Friday, September 15, 2006

I don't like "hard" music

On the radio show which Talya and I did this past summer, I made the mistake of playing the Jesus and Mary Chain single "Sidewalking". Don't try to remember how that song goes, because the important thing is (if I recall) the unnecessary "hard" and "edgy" bass-line, the drum machine, and abrasive (in a bad way) production. Maybe if I listened to it today, it wouldn't strike me at all, but in my expectations of the Jesus and Mary Chain, I was totally unprepared for such an unpleasant and digital experience.

So, over the air, I went on a rant about how I don't like "hard" music, eliciting a giggling response from my mother that "that's what we thought you DID like." But I think having said this, it does require some explanation.

How is "hard" different (and worse) than concepts like "heavy", "aggressive", "brutal", etc., all things that I think can be used postitively?

I think that each of these terms also has a shadow-life, normally in popular music, where its virtues are appropriated, and its identity (negatively) demonstrated. So, real heavy music would be the palm-muted bridge to Judas Priest "beyond the realms of death", and faux heavy music would be the nonsense gurgling riffs of a band like Korn.

Real aggressive music would be the insanely dangerous early Poison Idea, who sound like, if they weren't holding their instruments, would probably leap off the stage and beat you down. Faux aggressive music is the recycled gangster aesthetic of latter-day rap, where there is nothing convincing about the soap opera-esque aggression of the lyrics.

"Brutal" music would be like Fear of God, Think I Care, No Comment, absolutely feral. Faux brutal music is best heard in the senseless high-pitched clicking of the double-bass-drum in modern metal, meant to approximate some unrelenting attack but just sounding detached and having no effect but to clutter the mix.

There is however, no positive side to "hard" music. Hard is inherently a pose, inherently faux. Hard is a production trick, a lyrical pretension, a sleight of hand. Techno's insistence at adding pronounced beats to all music is "hard". Ditto, rap. Metal-core's stance is "hard". It is simply an image, or a knob being turned, or an after-thought. "Hard" is everything that is added between the practice space and the album.

"Hard" is World Burns to Death and post-1988 Metallica. "Hard" is Justin Timberlake and Madball.

suggestions for further listening:
heavy: Candlemass, Celtic Frost, Judas Priest, Joy Division, Assuck, Bastard, Cro Mags, Neil Young
aggressive: Koro, Antidote, Morbid Angel, Sacramentary Abolishment, Earth AD
brutal: Suffocation, Neanderthal, Dark Angel, Das Oath, Blitz "Razors in the Night"
* * * * *
I should also say that while writing this, I was distracted for about 10 minutes by the strangely compelling allmusic.com Recap of the "Rock Star" tv series

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

disagree about "Sidewalking" (I like that song) but I know what you're getting at. maybe you need to hear the 8-minute extended version.

-jeff

thanks for not mentioning/dissing Swans

Anonymous said...

This blog is so fuckin hard, bro!

Anonymous said...


that crap that i don't like is what is "hard," therefore "hard" music is crap.

Ben Parker said...

i don't think that is something someone who could read or follow an argument would extrapolate from what I wrote.

Anonymous said...

if you don't like hard music, you must be a wuss.