|
However, innovative and original are terms that can not be removed from the context of the time and thus, I think Ramones were both more innovative and original; while their music may at least partially seem like a throwback to the more minimalist and primitive strains of garage-rock, the context of the mid-70's rock culture and what it sounded like give them an edge not to mention that their post-modern recontextualization of pre-british invasion melodicism in a punk-context adds yet another dimension.
Steely Dan had a lot of recontextualization going on in their music too but I for one think it's more impressive and, yes, original and innovative to pull that off in a minimalist, simplistic context than in an expansive, "prog-jazzy" fusion one where it is pretty much expected and par for the course...
I'd say that Television were more original than Steely Dan too. As for the rest-no, I'd agree that Steely Dan were more original if we just look at the music, "innovative" is kind of difficult to measure I think, I find that term a bit problematic, let's just say that "innovative" isn't the first word that comes to mind when I think about Steely Dan.
Also, music isn't just a sum of its parts and influences; its innovativeness is IMO better measured in terms of the type of aesthetic and "vibe" it manages to project and how fresh that one is. While Steely Dan delivered in that area, there was SO much rock in the early 70's that pulled off similar feats-everyone from pompous guys like Genesis or Queen to "lab-coat" rock like King Crimson to the various approaches the kraut-rock bands took; there's a LOT of advanced and original music in that era musically and/or lyrically and the relevant question is thus how much the aesthetic Steely Dan projected deviated from the "general" norm. Since being advanced, sophisticated, lyrically obtuse, clever etc. was very much the norm then even amongst platinum acts, I tend to think that bands who bypassed that and took a different approach were more innovative.
Does that mean that, say, Ted Nugent, Deep Purple, Slade or Grand Funk were more innovative than Steely Dan? Of course not but more "radical" exponents of an anti-sophisticated approach do stand out in that era to me; even AC/DC stand out to me (and no, I'm not saying they were more innovative since they were so firmly rooted in blues-rock/boogie which was already a huge cliche whereas Steely Dan were obviously "fresher" in that regard but there are *aspects* of their style like the single-minded minimalism in drumming, progressions, structure etc. I find quite unique in the context of the time)...
Anyway, the point of my post was more to shine a light on my *own* problems in dealing with and coming to terms with the Dan's aesthetic over the years compared with the type of rock from that era I grew up digging than going into some lame A>>>B shit which isn't really what I'm about unless I'm bored... I can see it getting interpreted as that because many in the Lesson and elsewhere love that type of shit. However, I think people should be able to deal with someone expressing his opinion without viewing it as an attack on their personal taste, even in the context of an appreciation-thread...
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
The Lesson
