With Mr. Moderator’s permission, I have been granted the right to choose today’s poll, a poll that is directly related to my thoughts on Rock Tits & Ass (T&A). I think it is important that you not only have the chance to vote but to comment on this issue.
We’re not talking about Meat Loaf’s tits or Patti Smith’s scrawny ass, mind you, but the musical equivalent of T & A, the elements of a rock song that first draw you in. I can only speak for my perspective as a heterosexual man, but in terms of sexual attraction, I would venture to guess that all of us have a part of the body that we first focus on, that’s our gateway to a greater sense of desire, perhaps. Similarly, in terms of rock songs, I would venture to guess that some of you are “guitar men” and some of you are “drums men.” Guitar women/drums women, too, of course. Some of you may be the old-fashioned type who are primarily attracted to a nice voice. What do you listen for first when you are presented with a new rock song? Do you find it hard to love a song that’s lacking this one key focal point? I ask because I’m working on a review of a pretty good band that’s sorely lacking in a lead guitarist. I’ll leave it to you to determine whether this means no rock tits, ass, or pretty face, from my perspective. What’s a poor boy to do?
What’s with the write-in votes for “hooks?” That’s not a particular element. That’s like saying I’m attracted to people who are all-around good looking with a nice personality. Who isn’t? What’s next, a write-in for “songwriting?” Be real, people. Break it down to that first thing your ears go to, or that first thing your ears miss when not in a song. Shit, Mike + the Mechanics songs have “hooks!”
I see what you mean, Ed. I’m a rhythm section guy, but that too might be too much at once. Let’s just say I love a fat, driving bass. Yeah, that’s me staring at your bass.
And what’s with “the groove?” Same thing. This is like saying you like petite brunettes with deep tans. Mr. Mod used some restraint and copped to the first thing he “stares” at, as he put it. I stare at the lead guitar. How ’bout you?
Then why is “production” one of the options available in the original list? That seems to me like saying you like someone for their gestalt.
That’s a good question, BigSteve, and I may have to think about my answer. Let’s just say that the overall production can be the first thing you hear. An album can be reproduced a different way, such as Raw Power. An album can’t be “re-grooved” or “re-hooked.” Ask Richard Lloyd.
Sorry KingEd but I don’t listen to songs with my rod.
Good comeback, Oats!
Sure albums can be regrooved and/or rehooked. That’s what all those remix albums are doing.
Btw thanks for the clip. That’s got to be the worst music I’ve heard in a long time. Did that guy set his blowsynth thingy to sound like that on purpose?
It is and always has been definitely “Hooks” for me…then next it was the drums but now since playing more guitar these days I tend to listen to that in more details first…
I’m definitely a hooks man. Sorry, but none of the other stuff really matters to me if there isn’t anything catchy about the song. If I’m drawn into a song, then I probably listen to the guitars more than anything else, but if the song is catchy, it can be all synth and I’ll still probably like it.
I can’t fight the tide for “hooks,” can I? Does no one else see why “hooks” doesn’t equate with T or A? Did my throwing “Production” into the mix shoot my intended investigation in the foot? Too bad. I’ll stop trying to stem the tide of “hooks,” but I will remind you lovers of “hooks” that Mike + the Mechanics use a lot of hooks in their songs. Do we have more M + M fans here than I’d previously imagined?
When I voted for hooks I had something particular in mind. I don’t mean the cheesy hooks that you hear in a beer commercial (or an M & M song–then again, what’s the difference, really?). I’m talking about a a some sort of riff that forms the backbone of the song. Almost as if you removed it you wouldn’t really have a song at all. This is way less “technical” (if you will) than whether the guitar or drums is cool; it is more “artistic.” I’m not sure I should draw this line, but draw it I will.
I hear you, Ed. It seems to be a testosterone-centric day on Rock Town Hall, and many are dancing around the issue. I’ll say it again: I’m a bass man. An otherwise great pop song with all the other stuff I like yet no interesting and/or driving bass part is hard for me to like. Even when the hooks otherwise rule. Play me your favorite Marshall Crenshaw song, for instance.
ed, girl watching and song listening is a nice analogy.
but if you want to follow through with it, then you have to allow for answers that you might think don’t qualify.
lots of different people look for different things first, and as we’re finding out, they listen for different things too.
who are YOU, or who is ANYONE, to tell them that what they listen for first doesn’t “qualify”?
The first thing that catches me is the guitars. No guitars, no Rock, no matter how hard ya try. But to keep me, I need to think it’s sincere. That’s more important than hooks, groove, and melody.
Welcome 2000 man. And I agree absolutely, no guitars, no Rock.
Mr. Moderator requires a Bass? Seriously- would you consider a song with a bass and no guitar more so than a guitar and no bass?
2000 man – the emphasis on MAN – thank the lord for your entry on this thread! The rest of you, Mod and Clean excluded, have been tippy-toeing around this question with all these “great personality” answers. GUITARS! You ever see a pretty good band with pretty good songs that lacked a lead guitarist (or lead instrumentalist of any sort, for that matter)? There’s a pretty good band I’ve been listening to the last month that’s sorely lacking a lead guitarist. They play this Stonesy sort of music, and every time you expect a Johnny Thunders-like lead, all you get are a couple of measures of rhythm guitar. It’s not like the Ramones, where teh lack of guitar solos is a statement. It’s just like…like they never bothered to add the Chuck Berry-riffing guitarist.
The votes suggest that King Ed’s perspective on this problem has been booted offstage. No contract for you this year. Take your lumps when you’ve earned them and be thankful for the insight you’ve received.
Anyone who has to focus on only one aspect of a sex interest or a song at the same time is still playing minor league ball. You’re sitting around waiting on the fast one, big guy, but what you’ve seen is two curves and a slider and you’ve already struck out.
With all tough love, and encouraging you to attend spring training next year. You’re very nearly one of our top prospects!
After thinking about this all day I find myself unable to pick an instrument or answer the question within the parameters of the original formulation. I do think that the instruments are the musical equivalent of the T and the A. The cliche is that all men are either tit men or ass men. A smaller number of men may fetishize feet or hair or other body parts. Or the bass.
I’m going to have to go with groove, which is not the equivalent of personality. I think of it more like the walk, which is more personal and perhaps more intimate, though still essentially visual. The way the parts work together. As the song says, it ain’t the meat, it’s the motion.
That’s how I voted, Steve. But as I hope you know, you’ve always been on my Major League Team Quality.
That said, if we consider the reality that individual taste is ultimately headed to the dust bin of history, there’s no doubt that one instrument, and one instrument alone, is historically responsible for the unique profile of rock and roll: the electric guitar. The groove and the walk, which we’re agreeing about, are not as essentially rock.
The first thing I thought when Mr. Mod said he needed the bass, I thought, “What about The Gories? Mick Collins ALWAYS brings The Rock.” But then I thought, maybe he could take solace in The Dirtbombs two bass guitar, two drum Rock (which has always grabbed me more than The Gories anyway). But for an essentially bassless bit of The Rock, what about Sleater/Kinney? The Woods is guitar heaven.
I think if we’re comparing The Rock to the opposite sex, then the initial question was about what grabs you more than what keeps you. As for hooks or groove – that’s never what catches my eye (or ear) first. It’s that flash of guitars (or glimpse of blonde hair) that grabs me. Hooks, groove, etc. are what keeps me or sends me on my way.
King Ed, who’s your Stonesy band you can’t decide on? Stonesy guitars – that’s my blonde hair. I ALWAYS have to look at that!
Sleater-Kinney is a rare band I can like that doesn’t use bass. A couple of great James Blood Ulmer’s albums also lack bass yet work great as well. I’m still stealing a glance at the chance of a latent bass, however.
BigSteve, the “walk” comparison isn’t a bad way around Ed’s parameters. Wonder what he’ll think.
2000 Man, I would guess that Ed’s talking about Heartless Bastards. He’s got a piece involving on of their records in the works that’s supposed to be ready early next week.
I don’t know … in the beginning rock was all about the beat, and it was at least as much about the piano as the guitar.
Taking the long view, the guitar may turn out to be a temporary aberration. The combination of the midi keyboard and the computer keyboard may be reasserting their prominence, to say nothing of sophisticated rhythm programming software.
Taking the long view, there’s no doubt that the guitar was indeed a temporary aberration. That’s my point. Taking the long view, rock and roll was a temporary aberration also. And although they’re not absolutely continuous, those aberrations are more or less identical, timewise. So it’s not surprising that, as innovations, they’re both dead.
But beat, no. The basic beat of rock and roll is not significantly different than beats that were already developed in jazz and blues of the 50s. The only huge difference between jump blues and early rock and roll is which instrument plays lead, sax or guitar. 50s electric blues rides the difference here in intriguingly complex ways.
Beat may very well live. Rock and roll is history.
mwall, you forgot to say Long Live Rock!
I may think of the contemporary electronic beat music as more continuous with rock music than you do, and it sounds like I think of the 40s and 50s as less continuous than you do. But if we start analaysing the evolution of swing and backbeats everyone else will go to sleep. And we’ll seem a lot more ancient than we really are.
I’m listening to my 5 discs of The Carter Family today anyway. Keep on the sunny side of life….
All right, it took me this long to really wrap my head around this question and make the analogistic (?) connections, in the process learning a lot about my own principles in both areas.
While I totally agree with BigSteve’s groove/walk analogy, I don’t think it nails the question. By the time you’ve evaluated the walk you probably already know what the person you’re dealing with looks like.
Also, to continue the analogy, I take an appreciative, evaluative gander at every woman I meet between the ages of, oh, 20 and 55 or so (that top end seems to go up every year), and take each on their own terms. Same with songs. I’m sure this is true of most of us (with the usual exceptions for those with other proclivities) (and even then …).
I agree with KingEd that “hooks” is too general; everyone likes those. I’d add, though, that big categories such as “guitar,” “bass,” “drums,” feel too general as well. Everyone has examples of those that they like.
So the real question, in my book, isn’t so much “What do you look for?” or “What’s your favorite part?” (of a person or a song) as “What are you a sucker for?”
To continue the analogy: If I see a big, unruly mop of hair covering half a woman’s face, I’ve got to see the rest. EVEN IF (and this is the key part) (that’s why I put it in ALL CAPS) all other initial signs, such as figure or fashion sense or even walk, are unpromising. Heck, even if it’s a woman I know, and therefore know isn’t all that appealing on balance, I’ll watch that big bush of hair flopping down the hallway, and it does my heart good.
So, to follow THAT analogy, I’m gonna go with backing vocals. Particularly the kind that sing something that the lead singer doesn’t, or even a chorus where the lead singer is emoting while the rest of the band is singing the chorus straight-on. Anything where I can hear the harmony vocals by themselves.
Chalk it up to my early desire to be a Pip maybe; I don’t know. But I’ll listen through to the end of an otherwise weak song, and listen again, and listen over the years, if it’s got that. “I Want It That Way” being a primo top-40 example.
Have I done anything valuable here?
Massimo, you’ve done wonders with this question. You’ve taken it like a man and made more of it that any of us had imagined. I know some will object to what I’m about to say, but I ACCEPT your answer.
I’ll be interested in Big Ed’s take on The Heartless Bastards. I like them quite a bit. Erika has a distinct sound and she has a powerful voice. I haven’t gotten around to getting their second album yet, but the first one is pretty cool.
Thank you, KingEd. I’m all about acceptance. And in a forum where “You’ve … made more of it tha[n] any of us had imagined” is not always a compliment, I’m pleased you’re pleased.
To answer Rick’s question, I’m a sucker for:
-Really tight drum/bass arrangements
– A really nice breakdown and then a great bass fill back into the song
– A commitment to the beat
– Cool use of double-track vocals