2008 Woodie Awards
Music faculty agrees with Faseler's
Dr. Jeff Waters
Issue date: 3/30/07 Section: Letters to the editor
- Page 1 of 1
Dear Editor,
I appreciate [Jimmy Faseler's] review of Relient K. It is unusual for me, a "40-something" faculty member, to even have a clue about most of the Christian bands that your generation listens to. But, as fate would have it, I have done some listening to Relient K, thanks to my 12-year-old son who has Relient K CDs that he plays over the car stereo when I can't escape!
I am a trained musician, so when I listen to music, I have the curse of letting my mind go into nerdy analytical mode at times, and start deciphering the "nuts-and-bolts" of the musical structures, etc. My purely nerd-head-analytical view is echoed in your review. Relient K's musical material is quite limited.
Melodically, the same basic motives recur in multiple song - in set theory, we would call it a profusion of the set (0,4,5) - woo-hoo, how's that for some over-the-top analysis?
Anyway ... their harmonic pallette (chord choices and their inter-relationships with each other) is quite limited as well. And these limits are not bad in themselves ... but, (and this is the big but) if those primary elements are going to be so narrow, then some other element(s) must compensate - e.g., deep or at least engaging lyrics, interesting textures, gimmicks, visuals ... something.
As you said, the lyrics are often shallow, (although one man's "shallow" is another man's [12-year-old's] "engaging") so maybe it's the whole gimmick of being structurally narrow and lyrically shallow that actually compensates for ... er, uh ... being structurally narrow and lyrically shallow. OK, now I am using circular logic. (Which in itself is a gimmick that compensates for the shallowness of my circular logic.)
(I know - time to stop.)
Anyway, I thought I would affirm [Faseler] from the egg-head-music-professor viewpoint. Relient K is, at least, "fun." However, they are not gifted, musical craftsmen and are often self-plagiarists from a purely musical point of view. Keep up the good work.
Dr. Jeff Waters
Professor of Music
P. S. By the way, do the folks in your generation even remember what a "Reliant K" was? [note different spelling for the original usage of the name.] Hint: 1981.
I appreciate [Jimmy Faseler's] review of Relient K. It is unusual for me, a "40-something" faculty member, to even have a clue about most of the Christian bands that your generation listens to. But, as fate would have it, I have done some listening to Relient K, thanks to my 12-year-old son who has Relient K CDs that he plays over the car stereo when I can't escape!
I am a trained musician, so when I listen to music, I have the curse of letting my mind go into nerdy analytical mode at times, and start deciphering the "nuts-and-bolts" of the musical structures, etc. My purely nerd-head-analytical view is echoed in your review. Relient K's musical material is quite limited.
Melodically, the same basic motives recur in multiple song - in set theory, we would call it a profusion of the set (0,4,5) - woo-hoo, how's that for some over-the-top analysis?
Anyway ... their harmonic pallette (chord choices and their inter-relationships with each other) is quite limited as well. And these limits are not bad in themselves ... but, (and this is the big but) if those primary elements are going to be so narrow, then some other element(s) must compensate - e.g., deep or at least engaging lyrics, interesting textures, gimmicks, visuals ... something.
As you said, the lyrics are often shallow, (although one man's "shallow" is another man's [12-year-old's] "engaging") so maybe it's the whole gimmick of being structurally narrow and lyrically shallow that actually compensates for ... er, uh ... being structurally narrow and lyrically shallow. OK, now I am using circular logic. (Which in itself is a gimmick that compensates for the shallowness of my circular logic.)
(I know - time to stop.)
Anyway, I thought I would affirm [Faseler] from the egg-head-music-professor viewpoint. Relient K is, at least, "fun." However, they are not gifted, musical craftsmen and are often self-plagiarists from a purely musical point of view. Keep up the good work.
Dr. Jeff Waters
Professor of Music
P. S. By the way, do the folks in your generation even remember what a "Reliant K" was? [note different spelling for the original usage of the name.] Hint: 1981.
Be the first to comment on this story