What is good music according to Iggy Pop. Does it have to have technical merit?

[sunvalleylaw]

Iggy Pop doesn't think so. Nor do I. To me, the key element is does the vocal or guitar, etc. move me. Iggy takes that thought pretty far. I am not a huge IP and the Stooges fan, (though I do have and enjoy some), but I think his points are interesting and thought provoking, and I do largely agree with him.

Check out this interview on NPR. Click on the button at the top to listen. It is better than just reading it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122945187&sc=fb&cc=fp

He totally takes on the British musicians of his day: "People tend to jump on the bandwagon, and the bandwagon at that time was dumb members of the British yob class growing their hair and butchering the American blues," he says. "It was very important what not to do. [Music] has to get up off the couch, walk around and be original." He also hammers "quasi classical adaptations of Prog rock, bleeehhh!" The article makes the point that Iggy used his somewhat limited voice almost as a weapon, to move and provoke, and that it still to this day has merit.

So what do you guys think? How important is the technical merit to you? My opinion? I am certainly not anti-technical merit, but if it isn't moving to me, I am moving on.

[Robert]

I think it is very simple - if you like it, it's good for you, and that's all that matters. Who cares what others think?

Technical merit? Can be cool and inspiring and all that, but to me, it has nothing to do with it being good or not.

I still like listening to Yngwie once in a while, so I think that is good! (in small amounts) and I don't care what others think about that. :french ;)

[Spudman]

Good is always going to be a relative thing. Technical merit is also relative.

Who is to define the term technical? Yngwie may seem technical but so is Johnny Ramone. They are both technical yet Yngwie may be perceived by some as being more technical yet the rhythmic barrage Johnny put out could also be considered technical. However, those two music styles differ greatly but are both technical. You can't have music without technical. It's math, emotion, time and emptiness.

Music after all is a collection of frequencies and time and space. Those ingredients affect other universal matter relative to the frequency, space and time. It wont always have the same affect due to variables yet there will be some effect after the cause. It's all technical. Music can't exist without "technical." Since the effect is variable how do you define good?

So really, who or what is merit connected to? Who assigns merit? It can only be from the observer's perception of course.

In any case I don't think it's possible to have music without "technical." There is too much involved to leave technical out. So it all has technical merit.

[msteeln]

Ig's a dbl. edged sword. No denying his legend, which is way more than most today even know, but he's been so full of himself that he can't put together a good album anymore, they've all been crap since the 70s. And lately he's dredged up The Stooges, why, who knows, but at least the Asheton's and James Williamson did get their late news kicks in and made some $$.

Being a big fan of dummy rock from the Elvis/surf eras myself, the tech side was left long ago for those who need that (even tho I still crave my occassional King Crimson/Miles whackouts), and the more base instincts have proven to be the long run winners. Caveman rock is just more fun.
Everybody sites The Stooges and The Velvet Underground as being uber-influencial, when in fact nobody at the time cared about them at all. It's all way after the fact that these bands have struck a nerve and recieved recognition for their efforts back when they were just big kids making noise that still sounds good today.

[Ro3b]

Ig's a dbl. edged sword. No denying his legend, which is way more than most today even know, but he's been so full of himself that he can't put together a good album anymore, they've all been crap since the 70s.

As opposed to the Rolling Stones or Clapton, eh?

Man, at the beginning of that piece when they play the intro to "Search and Destroy," I could feel my pulse kicking up a little.

[just strum]

I don't concern myself with technical merit. Since I am not musically technical, the only way I know technical merit is if someone points it out to me. There are songs that grab me for the beat, some for the lyrics, and some for no other explained reason except for I like it.

As for groups like Stooges, Velvet Underground, Ramones and others not being popular in their early days, I don't agree. They did not enjoy the popularity of groups like Bruce Springsteen, but had a big following in areas that welcomed alternative music. At the time Cleveland was such a city and the people that I associated with were well aware of their music.

[kiteman]

I don't get it, what is technical merit?

[Katastrophe]

Uhhh, no, music doesn't have to have "technical merit" to be good. However, music that is complex that does have technical merit shouldn't be discounted because it's complex.