Don’t worry I’ll include a “favorite things about southern california” list later.  I’ll just need a LOT more time to think about it.

1. Too much sun - Any of the infamous leathery-skinned cougars that occupy the region would tell you that the sun is the best thing about Southern California, as would any one who has some sort of seasonal depression disorder.  However, my skin is healthy and the rain makes me happy.  I’m not even asking for flash-flooding (which can be just as annoying as too much sunshine) I’d just like to see a little bit more contrast in the weather. The sun can’t be beautiful every day, you need the rain to remind you that it’s beautiful.

2. Congestion - I would say traffic, but to be honest, it really doesn’t bother me as much as it does some people.  However, I do find myself being annoyed by it at sometimes, so I’ll include it in a broader category: Congestion.  Being from Houston, I’m used to being able to drive about 15 minutes to open spaces (fields, trees, nature in general).  This is something I wish I would have taken more advantage of when I lived there.  Since everyone and their mother wants to live in Southern California, such luxuries cannot be afforded around here.  Even if you don’t utilize these luxuries, it’s nice to know that you can go somewhere else at a reasonably close distance besides your room when you just want to get away from people.

3. Douche bags - There is an alarming amount of douche-bagery committed in this region.  Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of douche-bags in Texas, but this area is saturated with them.  Most californians refer to them as “bros” rather than douche-bags, but don’t let the name fool you, they’re douche-bags.  Here are the characteristics that make up what a southern california douche-bag or “bro” is: 1) Crippling insecurities which lead to a need for validation in all the aspects of life that don’t matter (clothing, automobile, the appearance of being tough), 2) Huge biceps and skinny legs (countless hours spent on sculpting the money muscles and ignoring all others.  In other words, if you find yourself having to fight one, kick ‘em in the knees.), 3) a strong belief in their innate ability to compete in the Ultimate Fighting Championships, and 4) a tendency to act like an idiot, regardless of their actual IQ (although I would imagine it’s usually pretty low).

Of course I’m missing some popular ones (rude people, USC football fans, pollution, soap-boxery, the lakers, name-dropping etc.) but these are my three least favorite things about Southern California.

Studying music at the University level has provided me with friends that have no problem voicing their opinions regarding the definition of music.  The interactions I’ve had with these people have given me the opportunity to evaluate ideas that I otherwise would not have considered.  I know that this post will be, to some people, extremely pretentious and mind-numbingly boring, which is why those little x’s on the left hand corner are such beautiful things. :)  My question to you is: What is music?

Is this music?  Sure, it’s not pretty.  But what distinguishes it from more traditional music? It has rhythm, pitch and form just like any other piece of music and somebody even figured out how to dance to it.

Is this music?  Again, not a “pretty” piece by traditional standards, but again we find that it has rhythm, pitch and form just like any other piece of music.

Is this music?  Not a pretty piece by any standard, but why should music have to be pretty?  Is the global AIDS crisis pretty? Was the tragedy at Hiroshima pretty?  Is genocide pretty?

Let me know what you think.  I’m very interested in what others have to say on this subject.

Let me first say that I do not believe there is such a thing as the single greatest band of all time. But let us forget for one moment that the opinion of music is completely subjective, and think scientifically for just a small moment in time, never forgetting that this little experiment is completely and totally hypothetical.  You know, just for fun…

Queen is the greatest band of all time.  There are three reasons for my claim:

1.) Music: Queen’s harmonic, rhythmic and orchestrational complexities easily distinguish them from any band of the past or present.

2.) Status: Queen’s music has stood the test of time in the face of the perpetual over-simplification of music.

3.) Legacy: Queen continues to live on in the minds of countless musicians spanning genres from the musical variety to dance club genres and everything in between.  Their freshness is a testament to their unflinching legacy.

The number of fans an artist has will not be considered an applicable criterion in my argument because I do not believe that the number of fans a band has is any indication of whether or not they are talented or even musically inclined.  I cite artists such as Madonna, Michael Jackson and Metallica as bands who have more fans than Queen but are not even close to being valid contenders in the realm of musical composition.  Fans are often recruited by means of creative and ingenious marketing, (Brittney Spears, Justin Timberlake, the Backstreet Boys, etc.,) not creative and ingenious music.

First and foremost, the brilliant and unconventional nature of Queen’s music must be explored in three different areas with proper comparisons to other bands for the sake of sound argument and proper consideration.

Among all the elements that make up music, melodic and harmonic elements are perhaps the most memorable to the common ear.  As we sift through successive musical eras, we find that melodic and harmonic consideration has always been of the utmost importance.  Gregorian chant is often noted for its rhythmic ambiguity in favor of melodic richness.  Consequently, the renaissance music of Palestrina and Victoria favored more complex harmonic and melodic features, but similar—yet still more complex than early church music—rhythmic ideas.  From Bach to Brahms and Debussy to Gershwin, we find that rhythmic consideration gained more prominence as the years flew by.  However, there is no question, that melodic and harmonic consideration have always remained paramount elements of music.  Queen’s music features melodic and harmonic devices that are unparalleled by any of their contemporaries or successive artists.  A quick musical analysis of the chord progressions in songs such as Bring Back Leroy Brown, Bohemian Rhapsody or Take My Breath Away and a comparison to the other harmonically interesting bands of that time or later times easily shows this.  Led Zeppelin’s harmonic and melodic interest relies heavily on the pentatonic and altered pentatonic scales, as well as cliche chord progressions used in thousands of different pieces before and a lack of a strong sense for key changes casts them from the argument.  Other bands too fall short of competing in these areas.  Melodically, Queen’s developmental instincts are unmatched.  Brian May’s solos are of a most melodic richness unparalleled by other guitarists.  His ability to capture the essence of a simple, previously-stated melody within a complex cycle of sequences and thoughtful ornamentation is reminiscent of Bach’s ingenuity in his imitative contrapuntal works like the inventions and fugues.  While other solos rely on flashy, ear-raping monotony, Brian May’s solos lull the listener into melodic bliss just before forcibly bringing them back to reality in a way that disturbs them from their pleasant state, but brings about giant fits of unflinching, near sexual arousal.

Of all the arguments I shall dissect in this hypothetical exegesis, Queens rhythmic prowess is perhaps my weakest argument.  Even though the interplay between voices in songs like Bohemian Rhapsody and Good Old Fashioned Lover Boy are very clever, other bands seem to match up to Queen’s rhythmic devices.  However, when discussing the songs of Queen, one simply cannot ignore the intricate nature of the rhythm in Bicycle Race, a frequent favorite amongst Queen fans.  Tempo and time changes abound in the various sections of the song, while preserving its rebelliously playful character.  Were I not including criteria such as status and legacy in my consideration for the greatest band of all time, I would have to mention all of the jazz greats in this conversation.  They easily outdo Queen in this area.  However, jazz is defined by intricate rhythms, Rock & Roll is defined by having the balls to do something insane, and to do it with a scowl on your face, something which Queen did very well.

Concluding the musical criteria will be short dissection of Queen’s ability to arrange songs in a manner that allows every instrument involved to shine.  Freddie Mercury was known for his ability to write a song and play the piano.  John Deacon was known for his ability to warm the musical cockles of our hearts with smooth, brooding, thoughtful bass lines. Roger Taylor was known for the unique, huge sound he achieved through his kit. But perhaps the most genius of all the members (and I don’t like to throw that word around) was Mr. May.  One only needs to listen to his solo in Somebody to Love to understand his passion for the sound of the guitar and what it could do; The Millionaire Waltz to understand his cleverness; and Good Company to comprehend the guitars limitless possibilities in the hands of Brian May.  Brian May’s orchestrations using only the “Red Special” are yet another unmatched element of Queen’s greatness.

Now I must argue for Queen’s status as a band that has remained popular while music has changed drastically.  Let me first start out by saying that I do not believe that there is anything wrong with simple music.  In fact, most of the music I listen to is what I would typically call simple.  However, simple today is different from simple yesterday.  Benjamin Britten, an english 20th century composer was well-known for his ability to write very complex, heavy music that audience members could still comprehend (modern audiences however would have a much harder time paying attention to his music with the advent of such instant gratification providers like netflix, smart phones and iTunes).  On the other hand, today bands like Death Cab for Cutie are making use of the Carl Orff method (strength through repetition), relying on exceptional lyrics and sensational overall sounds, created by simple means, to move the music.  Queen has found some way to meet in the middle of the road between Benjamin Britten and Death Cab for Cutie.  They’ve written music that people love (see Wembley Stadium concert) while still making things interesting for the more analytical types in the audience (see Bohemian Rhapsody).  There status as one of the most influential bands of all time is unmatched and they have influenced countless artists.

Queen has paved the way for every musician that wants to do something huge, every listener who will not heed to complacent music and every mind that wishes to be creative.  Their footprint on the world, to quote Michael Scott, is incalcacalable (for you non-office fans that’s scott-speak for “incalculable”).  I think anyone would be hard pressed to find a band that rivals them in all three of these areas.

Did i mention they were badass live? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSTivVclQQ0 Don’t act like you don’t like those tiny white shorts and those big squirrel teeth either.

….It’s all hypothetical though… I told you not to forget that.