great sadness, happiness whatever. i am grateful that I live in a world where i can listen to a bit of both, depending on my mood. A craving for one on a particular day does not make the other one a bad thing. The division could be compared to a rock/dance division. They are different, one is not necessarily better.

Why do many people consider soullessness a bad thing? Isn't there room for more than one way of working?

I'm sure that this has been touched on/covered in a gazillion other threads, but I missed those, so I'm dragging it up again. Sorry!

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 13:40 (twenty-three years ago)

The criticism implies a passive role for the listener - that the l's role is to attend as an artist communicates the state of their soul. If you think the impact on the listener's own soul is what matters then the criticism loses force. Where it could potentially be useful is as shorthand for a performance where expressed and convincing emotion might have been expected but is in the reviewer's mind lacking.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 13:50 (twenty-three years ago)

Not really though I am not a fan. But I definitely dislike soul music.

― alex in mainhattan (alex63), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 13:56 (twenty-three years ago)

soul, what the hell is it anyway?

― gareth (gareth), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 13:57 (twenty-three years ago)

"Soul" is all relative, though, isn't it?

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 15:05 (twenty-three years ago)

It's possible to over-soul a song too. (you know what I'm talking about.)

But genereally, a song about something emotional doesn't sound so great if done without soul. Also, I saw a cover band play Prince's "Let's Go Crazy" with absolutely no soul - and it sucked.

But Devo singing "satisfaction" without soul was cool.

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 15:14 (twenty-three years ago)

I think this is why blanket statements = dud

― Horace Mann (Horace Mann), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 15:16 (twenty-three years ago)

that sweet soulless music

― Bruce Urquhart (Bruce Urquhart), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 15:28 (twenty-three years ago)

....much of what is considered soul/r'n'b, I consider decidedly soulless and devoid of real feeling...

have you ever believed a word sung by Whitney, Mariah, Anastasia, Tina Turner, Aaliyah et al? I haven't.

― russ t, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 16:52 (twenty-three years ago)

You obviously haven't heard much Tina Turner, then.

― hstencil, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 16:53 (twenty-three years ago)

All music can and does have 'soul', if 'soul' simply means the ability to cause emotional response which is kind of what I think most people mean when they use the term in this context. If it doesn't cause an emotional response in YOU, it therefore has no soul. This is bollox. Down with the soul/body divide!

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

Anastasia is atrocious but that's not why - the sandpaper timbre of her voice is so obnoxious it wouldn't matter what she sang (her next single will probably be brilliant curses).

Working definition of soulless - someone who has never believed a word Aaliyah sung.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 16:57 (twenty-three years ago)

What if that someone doesn't know English? *hides*

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 16:59 (twenty-three years ago)

Then by definitition they couldn't disbelieve them either surely?

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:02 (twenty-three years ago)

Stop it Raggett. Awkward bugger.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:06 (twenty-three years ago)

I like Tom's answer. :-)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:07 (twenty-three years ago)

"have you ever believed a word sung Tina Turner..."

uhm, yes.

― Shakey Mo Collier, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:43 (twenty-three years ago)

aww, me too, actually.... I believe her every time I wince at 'The Best'.

Ahem.

― russ t, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:49 (twenty-three years ago)

is it OK for pasty white people to listen to soul?

― dave225 (Dave225), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 17:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Only back when we needed them to play the string charts.

― nabisco (nabisco), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:01 (twenty-three years ago)

Working definition of soulless - someone who has never believed a word Aaliyah sung.

:(

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:17 (twenty-three years ago)

I think there is something very wrong with me, 'cause when I think of music that has "soul", the first few names that come to mind are NOT Ashanti or Alicia Keys, but Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan and Youssou N'Dour and Peter Gabriel.

And I think that, by fully embracing their lack of "soul", acts such as Devo and Servotron become more "soulful" than shit like R. Kelly and Usher. I don't have anything to back that up with, that's just how I feel, maaaaaaaan.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:26 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I think Devo's "Satisfaction" is a very soulful take on the song - if the soulfulness in question is that of a awkward/geeky Midwestern teenage boy. What's wrong with that?

― hstencil, Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:33 (twenty-three years ago)

nza, you say that because life is boring and you feel r.kelly and usher aren't allowed to say so.

― mitch lastnamewithheld (mitchlnw), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I always thought that about their version, especially as opposed to the Stones', which sounded like exactly like it was performed by a bunch of guys who obviously got PLENTY of "satisfaction"...the angularity, the obtuseness of it, it made it actually BELIEVABLE...like, 'wow, I bet these guys really don't ever get no satisfaction'.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:35 (twenty-three years ago)

they get the satisfaction BEING DEVO!!

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:37 (twenty-three years ago)

Most ppl here just use "music without soul" as a shorthand for "music I like"; perhaps it would be helpful if Killian could point out some examples of soulless music he likes?

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:41 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah but we all like "music with soul" or even "soul music" too Daniel!

Favourite current soulless song - "Made You Look" - this demonstrates the un-usefulness of the adjective.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:44 (twenty-three years ago)

This talk of music with soul and music without soul makes me yearn for a D'Angelo/Jill Scott/They Might Be Giants colab. Just to see how it turns out.

― nickalicious (nickalicious), Tuesday, 21 January 2003 18:46 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah but we all like "music with soul" or even "soul music" too Daniel!

Graaaahr! Typo! I, meant of course:

Most ppl here just use "music without soul" as a shorthand for "music I dislike"

― Daniel_Rf (Daniel_Rf), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 00:05 (twenty-three years ago)

godd damn, "lacking in soul" is a positive review, right? I mean, unless it's soul. Same with "unfunky" unless it's funk. I don;t think emontion = soul in a musical sense, because it has a definite musical meaning. So, the first Trembling Blue Stars is a very unsoulful album but it has a lot of emotion. Or wallowing in self-pity. Anyway, I love it. I should note that i actually like some soul, Otis, Solomon Burke, etc. Today's soulful singers hae mostly missed the point though.

― g (graysonlane), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 00:12 (twenty-three years ago)

I've always felt that "soul" referred to the depth or credibilty of a song. I love old "soul" records. "Soul"in this case referring to the predominantly black, mostly southern phenomenon. Back in the day when someone was screaming on record about their woman leaving them - you felt that. The term has largely become a joke now. In my opinion Neil Young is one of the most soulful guys going now 'cause you know he believes every word and you feel every note - even during those one note guitar solos.

― Julien S. (Julien Sandiford), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 11:01 (twenty-three years ago)

I certainly feel every note during those yes.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 12:40 (twenty-three years ago)

"In my opinion Neil Young is one of the most soulful guys going now 'cause you know he believes every word and you feel every note - even during those one note guitar solos."

But why is it important that everyone should believe every word they say? Can't dishonesty, or vacuous fun, or hesitancy to express outright emotions be just as fascinating?

"perhaps it would be helpful if Killian could point out some examples of soulless music he likes?"

Far too many to list, but 3 albums I feel that don't express much emotion, in different ways, are:

Black Box Recorder - The Facts of Life
Beck - Midnite Vultures
Clinic - Internal Wrangler.

I love 'em regardless. And that's Kilian, not KilLian! ;-)

My point was, I'd prefer it if reviews said:

"This album lacks soul/emotion, and I object to this because..."

rather than

"I object to this album, because it lacks emotion."

"Most ppl here just use "music without soul" as a shorthand for "music I dislike""

But WHY? To me the soulful/soulless divide, is just a vague separation like rock/dance. there's good stuff and crap stuff on both sides. i'd prefer if reviewers explained WHY they felt the record would be improved if the artist expressed more naked emotion.

― weasel diesel (K1l14n), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 12:44 (twenty-three years ago)

the idea, rather than the actuality, of "soul" has been pop esperanto for easily 15-20 years now. so, for example, everyone on fame academy and popstars is compelled at bayonet point to "emote" whitney/celine/mariah-style. they cannot sing in their own voice or allow failure to penetrate what they are singing. soul as corporatisation.

(or as simon r would say: "their voice is not their own. they are the product of a discourse" - except even that's not true; they are actually the product of a desired demographic.

but certainly robert wyatt has more soul in his fingernails than celine dion has in her entire tax-evasion pacific island of a corpus.

― Marcello Carlin, Wednesday, 22 January 2003 12:46 (twenty-three years ago)

In which case, given that the demographic obviously like the style, maybe soul is the new solo - measurement of semi-technical cred ("S/he can't sing." being I'd guess as damning an indictment now as a reality-pop fan could offer for dismissing music, just like "can't play" might once have been - obviously people who actually know about singing/playing have different views, cf Dan Perry on many threads. It's not actually being able to sing that counts but the impression given thereof.)

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 12:52 (twenty-three years ago)

Emotion doesn't have to be 'naked' anyway, and it doesn't have to be joyful or miserable either. There are a whole plethora of emotions (fun, fear, distaste, anxiety, lust, god knows what, you pick the rest, thousands, everything that can be felt and/or expressed). Hell, I'd have the state of 'deep thought' down as an emotion, rest, peace, contentment, hatred, insouciance, bloody loads and loads and loads, so I'd be very much against describing something like Clinic or Beck as 'soulless' or 'without soul'. Yet somehow Mariah and Sealion are without soul. Faked soul, faked emoton. I was trying to nail this with my Beth Gibbons review on stylus, but I'm not sure I got anywhere near. Have a gander;

http://www.stylusmagazine.com/musicreviews/beth_gibbons_and_rustin_man-out_of_season.shtml

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:04 (twenty-three years ago)

Unless the song is written, recorded and produced within the duration of the flush of 'emotion' which the song ostensibly is supposed to convey then how can it actually convey same? (whatever 'emotion' is)

― dave "21st century schizoid man" q, Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:19 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom (or anyone) how do I enclose that link in some pretty blue writing please? So I could put the word 'here' and you'd just click that rather than seeing the whole ugly big link?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:20 (twenty-three years ago)

Because you can 'remember' it and recreate it. isn't that what art is all about? Representation and re-creation of experiences/thoughts/feelings, etcetera? And the inspiration of those feelings in the listener/viewer/audience?

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:21 (twenty-three years ago)

Wouldn't Reynolds divide it into music with an ideology behind it or which represents a social movement or reflects one and stuff that is just nice to listen to?

― Ronan (Ronan), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:23 (twenty-three years ago)

'Memory''s a filter that fucks the signal up even better than 'perception' tho

― dave q, Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:34 (twenty-three years ago)

Aye, but isn't the concept of a 'fucked filter' quite a good one? ie; Not quite achieving exactly what you set out to do and ending up with something actually better or more effective, almost by accident? I remember Teenage Fanclub in an interview years ago saying that they thought Ocean Colour Scene were too good as musicians, and that was what made them boring and 'soulless', because they set out to, say, sound like an old record, and did it straight away with ease, got the soudn down pat, and Teenage Fanclub themselves were that bit incompetent which made the music so much more refreshing and moving and enjoyable, ie; inability to reproduce old perfectly = new? I'm sure the same idea could work for conveying emotions.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Wednesday, 22 January 2003 13:38 (twenty-three years ago)

Depends what the ulterior motives of artist are in that case

― dave q, Wednesday, 22 January 2003 14:19 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.