One thing I’ve really wanted to communicate to people through this blog, is that if you think of music being visual, it can really open up your appreciation to it. I want to use two records that I listened to on my recent trip to try and convey that. Two records that I listened to a lot were AC/DC’s Ballbreaker and Bryan Ferry’s Avonmore. Musically and aesthetically these records are at the opposite ends of the spectrum, although both artists have a signature sound that they rework in different ways throughout their careers. I want to write this for the average music listener and not someone that understands the technical side of music.
AC/DC have, per usual, a very stripped down approach to musical arrangement and mix. There is one guitar in each speakers, bass, drums, and vocals. The only guitars that are added through overdubs added, that could not be recreated live, appear to be Angus’s lead guitar. This album is brilliantly produced by Rick Rubin, and I am not always a fan of his work. AC/DC are a band whose greatness comes from their playing and arrangements. The way the band play with each other creates their sound. The brothers Young, Malcolm and Angus, play dueling electric guitars as well as anyone. The rhythm section play simply, but with a ton of swing and feel. During the Brian Johnson era, AC/DC’s lead singer, the sound of his voice communicates more than the actual lyrics do. All of this is presented as straightforward as possible, so that the listener can enjoy what the band is doing and not be distracted by any studio tricks.
On Ferry’s record, again as usual for Ferry, features dense arrangements with a lot of competing instruments. Everything is also draped in studio effects bringing a sense of mystery to the proceedings. I have described what Ferry does before as futuristic film noir. Movies like Bladerunner and Trouble in Mind come to mind while I listen to his records. Ferry has great musicians like Nile Rodgers and Johnny Marr on his record. However the performance of the individuals are not as important as the overall sound.
One record is primal and straightforward, while the other one is impressionistic and slick. (Though I would argue that what AC/DC does on an album like Ballbreaker is more sophisticated then they are often given credit for. The way the brothers bob and weave their guitars is not amateur hour, not even close.) I believe one can absolutely love both approaches. Music fans are less rigid than in the past, but there are still people that prefer one approach over another. I don’t think that we need to make such choices, as long as each artist is doing what they can to the best of their abilities.
I think what AC/DC does is monolithic. It is like the Washington Monument. It is minimalistic, but powerful. All fat has been stripped off until you end up with something simple, but riveting. If you were to compare it to a movie it would be like an excellent Western, where the story is as straightforward as possible, but communicates a great deal through the minor tweaks of the form.
Meanwhile, what Ferry does is akin to Hieronymus Bosch. He is creating something with a lot going on and your attention drifts to different details and textures, while never focusing on one thing for too long. I don’t mean that Ferry’s work is like Bosch in the images that it creates mentally, only that there are many characters and images on the canvass, that add up to a substantial whole.
If you think of music like this, in a way where sound is visual, I believe that it can open up many kinds of music that one might not have previously enjoyed. If I like a record, it is not because it is a certain style, but because each artist is realizing their vision to the fullest extent that they are capable of. In music there are so many styles and textures. If you can like dramas, horror films, and comedies, one should be able to like a wide range of musical artists.