i've received a lot of bad comparisons over the years, but comparisons to this ariel pink character may be the worst i've ever heard.
as far as i can tell, he's some kind of 60s novelty act, right? i write futuristic chaotic noise rock.
i'll admit i've only heard two or three songs, and i've skipped through all of them (because he couldn't even catch my attention for ten seconds), but i seem to be the precise opposite of this guy.
i mean, 60s music from the 60s was mostly garbage.
who needs to hear 60s music from the 2010s? what's the point? why not just go climb into your great-grandmother's grave?
what's weird is that the young people nowadays seem to look at the 60s the same way that conservatives of my generation once looked at the 50s - it's a simpler time, when things were perfect, before the complications of modern existence.
a fantasy, of course. there were significant riots in the 50s, and even more riots in the 60s than the 50s. if i was alive at the time, i wouldn't be singing dylan songs in the park with the other dipshit hippies, i'd be out taking part in them...
i think that's why the comparison bothers me. he's a fucking hippie.
or at least i think he is, i don't know much about him.
i might be wrong, i dunno.
i'm not really interested in wasting the time listening to it to figure that out.
Thursday, October 9, 2014
i'm not interested in debating if this is "good' or "bad".
i'm just interested in pointing out that this sounds very much like an aladdin sane outtake - which is at least a nice shakeup. i mean, you can't go around sounding like the who for your entire career, right?
the clash were actually pretty good at taking the arena rock of the early 70s and stripping it down to the core, without any silly artistic pretensions. it's a pretty good example of a very well produced commodity.
it would just be nice if people stopped pretending they were more important than they actually were, due solely to the fact that they were fifteen when this record was released. again: give it time and the bias will come out in the wash.
i'm just interested in pointing out that this sounds very much like an aladdin sane outtake - which is at least a nice shakeup. i mean, you can't go around sounding like the who for your entire career, right?
the clash were actually pretty good at taking the arena rock of the early 70s and stripping it down to the core, without any silly artistic pretensions. it's a pretty good example of a very well produced commodity.
it would just be nice if people stopped pretending they were more important than they actually were, due solely to the fact that they were fifteen when this record was released. again: give it time and the bias will come out in the wash.
yes, this is from the 80s.
if you like it, you could also check out a band called psychic tv as well as a skinny puppy side project called doubting thomas. there was also a pop band around the period called the klf that took the sound to somewhat infamous places. it's a little outside the genre, but meat beat manifesto is also important in discussing the music of that period. as a style, house originates in detroit and chicago in the early to mid 80s, but you're mostly dealing with isolated singles. a little bit before that, there was a band called cabaret voltaire that is a much better reference point than kraftwerk or tangerine dream or jarre (although nobody's denying those records were listened to).
if you like it, you could also check out a band called psychic tv as well as a skinny puppy side project called doubting thomas. there was also a pop band around the period called the klf that took the sound to somewhat infamous places. it's a little outside the genre, but meat beat manifesto is also important in discussing the music of that period. as a style, house originates in detroit and chicago in the early to mid 80s, but you're mostly dealing with isolated singles. a little bit before that, there was a band called cabaret voltaire that is a much better reference point than kraftwerk or tangerine dream or jarre (although nobody's denying those records were listened to).
Liam White
It wasn't the Sex Pistols, it wasn't the Ramones, it wasn't the Stooges, it wasn't even the fucking MC5 that started the whole fucking thing, IT WAS THE SONICS!
Jake Johnson
Yardbirds, Kinks, The Kingsmen, and the Stones were first. Just by a little though. They all at the same time, but some had more exposure than others.
deathtokoalas
you know, there was this dirty liverpool punk band playing outlandish shows in hamburg before all of them....maybe you've heard of them...
Jake Johnson
Right on. The Beatles were raw as hell back then. I think they always kept an element of rawness, but wrote SOME good love songs as well.
thecountofbasie
The Hamburg live bootleg is quite possibly (and certainly IMO) better than a lot of their later "classic" material...frankly, I think when they got too far ahead of themselves and stopped playing live, the music tended to suffer a bit (though still better than most of their contemporaries)
deathtokoalas
i think it depends on what you mean by "classic" material. when somebody says "classic beatles", i think of the material after revolver. but, i know some people are going to use the term to refer to the stuff before revolver, and write off the later material as a bunch of silly experiments.
the stuff after revolver is almost like it's a different band altogether. to use a tired trope - early, early beatles is the earliest example of punk rock i know of, but the stuff after revolver is really setting the groundwork for progressive rock, and defined just about all of the "art rock" that followed. so, it's really hard to sit there and try and compare it. it's really apples and oranges.
that being said, i agree that their early recordings up to about help have aged pretty badly. if you're going to do early rock 'n' roll, you should do it as raw as possible. despite their continuing commercial appeal, i'd argue that those first couple of records don't really manage to excel at much of anything at all.
thecountofbasie
I meant "classic" in the same sense...honestly, I think the experimentation of the post-Revolver (more specifically, post-live performance) era, while groundbreaking, hasn't aged quite as well as quite a bit of the earlier catalog IMO...maybe it's mostly too polished and not quite tough enough, but it's classic pop-rock for the most part
deathtokoalas
see, i don't even know how to react to that. there's a good two or three hours of unclassifiable art music in there that is still just utterly fresh and entirely unique. i'd hazard a guess that a few tracks, like a day in the life, will age roughly the same way as beethoven's fifth. conversely, i can't imagine future generations listening to i want to hold your hand outside of a 20th century pop music class
i mean...and i say this with no sarcasm or exaggeration...when somebody tries to write off post-revolver beatles as anything short of brilliant, that's essentially equivalent to forfeiting their opinion. it's like standing up and stating you have absolutely no appreciation of music as an artform.
it's one of those things where you might not love it, but you've gotta appreciate it as what it is. the only excuse is willful ignorance and conscientious artlessness.
thecountofbasie
I never said it wasn't brilliant...guess it's more accurate (as well as safer, for want of a better word) to just say I enjoy (and am far more likely to pull out to listen to) the earlier material
I Kill Communists
The Sonics and the Velvet Underground.
deathtokoalas
the velvet underground were not a punk band, they were pretentious "modern art" garbage. andy warhol and punk rock are the exact opposite of each other in terms of operating ideology.
Liam White
Way to have an open mind, brah.
deathtokoalas
it's not a question of having an open mind, it's a question of understanding what andy warhol & the vu stood for (which was music as a meaningless commodity) and what punk rock stood for (which was music as a vehicle for social change) and realizing they're entirely opposite things.
It wasn't the Sex Pistols, it wasn't the Ramones, it wasn't the Stooges, it wasn't even the fucking MC5 that started the whole fucking thing, IT WAS THE SONICS!
Jake Johnson
Yardbirds, Kinks, The Kingsmen, and the Stones were first. Just by a little though. They all at the same time, but some had more exposure than others.
deathtokoalas
you know, there was this dirty liverpool punk band playing outlandish shows in hamburg before all of them....maybe you've heard of them...
Jake Johnson
Right on. The Beatles were raw as hell back then. I think they always kept an element of rawness, but wrote SOME good love songs as well.
thecountofbasie
The Hamburg live bootleg is quite possibly (and certainly IMO) better than a lot of their later "classic" material...frankly, I think when they got too far ahead of themselves and stopped playing live, the music tended to suffer a bit (though still better than most of their contemporaries)
deathtokoalas
i think it depends on what you mean by "classic" material. when somebody says "classic beatles", i think of the material after revolver. but, i know some people are going to use the term to refer to the stuff before revolver, and write off the later material as a bunch of silly experiments.
the stuff after revolver is almost like it's a different band altogether. to use a tired trope - early, early beatles is the earliest example of punk rock i know of, but the stuff after revolver is really setting the groundwork for progressive rock, and defined just about all of the "art rock" that followed. so, it's really hard to sit there and try and compare it. it's really apples and oranges.
that being said, i agree that their early recordings up to about help have aged pretty badly. if you're going to do early rock 'n' roll, you should do it as raw as possible. despite their continuing commercial appeal, i'd argue that those first couple of records don't really manage to excel at much of anything at all.
thecountofbasie
I meant "classic" in the same sense...honestly, I think the experimentation of the post-Revolver (more specifically, post-live performance) era, while groundbreaking, hasn't aged quite as well as quite a bit of the earlier catalog IMO...maybe it's mostly too polished and not quite tough enough, but it's classic pop-rock for the most part
deathtokoalas
see, i don't even know how to react to that. there's a good two or three hours of unclassifiable art music in there that is still just utterly fresh and entirely unique. i'd hazard a guess that a few tracks, like a day in the life, will age roughly the same way as beethoven's fifth. conversely, i can't imagine future generations listening to i want to hold your hand outside of a 20th century pop music class
i mean...and i say this with no sarcasm or exaggeration...when somebody tries to write off post-revolver beatles as anything short of brilliant, that's essentially equivalent to forfeiting their opinion. it's like standing up and stating you have absolutely no appreciation of music as an artform.
it's one of those things where you might not love it, but you've gotta appreciate it as what it is. the only excuse is willful ignorance and conscientious artlessness.
thecountofbasie
I never said it wasn't brilliant...guess it's more accurate (as well as safer, for want of a better word) to just say I enjoy (and am far more likely to pull out to listen to) the earlier material
I Kill Communists
The Sonics and the Velvet Underground.
deathtokoalas
the velvet underground were not a punk band, they were pretentious "modern art" garbage. andy warhol and punk rock are the exact opposite of each other in terms of operating ideology.
Liam White
Way to have an open mind, brah.
deathtokoalas
it's not a question of having an open mind, it's a question of understanding what andy warhol & the vu stood for (which was music as a meaningless commodity) and what punk rock stood for (which was music as a vehicle for social change) and realizing they're entirely opposite things.
deathtokoalas
the sex pistols didn't invent punk, but they were instrumental in the rise of hair metal.
this record had a far greater influence on (and paved the way for) bands like van halen and kiss than it did on punk rock. the band you kids are looking for is not the sex pistols - it's either the damned (if you want catchy) or crass (if you want political).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bucVwI0RfEg
ChernovFan100
Pretty sure Kiss formed slightly before the Sex Pistols?
deathtokoalas
so did van halen, but they didn't see success until 76/77.
streicherman1
The Sex Pistols changed rock music and the young persons world at the time... Van Halen .& kiss. paved the way for lycra wearing mullet heads who would'nt know rock n roll if it smashed em in the face with a bass guitar.
deathtokoalas
i don't hear much of a difference - outside of the sex pistols being shitty musicians. it was the same focus on fashion. hair styles. jewellery. there's no vision in this. and, the truth is it's not even really that raw. the primary characteristic of a good, raw rock band is being tight. this is really so shitty that, by those metrics, this is closer to free jazz...
the sex pistols didn't invent punk, but they were instrumental in the rise of hair metal.
this record had a far greater influence on (and paved the way for) bands like van halen and kiss than it did on punk rock. the band you kids are looking for is not the sex pistols - it's either the damned (if you want catchy) or crass (if you want political).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bucVwI0RfEg
Pretty sure Kiss formed slightly before the Sex Pistols?
deathtokoalas
so did van halen, but they didn't see success until 76/77.
streicherman1
The Sex Pistols changed rock music and the young persons world at the time... Van Halen .& kiss. paved the way for lycra wearing mullet heads who would'nt know rock n roll if it smashed em in the face with a bass guitar.
deathtokoalas
i don't hear much of a difference - outside of the sex pistols being shitty musicians. it was the same focus on fashion. hair styles. jewellery. there's no vision in this. and, the truth is it's not even really that raw. the primary characteristic of a good, raw rock band is being tight. this is really so shitty that, by those metrics, this is closer to free jazz...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)