"Stairway To Heaven" turns 40 today....

[3shiftgtr]

And neither did this author that I can read. In fact, I thought it was the fact that he DIDN'T separate the two, and did speak specifically of whatever wonderful musical moments may exist in any of these songs as if they should be cherished separate from whatever it was he found annoying about the songs culturally that got you perturbed in the first place?

 

Wow. What got me perturbed was not what he found annoying culturally, it is that there is no reasoning why that relates to MUSIC (other than an disconnected adjective or 2). Cuz um, that is what MUSIC criticism is.

 

Journalistic criticism of the arts is not one's general opinion regarding an artistic subject. It is opinion backed up knowledge and understanding, not droll yet clever generalized adjectives. Again, the cannons of rhetoric. You either explain yourself or you don't. And there was no musical explanation, musical opinion or musical idea regarding WHY the solos et al need to be retired.

 

Nor was there an explanation of what musical retirement is. In any sense.

 

I'll try again this time:

 

I could care less about the songs. I have no opinion one way or another about 40 year old songs I learned how to play in high school. My opinion is about the journalistic community and specifically the rock journalism field. And it is a commonly held belief that you don't need to know anything about the subject matter in order to write from a position of authority.

 

I don't know who said it (Zappa maybe)

 

"Rock journalism is the only field where you don't have to know anything about what you are writing about."

 

Feel qualified to write an critical opinion regarding 16th century architecture? Compared to a scholar's article on the same subject? Or a famous architects opinion? You know, someone who actually knows alot about architecture? Backs his opinion up with relevant concepts that ENLIGHTEN the reader....cuz the reader isn't an architect and the writer is? Is it wrong to feel that the writer should offer something?

 

And it bugs me when they don't. Sorry.

[zekmoe]

We play it and it goes over well.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Wow. What got me perturbed was not what he found annoying culturally, it is that there is no reasoning why that relates to MUSIC

 

 

Well, you lost me then. Because it only sounds to me like you're perturbed because he separated the culture from the music and now you're saying there is no reasoning why the two even relate?

 

My take is you can't separate the music from the culture with most rock music and particularly can't with such iconic pieces. So whenever anyone talks about either, they are talking about both. If one finds the guitar playing in Free Bird to be annoying because of how the culture surrounding the music has eroded the appeal of the music, then what's really the difference if you criticize the piece from either the cultural or the musical perspective? They've become one and the same 40 years later.

 

And I think that was really the point the author was making. Or, at the very least, the perspective from which he was writing.

 

But that's just MY opinion of course.

[kanetoads]

Bottom line : If the kids these days are tired of hearing Dad's music on rotation, they can go make some of their own that is better to replace it with. We are waiting...

[Vito Corleone]

 

Bottom line : If the kids these days are tired of hearing Dad's music on rotation, they can go make some of their own that is better to replace it with. We are waiting...

 

 

There are hundreds, if not thousands of different "rotations" these days. "these kids" replaced Dad's music on THEIR rotations years ago. That they still hear it in environments where Dad is doing the programming has nothing to do with the quality of the music they make. They could make "better" music all day long, but classic rock radio will still play Led Zeppelin.

 

When I was a kid in the 70s there were radio stations playing 50s oldies and plenty of older bands playing that stuff and TV shows and movies where that older music was the focus. The newer stuff "the kids" were making didn't "replace" the older stuff for anyone. It existed side-by-side for a different audience. Some of the old 50s stuff I really liked and still do. Some I was sick to death of. Even to this day, if I never hear "Rock Around The Clock" again that will be fine with me. Hearing it a gazillion times on the radio and as the theme to "Happy Days" was plenty.

 

"Better" is a subjective term. Is "Stairway" objectively better than anything being put out today? Or than was put out 40 years earlier? Who can say? Not you. Not me. We can only report as to whether we personally like it more than something else or not. But that doesn't make it objectively "better" than anything else.

 

No doubt that "Stairway" will live on as long as people old enough to remember it are still living. Question is---will anybody listen to it after all of us alive in 1971 are dead and gone? Because THAT will be the point in time at which the music can finally be separated from the culture.

[Nijyo]

 

Bottom line : If the kids these days are tired of hearing Dad's music on rotation, they can go make some of their own that is better to replace it with. We are waiting...

 

 

Seeing as I hear more 70s, 80s, and 90s tunes in instrument shops than 00's, I don't think they're having much problem with "Dad's" music.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Seeing as I hear more 70s, 80s, and 90s tunes in instrument shops than 00's, I don't think they're having much problem with "Dad's" music.

 

 

That's mostly due to the nature of the instruments. Probably aren't going to hear a ton of Zeppelin in a keyboard store. The wife and I watched an hour or so of videos on "MTV Hits" last night and I commented to her afterwards "did you think you'd ever watch an hour of music videos and not see a single GUITAR in any of them?..."

 

But I don't think the article was so much about not liking older music as it was just a commentary about "enough of the old, tired wank-fests already!"

 

A comment with which I 100% concure.

 

I find it interesting that so many older people look down on modern music because it doesn't have "great guitar solos" any more and such. Could it be because nobody beyond a few pimply-faced teenaged boys who hang out in instrument shops cares about all that wankery?

[Nijyo]

 

That's mostly due to the nature of the instruments. Probably aren't going to hear a ton of Zeppelin in a keyboard store. The wife and I watched an hour or so of videos on "MTV Hits" last night and I commented to her afterwards "did you think you'd ever watch an hour of music videos and not see a single GUITAR in any of them?..." But I don't think the article was so much about not liking older music as it was just a commentary about "enough of the old, tired wank-fests already!" A comment with which I 100% concure. I find it interesting that so many older people look down on modern music because it doesn't have "great guitar solos" any more and such. Could it be because nobody beyond a few pimply-faced teenaged boys who hang out in instrument shops cares about all that wankery?

 

 

Got a lot of strawmen in that there post. I didn't say anything about guitars or particular genres of 70s, 80s, 90s music.

 

I think that younger folks are a lot more interested and knowledgeable about music from those times than you seem to think.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Got a lot of strawmen in that there post. I didn't say anything about guitars or particular genres of 70s, 80s, 90s music. I think that younger folks are a lot more interested and knowledgeable about music from those times than you seem to think.

 

 

I don't doubt they are. I just don't necessarily see that as a unique phenomenon that says anything special about older music vs. newer music. When I was a kid I listened to a lot of 50s rock, 40s big band/pop, 50s country. Didn't mean I liked the newer stuff at the time any less or that the older stuff was in any way superior to the newer stuff and was waiting to be "replaced" by it. It was all good in its own way.

[3shiftgtr]

Well, you lost me then. Because it only sounds to me like you're perturbed because he separated the culture from the music and now you're saying there is no reasoning why the two even relate?

 

Well I did tell you it was MY problem!

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear...I'm kinda rant-y on the subject.

 

What I am heels up about is rock and pop music criticism over all. And this piece is included. I don't have a problem with what he is saying ("we're sick of these tunes"), I have a problem with how he is saying it, and his position of authority.

 

Rock criticism is altogether focused on culture in primary. And the musical aspect falls not, second, third, fourth, or even fifth. It's not really a part of it. And the reason is because the authors DON"T KNOW anything about music! Not one of them could stand on a stage and deliver a song on an instrument. Or in a living room for friends. Nor have they studied it beyond sitting around and listening and observing "a scene." It would be one thing if they made the choice to talk about culture, but they don't. They can't get any further than "wispy guitars" and "pounding drums" as their musical content. They talk about culture cuz that is ALL THEY CAN TALK ABOUT. It is ALL they know about.

 

And that bugs me. Speshilly cuz it doesn't happen in any other form of criticism.

 

I know some of these people. THEY even know it is a joke and don't take it seriously. It is more of a competition to create clever pejoratives, or identify style culture. Most of them are using it as stepping stone to get a "real" job in journalism and writing.

 

And that bugs me even more....{censored}, I love music and it is my {censored}ing life. And they think it is a joke.

 

My take is you can't separate the music from the culture with most rock music and particularly can't with such iconic pieces. So whenever anyone talks about either, they are talking about both. If one finds the guitar playing in Free Bird to be annoying because of how the culture surrounding the music has eroded the appeal of the music, then what's really the difference if you criticize the piece from either the cultural or the musical perspective? They've become one and the same 40 years later.

 

The cultural aspect is inseparable from the music the moment it is made. It is the context in which it is created. On this we agree.

 

So why only talk about the culture....it is only part of the subject matter....what is so wrong with talking about the music too? If the two are as one, why only talk about the one aspect? Especially if, as we agree, they are inseparable. Why not give it at least as much importance as the cultural aspect when you .......wait for it.....wait.....engage in journalistic criticism? The criticism then becomes objectively incomplete by definition if you don't.

[Vito Corleone]

 

Rock criticism is altogether focused on culture in primary. And the musical aspect falls not, second, third, fourth, or even fifth. It's not really a part of it. And the reason is because the authors DON"T KNOW anything about music! Not one of them could stand on a stage and deliver a song on an instrument. Or in a living room for friends. Nor have they studied it beyond sitting around and listening and observing "a scene." It would be one thing if they made the choice to talk about culture, but they don't. They can't get any further than "wispy guitars" and "pounding drums" as their musical content. They talk about culture cuz that is ALL THEY CAN TALK ABOUT. It is ALL they know about. And that bugs me. Speshilly cuz it doesn't happen in any other form of criticism.

 

 

I get what you're saying. And don't disagree with you. I would only add that this phenomenon has probably come about rock music exists, to a very a large degree, as a musical endeavor by people who PLAYING it that don't know much of anything about music. How many rock musicians can't even read? Or tell you what pianissimo means? It's a music that was BORN as a "culture first" form of expression. So the critics should know more? Why? Why would any rock music critic have to know any more about music than The Ramones?

 

And I don't know that that it doesn't happen in other forms of music. Are movie critics former directors or actors? Book critics experts on writing and language? Some might be. Most aren't. They are just, at best, semi-knowledgable-about-the-craft fans who can write reasonably well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

So why only talk about the culture....it is only part of the subject matter....what is so wrong with talking about the music too? If the two are as one, why only talk about the one aspect? Especially if, as we agree, they are inseparable. Why not give it at least as much importance as the cultural aspect when you .......wait for it.....wait.....engage in journalistic criticism? The criticism then becomes objectively incomplete by definition if you don't.

 

 

Do you really want, say, the classical music critics--many of whom DO know a lot about music--criticizing rock? Wouldn't that almost make it worse? Do you really think Jimmy Page's guitar solos should be compared to Segovia?

[rockerdiva]

Ah well. Opinions.

 

I like those tunes and I'm glad I do. Stairway was never a favorite but I still listen to and play lots of Zep. Has it been over played? Yes, but I think the joke is over now, I could probably even get away with playing it at my solo gig. (Not with band, too slow).

 

Billy Joel is also a favorite of mine, and I do like that song and that whole album. My band just learned Hotel and it goes over great. The Doors song, it is ok - was never a big Doors fan but personally, I ENJOY being transported back to a prior era by the sound in those older songs. Free Bird, was that the other one mentioned? Yeah, I can live the rest of my life without that one, or any other Skynyrd. But it had it's place. And I can certainly enjoy playing Gimme Three Steps to a screaming dancing crowd. Yes, I said I ENJOY playing it.

 

I happen to think I have pretty good taste. I listen to some off the beaten path things and some more artsy things, but I love that old Rock and Roll.

I have tried to find never stuff I like as well, and if it is out there, I am not yet hip to much of it.

 

The upside is that local clubs hire bands that play what we like to play.

And when I go out to hear bands, they play songs I like.

Some of my more "lofty" musician friends look down their nose at some of the local cover bands, saying that they play all the same old tunes.

Well, they don't play ALL the same tunes, some have repertoires I like a lot better than others.

But I'm a fan of quite a few of our local cover bands. And I go out to see them when I get the chance, just like I hope people come out to see us often ...

 

I am one of the masses I guess.

 

I don't apologize for it but I find it comical when I hear other musicians talk.

I like classic rock and I just feel lucky that I do, because bottom line - I can get paid to play what I like.

[3shiftgtr]

It's a music that was BORN as a "culture first" form of expression. So the critics should know more? Why? Why would any rock music critic have to know any more about music than The Ramones?

 

How about knowing AT LEAST as much as the Ramones...maybe having their foot in an understanding of the 10,000 hours thing that we all have been thru.... How about not looking down their noses at the artists....."real redneck trailer trash make the best rock" I read recently......how bout GIVING THE READER something other than stylized non-rhetoric as criticism....I could go on.

 

But you like it the way it is. And that is fine. It's your kool aid...you drink it. I told you this was my problem and most people are fine with the way it is. I'm not. So the next time someone looks down their nose at you cuz you play stupid simple pop music in bars for drunks trying to {censored} each other, remember that media helps cultivate opinion.

 

And I don't know that that it doesn't happen in other forms of music. Are movie critics former directors or actors? Book critics experts on writing and language? Some might be. Most aren't. They are just, at best, semi-knowledgable-about-the-craft fans who can write reasonably well.

 

Example: Both Siskel, Ebert and Roper studied film while in school. They can tell you about screen composition and its effects, shape and color themes and which movies pioneered their use and to what effect. They can tell you about the artistic choices made from the actors, to the directors, to the cinematographers. But not in rock journalism....nooooo. All we get is "fretboard flights of fancy"...

 

Do you really want, say, the classical music critics--many of whom DO know a lot about music--criticizing rock? Wouldn't that almost make it worse? Do you really think Jimmy Page's guitar solos should be compared to Segovia?

 

Straw man alert! No one said that critical analysis should include comparing Page to Segovia.....that isn't even near what I am saying....sheesh. If your point is that critics knowing something about what it is they are writing about is a bad thing, then you've made your point. And we disagree.

[Nijyo]

Example: Both Siskel, Ebert and Roper studied film while in school. They can tell you about screen composition and its effects, shape and color themes and which movies pioneered their use and to what effect. They can tell you about the artistic choices made from the actors, to the directors, to the cinematographers. But not in rock journalism....nooooo. All we get is "fretboard flights of fancy"...

 

I actually find the analysis in some guitar/bass/drum magazines of transcriptions to be more interesting than most reviews for that reason. I'd be lying if I said I followed all the analysis of the theory that gets put in some of those accompanying articles (a situation I'm trying to remedy as of late), but they tend to come from a more educated, historical, referential viewpoint than the non-musician-marketed mags.

[MartinC]

It was a long time ago, but at the ARMS tour Page played stairway without a singer. The entire audience sang the entire tune. When he broke into the guitar solo, you could feel the crowd reaction. I'd bet there are literally millions of people who know that solo by heart. It is one of the greatest rock guitar solos ever recorded IMO.

 

One man's wank is another man's inspiration. My band plays all instrumental music, and there's only one of us who's a passable singer. All wanking, all the time. And yet, besides myself, the other three fifty something guys in the group have all done nothing but play music for a living for over thirty years apiece. Somebody apparently likes wanking.

 

Personally, I love flamenco guitar-a complete wankfest based on virtuosity as much as anything. There are a more than a few flamenco guitar players who can fill a hall with an audience kept in silence by the web they weave. There are a lot more people who'd rather dance to Brick house, but there's plenty of people past their teens who'd rather hear this:

 

 

 

People will never tire of great instrumentalists, no matter what style they work in. Stairway has been overplayed, but it's not the solo most people are tired of IMO.

 

 

But I don't think the article was so much about not liking older music as it was just a commentary about "enough of the old, tired wank-fests already!" A comment with which I 100% concure. I find it interesting that so many older people look down on modern music because it doesn't have "great guitar solos" any more and such. Could it be because nobody beyond a few pimply-faced teenaged boys who hang out in instrument shops cares about all that wankery?

 

[wades_keys]

^

Agreed about the "Stairway" solo. That's a "must learn" for ANY aspiring rock lead guitarist.

 

The spirit of that solo lives on in another, soon to be classic solo from the early 90's: Zakk Wylde's lead on "No More Tears".

[Vito Corleone]

 

but there's a plenty of people past their teens who'd rather hear this: .... People will never tire of great instrumentalists, no matter what style they work in. Stairway has been overplayed, but it's not the solo most people are tired of IMO.

 

 

Well, that's kind of the point I was trying to make. You start comparing Page on a strictly musical level to great instrumentalists like de Lucia and he's not going to win that one. That the whole world knows the words to Stairway and can sing along with Page is much more about the cultural aspects of the song than the musical.

 

Are people tired of everything else in the song except the solo? Perhaps. I think it's all too intertwined to be able to differentiate at this point. Singing along with Page, or even listening to a cover band do "Stairway" takes people back to a particular place and time. But start doing some wildly-different version of the song and most cover bands playing for most audiences are going to piss off a lot of people. Why? Because they want the cultural experience of what the original version means to them as much as the musical experience.

 

As far as people past their teens go, I don't really hear any of those songs mentioned as being particularly "adult" music. They were created to appeal to teens and they remain popular today because they take so many people back to their teen experiences. So while I agree with you that there are plenty of adults who want to listen to de Lucia, the fact that there are other adults (or even some of the same adults) who want to listen to Zeppelin, I don't think the two are related. It isn't for the same reasons nor coming from the same level of musical maturity.

 

And, FWIW, Brick House should be long-retired as well.

[wades_keys]

 

Well, that's kind of the point I was trying to make. You start comparing Page on a strictly musical level to great instrumentalists like de Lucia and he's not going to win that one. That the whole world knows the words to Stairway and can sing along with Page is much more about the cultural aspects of the song than the musical.

 

I used to play an instrumental version of "Stairway" on nylon string guitar for my grandma. She loved it.

[Vito Corleone]

 

I used to play an instrumental version of "Stairway" on nylon string guitar for my grandma. She loved it.

 

 

I used to play Twinkle Twinkle Little Star on the piano for my grandma. She loved it too.

[Vito Corleone]

Let me put it another way. I don't think this article is even meant to be a "music criticism" piece. I don't think the writer even presents himself as a music critic. It's a cultural piece.

 

But if you think these great classics (which I love too, BTW. I'm a big Zeppelin, Eagles and Joel fan. It has nothing to do with that one way or the other) remain such because of whatever superior musicality that they might possess--let's try to imagine that we "retire" only the original recorded versions of the songs and allow only covers and other re-interpretations of them to live on. Like how, say, classical music continues to exist.

 

How long do you think these classics would remain popular? Do you really think "Stairway" is going to live on because the melody and the guitar solo is so wonderful? That generations of grandmas are going to continue to revel in their grandkids performing it for them?

[Lee Knight]

What a bunch of crap.

 

Retire the tunes? What does that even mean? Is this some sort of magical land that allows us to all agree with the smug journalist. We hereby agree to never play, listen too, and speak about the aforementioned tunes. Crap. Stairway is a freaking fantastic piece of rock. Have you listened to it lately? Not just the solo as mentioned but the Rhodes part, the recorder arrangement, Plants ballsy vocal.

 

Oh... you mean culturally? What a bunch of crap. Don't like it? Don't listen. I don't when I'm fed up with it. But what does that mean "retire" It is {censored}ing stupid. And smug.

 

I played Stairway to Heaven for my 13 years old daughter a year ago. She'd never heard it. It lasted as long as my drive from Barnes and Noble where I re-bought it, to our driveway. As Plant finished, ...and she's buying as stairway... to... hea...ve-en.... we sat in the driveway silent for a few seconds. My kid looks over at me, "Dad... that was awesome!"

 

So I looked her in the eye and told she was nuts, it should be retired! What a bunch of crap!

[Vito Corleone]

 

How about knowing AT LEAST as much as the Ramones...maybe having their foot in an understanding of the 10,000 hours thing that we all have been thru.... How about not looking down their noses at the artists....."real redneck trailer trash make the best rock" I read recently......how bout GIVING THE READER something other than stylized non-rhetoric as criticism....I could go on.

 

 

If the criticisms were intended for musicians, then I could understand why the critics should be musicians themselves. Like the analysis pieces Ninjo refers to. But they are not. They are written for mass audiences of non musicians who, if they decide they like a Jimmy Page guitar solo are as likely (if not more so) to like it because of how Page LOOKED while playing it, or based upon some vague notion of how the solo makes them "feel" than for any reasons having to do with musical virtuosity.

 

So this is where I find the whole concept of "until they can come up with something better..." all wet. I don't have to be a better director or cinematographer than Fellini to find his movies confusing and boring and I don't have to be a better guitarist or songwriter than the guys in Skynyrd to want to turn off "Free Bird" after 3 seconds. You don't have to be a musician to find such songs to be overplayed, self-indulgent, and representative of an era that you, at best, only find mildly amusing to imagine what it must have been like to be alive back then.

[Lee Knight]

I'm still reeling form the asinine idea of "retiring" a song. As if a personal experience with a tune is somehow the benchmark for everyone else. It is this kind of self centered thinking that is more a mark of being an asshole than a wit. I'm speaking of the journalist here and not anyone on this thread.

[Vito Corleone]

 

What a bunch of crap. Don't like it? Don't listen. I don't when I'm fed up with it. But what does that mean "retire" It is {censored}ing stupid.

Taking it a bit too seriously, it seems! Nobody is talking about actually starting a campaign to have the songs banned or pass a law or some such. It's simply a rhetorical device to express boredom.

 

 

 

And smug.

 

 

No smugness present in your reply, of course...

[Lee Knight]

Am I being smug? I didn't think so. I mean smug = self satisfied. This irks me beyond all imagination. It is elitist bull{censored}. I'm arguing to let each make their own choice about what is culturally relevant. Perhaps a little too vehemently... granted, but smug? Well, perhaps. I'll tone that down. But my point is, damn... what arrogance on the part of the journalist.

 

I absolutely hate that kind of thinking.