Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Coherence vs. Parts

Coherence vs. Parts
November 29, 2006, 06:28:49 AM
If you read a lot of album reviews, you end up seeing "coherence" and "incoherence" bandied about alot.  But what does it really mean to be "coherent"?

I was thinking about this as I listened to Lykathea Aflame a band a friend of mine has been pimping for years now.  He said, "So what do you think."  And I answered, "You know, this band has a lot of...ah...parts."  It was all superbly played, and the individual fragments of song were well thought out and brilliantly executed.  But there was no unifying concept, nothing to tie it together into a meaninful whole.  Nothing but parts.  Taken individually, each of the riffs 'stands out' - but viewed as a whole they blur together, always going some place, but never getting anywhere.

Our society demands novelty, a freshness of style - something that rolls around in the aisles and announces its uniqueness without the need for us to pay any real attention to discover it.  It puts a premium on parts and kicks coherence - the marriage of meaning and execution - to the curb.  
Ask fans of Drudkh or Sunn o((( or Pink Frothy AIDS why their favorite bands matter, and all you'll get is a litany of parts.  Oh, they have folk interludes, dissonant feedback, clean vocals etc. etc. fill in the _________.

But where's the MUSIC?


Re: Coherence vs. Parts
November 29, 2006, 02:20:17 PM
This is quite true.

It seems that these type of bands are fans of incorporating as many styles as possible in their music, with none of it ever uniting. To give an analogy; it is like writing a sentence about a topic, then leaving it unfinished without a period and continuing on with another sentence about another topic.

It doesn't make sense, everyone is confused, and it doesn't have a purpose for being there, aside from the, "fuck it, we're down with all music man!" liberal perspective.

And I agree, it is completely due to novelty. The popular bands are those who manage to include as many genres of music in ther sound as possible because all music has meaning, because we're all special (LOL). So, as a result, it ends up sounding like a collaged mess.

Re: Coherence vs. Parts
November 29, 2006, 02:21:36 PM
i find this is the problem with most popular current rock music

Re: Coherence vs. Parts
November 29, 2006, 08:23:09 PM
Quote
It doesn't make sense, everyone is confused, and it doesn't have a purpose for being there, aside from the, "fuck it, we're down with all people man!" liberal perspective.  


Their music is a reflection of their outlook on life, it looks like.

"Delusion helps to keep them sane."
powers which mankind refuses to condone or conceive
beware what curiosity and ignorance breed
for what is not believed
may turn out to be your destiny

Re: Coherence vs. Parts
November 29, 2006, 09:22:49 PM
I think that is on the same level as bands who think they need to add amazing soloing abilities and high class musicianship.  They miss the point of what music is about.  It's not a talent contest.  It's not a contest at all.

Re: Coherence vs. Parts
November 30, 2006, 11:21:47 AM
I agree with buckets_of_AIDS here. Solos, breakdowns, and rock-style bridges are like frosting on a cake, but if the cake is made of sand, I am not eating it.