f13.net

I've enjoyed some of Love's music, something I can't say about Britney. Many musicians lie, cheat, steal and blow their way to success. "I sold out long before you ever even heard my name. I sold my soul to make a record and then you bought one. So shut up and buy our new record." - Maynard from Tool on their first EP.

Murder? Shut the fuck up, man.

You are very angsty, Grand Design.  I like Courtney Love.  She's feisty.  Anyway, after working in the horrible world of music for as long as I did, you'll find those avenues to success aren't uncommon.  Well, maybe not murder but then I don't believe she murdered her hubby.  HE sure fucked the rest of the band out any sort of revenue from all their hard work, though, didn't he?  That's music life!  HA!

SKY!!!  I told you to stop sneaking in when I'm typing and STOPSTEALINGMYTHOUGHTS!  I hate when you do that.

Signe, have you actually met her? My gf used to hang out with her, and she'd probably agree with GD, cept maybe for the murder part. But aparently, she's such a tit, murder would probably be a nice improvement over her actual character.

No, I haven't met her.  I avoid celebs like the spontaneously flammable material they are, especially musicians.  Of course, I don't have to worry about running into any since I gave up working for a life of tidying up and playing games.  I mostly just meant that she cracks me up.  I don't feel sorry for her or anything.  She seems to be able to take care of herself.  I also like some of her stuff.  I sort of do feel sorry for Brittney Spears, however.  She seems sad and sick and all used up.  When I was her age I was having a blast.

Dave Ghrol should say a little thank-you prayer to Kurt every day for the rest of his life.  He's much better off now than I think he would have been otherwise.

That's harsh on Grohl, who is a talented (and far more productive) songwriter in his own right.  Look at Novoselic, by comparison: while not denigrating him for pursuing his more idiosyncratic vision, there is a valid argument that he would never have achieved great fame alone.

Our Kurt wrote one damned good album, two fairly good ones and one pretty crap one with a good track on it.  Now admittedly that is one damned good album, two fairly good ones and one pretty crap one with a good track on it more than me, but since he died he's spiralled up to godlike status whereas when alive he was recognised as important but one of several  groups making music that was just as good.  It's like Jim Morrison: at the time the Doors weren't particularly huge but, having wasted his talent and shuffled off the mortal coil while young, suddenly he was this visionary talent that everyone re-wrote their cvs to have loved all along.

Cobhain was really a great musician and a father who fucked over his kid and squandered his talent because he was a stupid, selfish junkie, and, as a talentless individual who will never have a fraction of what he threw away, that makes me regard him a touch more harshly.

Oh, and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" - good song - should have a big section in the liner notes saying thank-you to The Pixies for Gigantic.  There, I said it.  Nirvana didn't revolutionise music, they helped it evolve in a direction it was already moving.  They built on the Pixies, Mudhoney, Dinosaur Jr and others and had a nice line in junkie chic and excellent marketing at just the right time.

Anyway, Grohl has shown that he'd have made a shitload of money himself, writing some very nice (some very nice) rock/pop songs.  Plus, he's not thrown it all away, which must count for something.

You are comparing Crapples and Shitoranges. 


Ok.  But only because you fucking asked so fucking nicely.


Hmm.  So I need to work on my Feist and tone down the Angst?


Honestly, neither do I.  But she was bound and determined to achieve success in any way possible.  Read her notes, letters and diaries.  Hell, read her lyrics.  So maybe she didn't pull the trigger, but are you claiming that she wasn't in the room wearing pom poms and cheering him on?  I think she sent out invitations and prepared punch and pie.



This is the Britney Spears thread.

Let's keep it classless.

Given some of the rabid fanboism Nirvana still gets, I can understand where you THINK I was coming from, but I wasn't.  I was saying that Dave's much better off away from Nirvana than he would be if the band still exsisted, because his talent was obviously wasted there as 2nd fiddle.  Almost every time I hear a Foo Fighter's song I think, "If Kurt haddn't offed himself we'd never have heard this.  That would have been a shame."   It wasn't a diss on Grohl. 

I don't know.  If Cobain had lived the band might have changed and become something even better than Foo Fighters.  Dave Ghrol  was one of three extremely talented men in a band who had three members.  The last record Nirvana made was their best, in my opinion, and the music already showed the signs of change.  I probably would have been more interested in seeing where Nirvana went rather than becoming a fan of Foo Fighters... which I am, btw.

Oh, I totally get that now.  I agree.

I have a feeling that Kurt was transforming into Woody Guthrie towards the end there. Some hootenanny shit or something. Grohl probably would have left anyways.

The bass player was a talentless hack.

Dave Grohl is talented, Foo is ok, though he's not the songwriter Cobain was.

Harsh, but I can understand as following the root notes of the guitar does not an innovative bass player make.  What he liked to do just wasn't popular with many people at all, hence no one bought it and record labels dropped him.  Dave Grohl knows how to write catchy rock songs that will make radio play (where the popularity is at) and still maintain his political and social beliefs without appearing too much like a douchebag and without coming off like he is preaching (unlike quite a few other bands).  As far as I am concerned that's how to stay in the business: write songs that appeal to people without losing too much of your soul in the process.  At least it guarantees more than a footnote in the history of a once popular band that had a singer that offed himself.

Dave is quite talented, being able to play drums, guitar and bass and write your own albums is something I have always wanted to do but sucked too bad at.  Foo Fighters have some good songs, but I'm not a huge fanboi or anything.  I never felt obligated to buy an album for various reasons with one being how much radio completely kills their songs when they are new.

Dave Grohl wrote the one song on In Utero that I've never gotten tired of (well...at least some of it).

Foo Fighters are boring mainstream radio filler.

Psst. It's all a big joke you know. He intentionally set out to be the new Cheap Trick. But Pat Smear is what makes it funny.

I challenge any of you to make it in the music business.  It's far from easy.  Despite being a genius, I'm certain that gigging with Cobain for years took its toll on the other two.  Strong personalities with psychiatric disorders can't be a lot of fun to work with on a daily basis... especially when you're stuck in a fishbowl.  I personally walked away from a signed band (signed with MY material no less) because the lead singer was making me insane. 

Calling Krist a hack is really pretty funny. Without him, there would have been no Nirvana as he essentially formed the band. Grohl wanted him to join Foo Fighters but he didn't think it would be right.  He is a talented musician that could have played all three of the parts of Nirvana if he had wanted to. He has done good things with JAMPAC and is a hell of a nice guy.

This may sound like a copout, but honestly, I hate the music biz. I hate booking, and I don't enjoy hanging around people who are all desperate and take that shit seriously; I can't stand the pompous scenesters that, unfortunately, you'd be doing yourself a favor networking with (I'd sooner punch them rather than humor them); and last, but not least, I don't really get a kick out of sticking to setlists all the time. Hell, I don't really care to entertain anybody for that matter. I'm an unambitious grouch, I guess. And I write songs and play instruments for my own therapy.

Kurt Cobain, imo, did worse things to music than anyone else I can think of.

I hate his message, I hate his image, and I hate the fact that people actually liked that dreck. The first time I heard Smells like Teen Spirit, I actually wanted to kill people. To this day, I still don't understand what people see in that shit.

Grohl doesn't bother me. And the Foo Fighters have some catchy, if ridiculous, songs.

I have a hard time believing you even had an opinion when Smells Like Teen Spirit came out. You must have been, what? 8 years old? I was 13 at the time.  I thought it was cool. I had already been into punk for awhile before that, and thought it was good to see a feeble looking guy, with nothing but three shitty chords and a howl, single-handedly destroy cockrock, metal, Michael Jackson, Bel Biv Devoe, GnR, and whatever else was sucking up the airwaves at the time. Even cooler is it let all of the dogs out of the gates. A lot of the bands that had been seething in the underground up to that point finally got their due -- and they became "mainstream" for a moment there. And it was good.

Other than the fact Pearl Jam's Ten game out the same year and put it to fucking shame - Achtung Baby, Blue Lines, Out of Time, Use Your Illusion 1 & 2, black album and Blood Sugar Sex Majik. Oh, and of course the quintessential Batmotorfinger.

I got into music pretty young because of my dad and IMO, Nirvana clogged up the airwaves. It was absolute trash and the lyrics for each and every song were written by a drug addled maniac. And I could've been 5 years old and still seen that. Also, I had a drug addled dipshit "fixing himself" in my house at the time. Some said I was a little old for my age. But when your dad invites his piece of shit fucked-up life best friend to live in the house to deal with his shit, well, you grow up pretty fucking fast. And I disagree about them opening the flood gates. They were already open. That's how shit like Nirvana ever made it to the airwaves.

Edit: I should point out that despite shit like Nirvana, it's hard to match 1991.

Ten may be the better album, but this isn't about better. It's just about who put the nail in the coffin and changed the focus of the recording industry. Record companies had already been trying to give 80's underground bands mainstream coverage for a few years, sure, but they signed them all off as being there mainly for "street cred". This was after a long period of not giving them much attention at all (mainly because punk bands wasted a lot of money back in the 70's, nearly making everyone bankrupt). Husker Du was probably the biggest one before Nirvana's time, and the band that set this new trend. No one expected any of them to make much money, but whatever reason, one of those small bands that signed (this being Nirvana) ended up knocking fucking Michael Jackson off the charts. This is what makes them more important than anyone before them. Especially any band with punk or hard rock aesthetics. I don't care how much better a band is than Nirvana (and there are countless bands that would fall under that category) -- none of them did that. And none became so big in the sense that they literally had a Midas touch. Whatever Cobain said, whatever name he dropped in interviews -- would thereafter become the thing to look into. He was inadvertently an arbiter of what was in and out. If he mentioned an influence, the next thing you know, that musician was hunted down and signed or hired. People like Steve Albini became millionaires because of him. David Yow, of all people, actually started making money. On the flipside, CC Deville specifically blamed him for being out of a job.

And no, you had to be a little older to recognize the before and after effect. Hell, I was already a cocky little skatepunk by 9, had one of the coolest kids in the hood for a brother, was already bangin away at instruments a bit, and I still wouldn't claim to have had much useful knowledge about rock before I was out of elementary school. The truth is, I was still playing with toys and couldn't get a hard on.

[edit] Clarified something a bit...

Gotta side with Stray on this one; even if you don't like Nirvana, you have to admit that they did usher in a whole new era of music into national prominence that had been suppressed since some corporate asshat decided REO Speedwagon was good stuff.

I could agree if at ANY POINT I thought Nirvana was a step up from, well, anything.

Stop making this about your personal tastes. Or mine, for that matter. Tap into your inner musicologist. If you have one.

Yes, if they weren't a moving force in the music industry, someone else would be. But this does seem to be about what got and made popular music to change.

Meh.

Since when were people like you and I ever ones to ACTUALLY give a shit about that kind of stuff at the end of the day? In 1999, I thought Wolfsheim should've been at the top of the charts in America. Far as I know, only 2 real radio stations in America played it or any part of Spectators (those stations being in New York and San Fran respectively).

See, what I'm trying to say is -- there were many attempts by those with a punk type of aesthetic (from the 70's as well as the 80's) that, in the end, never broke through like that. Never unseated a so called "godfather of pop" as well as legions of cock rock bands. Etc. Many bands tried, and died. Or just got ignored. And some simply didn't want to.

You say "if" Nirvana weren't a moving force, then someone else would have been --- but there were about 15 years where any band had a shot, and none of them did anything of the sort. There's no "if" -- there's simply what actually happened. If it were up to me, I wish the Misfits had conquered the Earth. I wish they had their own Saturday morning cartoon based off of the lyrics of Astro Zombies -- with art that looked like the cover of "Walk Among Us". Something that scared the shit out of every little kid in America in all the ways that Kiss never did. I would have taken a Ramones Saturday Morning Cartoon as well. Something in the vein of Fat Albert, I guess, except with dope addicts...

(http://www.onethirtyeight.com/disco/wau/walkamongus.jpg)

As for the bands emerging out of the 80's -- Well, who knows why they didn't break through. They just didn't is all. Perhaps it was because Frank Black was too chubby. Perhaps because Sonic Youth sounded like they couldn't quite tune their guitars. Perhaps because Greg Norton had a funny looking mustache. Perhaps because Michael Stipe was bald, gay, and clapped his hands too much. Perhaps because Perry Ferrell was even gayer and hand clappier than that. Perhaps because J Mascis came off as an even more stoned, and even shittier singer than Neil Young. Perhaps because Albini's best songs were about lighting himself on fire or molesting 5 year olds. All I know is that Kurt Cobain bridged the pop/punk gap in a way without really deluding either, and didn't push away too many people in the process. That's all anyone needed to be do really, but it's easier said than done.

Nirvana, Pearl Jam and Soundgarden are the 3 driving forces behind grunge. I don't think they did shit for punk, whereas SPECIFICALLY 2 songs - Rancid's Ruby Soho and Greenday's Longview did more for punk than Nirvana ever could have. But then, saying they did more for punk is weird because everything that really got airtime that came after in punk (and grunge) is just mostly trash. ESPECIALLY in the Grunge category.

I have trouble with the whole ambassador thing in any genre of media - whether it be punk, grunge, metal, etc. It always ends up diluted. It's what happens when you try to please everyone. It's what is eventually going to happen with the Wii. It's definitely what happened with horror movies post Silence of the Lambs. Though, really, post Halloween and Friday the 13th. Those didn't achieve the critical acclaim of Silence of the Lambs. Oh and Ringu, that hurt horror more than anything despite how much I love it.

The Misfits might have been able to do it back int he 80s if they went into a real recording studio and all their shit didn't sound like it was recorded in an unpadded aluminum room. Fuck those recordings are shit. And I fucking LOVVEEEEEEEEEE the Misfits. Fuck, I can probably ramble off 80% of their songs without hearing them. But the recording quality is shit. Of course, when their songwriting ability went down the toilet (yes, yes, I know The Situation Changed), the recording quality was cranked up a thousand notches.

Yes, their recordings are seriously shit. That's what the damn shame is. Except the Astro Zombies track itself (on Walk Among Us) -- if everything they did sounded like that, then they would have had that cartoon, I think!


Listen to Against Me, Tiger Army, or the Distillers. Those are Rancid/Tim Armstrong influenced bands that are really freakin good.

Because they didn't get cutting edge videos with cheerleaders that sported tatoos forced into your eye sockets by MTV.


Winner.  Pure win.

I hated Nirvana then, I hate them now.

I've just never gotten the angst thing.  Never could connect to it. 

Edit:  Color added for sarcasm.

You guys are making this too much about yourselves. And if you think the worse thing in music is Nirvana, then I have to say, you don't know what true pain can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_P-v1BVQn8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_P-v1BVQn8)

Heh.  Touche.

It's not that I think they're the worst thing that's happened to music (that distinction belongs to MTV), I just really honestly...laugh(?) at the whole thing.  I'm a happy guy.  I've never had anything to make me unhappy.  I've never been the 'I hate my parents and everybody misunderstands me and woe is me and I'm gonna write songs in my notebook and wear eyeliner and combat boots ad nauseum' kinda people/kids.

I think the most angsty I got was listening to the Dead Kennedys once or twice.  Then tossing the tape out the window and popping in The Cult or something.  Maybe Bon Jovi.  Or maybe Counting Crows.

I dunno.  Musical tastes are one of those intensely personal things like politics and religion, and tend to elicit stronger than normal responses.

Heh. Love seeing people who were 8 years old at the time talking about what was or wasn't critical to a particular music scene. I know how my dad felt when I talked to him about The Who.  As someone who ran an Alternative format radio station before any of this was popular, I can tell you that it was a major deal.  We'd go to the administration looking to upgrade equipment and our transmitter and they'd be like "What's alternative? Never heard of it."  98% of the student body had the same reaction. Fuck, they were still listening to Madonna, Garth Brooks and Poison.  We were flailing away playing Misfits, Minutemen, Fugazi, L7, Black Flag, Jello Biafra, Soundgarden, Mudhoney, Beck, Live, Danzig, Rollins Band, Primus, Tool, etc. Hell, Killdozer crashed at my house and I hung out with Rob Zombie in the basement of the 9:30 after their show (another totally kick ass set in such a small venue) because they wanted to chat up radio people because they were so desperate to  to get airplay. No one would listen to that stuff and thought we were all crazy.  These were bands very, very few people had heard of at the time. Two years later everyone was playing this stuff at their parties.  To think that this would have just "happened" is foolish. It took a breakout band, and Nirvana was it.  Soundgarden pushed up behind them, but had been working it for longer without the success that Nirvana created for them.  Pearl Jam surpassed them in some ways, but needed the door kicked in first (see below).

1) Nirvana was good.  Nevermind is a good album (Bleach is probably a better album, but whatever). It wasn't just shoved down radio play that made them a hit. They put on one of the best shows I've ever seen (was at the old 9:30 club in D.C. which holds about 120 people and was before they were huge, just before the time SLTS was starting a rotation as a "buzz clip". That placed was packed to the door and had more energy than any room I've ever been in) and tore up places all over the country before MTV really got them going. 

2) Nirvana blew open a whole new type of music that was good that had been struggling for a long time. The film "The Year Punk Broke" does a good job of showing the progression from the 80s punk scene to the break out of the Seattle 'grunge' scene.

3) Ruby Soho is a ska song that did nothing for punk. Greenday's entire repertoire is pop punk, which I actually like, but it really has little to do with punk and Dookie was actually pretty late to the party.

4) Ten is a great album. The fact that another great album was released at the same time, does not negate how good Nevermind is. In fact, the success of Ten sorta blows your theory up as it was released before Nevermind but no one heard about it until after Nevermind blew up and everyone started looking at the Seattle scene more closely.

Both Rancid and Green Day largely and directly, much to my dismay, was gateway music for a lot of young punk types.

Also, I probably bought more music between 8 and 13 than I did between 13 and 25. If you throw out the 1999-2003 era where I amassed a disgustingly huge Synthpop/Industrial/EBM collection.

While, I suppose, I could give Nirvana credit for being in the right place at the right time and really appealing to the pill-popping wrist-cutting crowd in a way that caught on, it speaks nothing but sad things for the status of teenagers and the industry itself.

So, sure, let's give Cobain and Co. credit. And I hope everyone involved feels like an asshole for doing as much.

As for your noble fight, hey, at least the list of bands you rattled off had instruments. Imagine how I felt running my radio show when I had to explain what I was going to play. Despite the fact we were the second most popular show at college and ran from 3:00AM to 6:00AM on Saturdays. You ramble off a list like VNV Nation, Apoptygma Berzerk, Bauhaus, Synesthaesia/Frontline Assembly, Noise Unit, Informatik, etc. And somewhere in there, a light flashes in the other persons eye and you hear "I've heard of Kraftwerk." Very Very Few People Hearing about stuff is something I *wish* I could apply to the fight I was trying to fight. Explaining why I wanted the DAC numbers was probably a tougher battle than Normandy. Thank god for the internet.

And fuck you, Madonna was fucking great in the 80s and early 90s.

Garth Brooks still has more selling power than Christianity. Though, I think he's selling that too, now.

Nevermind was, as some of the more balanced responses here have suggested, a very good album.  At the time, as i've said before, it wasn't as huge a deal as it was dressed up to be by bandwagoneers afterwards, a la the Doors, but it was an outstanding album.  But it was a cracking year for albums, and Nevermind didn't get rated as superlative until Kurt's little cry for help.  Too many people just think Nevermind was dominant.  I have had this argument so often that I end up reeling off the competitors, but you have the Teenage Fanclub's Bandwagonesque was, arguably, superior.  You had My Bloody Valentine's epic Loveless, Primal Scream's Screamadelica and Massive attack's awesome Blue Lines.

I'm not certain, but I think that was the year of Metallica's eponymous album release, and if Enter Sandman is just as annoying as Teen Spirit and Lithium (through overplaying) it is also just about as as influential.   Soundgarden had a better album than Badmotorfinger to come, but were still hugely influential. I wasn't as much of a fan as most of Out of Time by REM, Achtung Baby by U2 (more of a pre-Joshua Tree guy), the Chillis (never been into the funk sound that much, though i liked the singles fine at the time).  Trompe wasn't the Pixies best, but was still great.  Someone mentioned use Your Illusion I: I didn't realise that was that year.

In summary, 1991 was an era-changing year, and arguing that Nirvana unleashed this change in music is post facto rationalisation that requires them to have gone back in time and played their album to a dozen other bands before those bands started recording seminal work.  Nirvana were directly responsible for the increased sales of Stone Temple Pilots (whose Big Empty is as good as just about anything by Nirvana) and Alice in Chains records.  And probably for the movie Singles.  That they have become so amazingly influential is substantially, though not by any means entirely, to do with heroin, marketing and shotguns.

This reads like a list of everything my emo/goth ex-girlfriend used to listen to.  I actually liked a reasonable amount of it, but I'm fuzzy on artist names and I never paid attention to song titles at all.  I'm sure there are songs by bands on this list that I like, but don't know/remember enough about to track down.

I was 18 in 1990 and grew up listening to pretty much every punk band named in the last 20 responses plus stuff like Minor Threat, Dead Kennedy's, The Pogues, Slayer, King Diamond, Megadeth, Anthrax, Metallica and et al.  1990 was a HUGE year, before 1990 none of that shit got played on the radio.  How did you find out about it?  Someone handed you a cassette, or even a vinyl record, and said, "Dude check this shit out."  Good luck finding any of that stuff in the more main stream record stores even.

After Smells started getting airplay though the gloves came off and you could, usually at midnight, hear almost anything on some of the more adventurous stations.  Yeah, that's right, even Metallica had to wait for Nirvana to open the door.  Sure, One came out about a year earlier and got some play but it wasn't what opened the flood gates.

What's killing me now though is that I know there is a whole new generation of good music out there just being pushed down, you can't hear it on the radio or see it on MTV so it seems like it doesn't exist.  You have to go out to live shows and hunt it down.  Same as it ever was.

Thank you, Abogadro & others, for bringing some actual historical perspective into this.

Endie, I dig your opinion, but, may I ask, were you in the US at the time? I ask because the music scenes in the EU and AU were pretty different than the US under Reagan & Bush Sr. In the US, Nirvana was the battering ram that broke through the National quagmire of corporate musak.

Irony was, of course, that when I moved to Seattle in early 1993, the 'scene' was not grunge. You simply couldn't find it at local venues. Cornell owned a kickin club, the OK Hotel, down by Pioneer square where you could hear amazing bands, but none of them were grunge. Punk, goth, or some new fangled hybrid, like Sky Cries Mary or Diamond Fist Wernie, but grunge had been summarily expunged from the scene as the product of bored sons of blue collar hicks from Aberdeen, WA they actually were. The suddenly erudite Seattle scene had no room for such unsophisticated riffraff.

Personally speaking, no other album from that time impresses me more than that one. I'd like to say it was influential to me as a guitarist, but I couldn't replicate or learn from what Shields is doing if my life depended on it. No one has really, though many have tried.

Lucky you. The east coast middle-class/upper-class trust fund baby sector (a LOT of the east coast) was hit hard by this fucking movement and all it did was decrease my tolerance for the public and bring back flannel. And shitty jeans. Though, I guess baggy is better than the 80s two-sizes-too-small movement if I had to pick.

Most people who hear a lot of it like it (Informatik and Noise Unit excused from this conversation). Though, they'll make fun of it until they hear a good deal of the good stuff. VNV Nation and Wolfsheim are gateway drugs. I took Ookii to a VNV Nation concert and up until that point he thought synthpop was gay goth shit mixed with faggy new wave. Turns out he liked it a great deal.

Funny thing about that is there was never really a 'grunge fashion' in Washington. Flannel and jeans were just what people wore, the same attire worn by thousands living in rural areas, which Seattle also pretty much is, shorn of the fair weather yuppies that come and go. Don't get me wrong, the 'erudite Seattle scene' I mention wouldn't have happened without Nirvana, so there is a debt of gratitude or resentment, depending on your opinion, but 'grunge' was a unspectacular, minor player in the actual, popular music scene here.

My favorite band and musician from that area is and will always be Greg Sage/the Wipers. Bigger than Jimi imho!

Yes, Engels, you're right that, at the time, I was in the UK, where bands like the Smiths and the Sisters - and DJs like John Peel - had led to far more airplay being available for alternative music.  When Alien Sex Fiend makes it into the top 40, however fleetingly, then you know that the barriers can be overcome.

Coincidentally, stayed in Seattle twice in the early 90s (stuff with Microsoft), and was surprised, the second time (although I am less so, now), to find what you said: while grunge was still huge globally, and still being touted worldwide as part of the Seattle Scene, locally it had moved on.

I suppose this matters for people who just have to share what they are listening to with the world.. but wasn't shild talking about personal preference?

The fact is these bands existed before Nirvana. Would exist after Nirvana. Would exist in spite of Nirvana. So what if Nirvana got them played on popular radio stations a bit more? It's clear from your own account that people were aware of these other bands despite that and listening to and enjoying them. So if we ignore some insipid desire to have our personal tastes expressed popularly what does it all matter? The only question I, as an individual who is quite happy to enjoy music myself and with my friends without worrying who the fuck is played on popular radio, is whether or not I like Nirvana, or bands that owe much of their existence to Nirvana.

If shild's answer to that is "I couldn't give a shit" then surely his position is reasonable.

On another note... surely "alternative" is a changing definition. One can hardly call most of the "alternative" bands on the radio today alternative, and thus there is a constant situation where music on the fringes has to break through. Thus Nirvana really did fuck all for alternative music in the long run, it just changed popular conception for a certain amount of time.

I'm interested in popularity, etc.. It's just an extension of my interest in anything historical in general. Not just with music or art. There's a whole world out there, and not everything I talk about has to be about ME ME ME and what I personally care about.

The argument was being made that Nirvana and Nevermind were essentially irrelevant to the popularity of a certain type of music that "would have happened anyways" and that their popularity was driven solely by overplaying their record. I was responding to that (mostly). Plus, there is a big difference in saying "I don't like that" and "That music is terrible."  There is lots of music that I don't like that I can still appreciate its place in music history and recognize for its quality within its genre.


Sort of. "Alternative" as a radio format back in the day meant you played stuff that wasn't out on major labels.  It had less to do with the type of music.

I don't mean to be denigrating that kind of interest.

Though, being a pedant, I must point out the following:


Seems a rather self defeating statement.  :-)

Because the other thread was so serious? (http://www.tipsyturtle.net/forum/images/smilies/new4/gayfight.gif)

I just want to state, that my comparison (Cortney love VS Britney spears), was only in the looks of the two images i posted in the original thread.

Oh boy, you know whats better? Guys in girl jeans.

Where do they put the nuts?

You are talking about schild. His personal taste is fact.

PJ vs Nirvana. I was living in LA at the time, saw PJ at the Roxy. Unknowns in LA, the label was pushing them. I remember singing Teen Spirit while waiting outside.

I would like to 2nd this. Against Me hasn't left my car stereo since I bought it months ago.

I have to correct myself though. Against Me doesn't have that gruff sound anymore. Still good though!

Tiger Army is really nothing like them, but they're the biggest cats on Armstrong's label right now. Good enough.

Basic point is though: Good, new-ish punk bands pop up all the time. Popular, easily found ones at that. Not everything devolved into Good Charlotte or whatnot.

The Rave scene kicking off in the mid-late 80s helped things along as well - you had the charts full of cock rock, MOR tat and Phill sodding Collins but pretty much everyone under the age of 30 was either listening to John Peel et al (before R1 became completely crap) or going out into raves held in warehouses/fields/whatever and getting off their face on E. Then part of the rave scene ran headlong into the indie scene at the Hacienda, leading to Baggy...which then mutated into Britpop.

We're about due a new Next Big Thing, imo.

(http://nik.mercer.googlepages.com/mia.jpg)

Imho, she should be it. In the UK, that is.

The good music is not in the top 40 or on the radio. In the 80s we were listening to Metallica and Mercyful Fate and Slayer and rocking at band parties in warehouses/field/whatever, getting off on mescaline or LSD. You brits, so funny. :P

Seriously, though. Don't gauge shit by top 40 or radio play, that just means it's sunk into the moronic mainstream. Good for the artists to make a payday, but utterly meaningless for true music fans.

Moronic mainstream.. Geez.

Alien Sex Fiend popping their heads up in the top 40 for but a moment did not, for one second, suggest that they had gone mainstream.  With or without the facile "moronic" bit.

And if you didn't mean that then edit your damned quote pyramids.

And there was a lot of good stuff in the top 40 then, just as there is now.  Labelling it all as moronic is nonsense.  The Smiths were top 40, and while you may or may not like Morrisey's voice, what he and Johnny Marr were doing was pretty damn far from "moronic".  Maximo Park are not making "moronic" music.  Nor are Bloc Party or the Foos.  Kanye West, on a different tack, can sometimes do some pretty impressive stuff.  The Young Knives have had a lot of chart success recently, as have Sigur Ros.  Arcade Fire's next album release will go top 10 here, unless they decide to record it entirely on dulcimers with a polka beat.  My Chemical Romance may alienate some, but the Black parade was a huge hit and an excellent rock album.  Biffy Clyro: not moronic by any reasonable definition.  The Chemical Brothers: lacking in moronic attributes.  The Arctic Monkeys would be entitled to feel hard-done-by in the face of such condemnation.  The Cribs and the Pigeon Detectives might not be my thing, but I wouldn't label them moronic.

Yes, people buy dumb music.  But there is a lot of really exciting stuff at the moment, much of it on the edge of mainstream (the new single by Foals - not "the Foals" - is damn fine, for instance), that is worth listening to and selling well.

I can't get into Bloc Party. Which is weird, because they sound like I should.

Not sure if you're talking to me or Sky. If me, I'm just expressing disappointment with Sky.

Not sure why you wouldn't like them either.

Personally though, the Rakes are the better Gang of Four like band. Like them? (http://www.gbh.tv/mp3s/22grand.mp3) A little more synth, maybe better to your liking.

See...I never ever ever get this. 

If it makes top 40, it's not music anymore.  It's garbage. 

But if you starve, or they starve, or whatever, it's troof. 

What?

Led Zeppelin had every single one of their albums reach the top 10 in the US.  Moronic mainstream?

Um.  What?

Edit:  I'm not saying that ANYTHING on the top 40 is comparable to Zep.  Hell, I don't even know what IS on the top 40 these days....

Funnily enough, Zep is back on the top 40 as we speak (some compilation/remaster release is pushing Stairway as a single).

Aren't they due to have a reunion concert soon?  Or did that already happen?

Top 40 today is pretty different from top 40 of yesteryear to my eye. Radio music has changed dramatically in the past 15 years or so.

The people here indulging in nostalgia long the lines of "oh, music was so much better when I was young" are fooling themselves.  The charts have always been full of dross, with a small number of excellent tracks dotted here and there.  We just remember the good tracks - of which there are bound to be quite a few over the space of a decade - and compare the current week's chart unfavourably with the combined high points of an era.

Once, when you were young and forming new neural pathways was easy, you quickly learned new music to like.  Now, because you've been listening to Achtung Baby and Automatic for the People for the last 16 years, it's hard and uncomfortable to listen to the flighty young flibertygibbets with their hippity-hop groovyness.

People mention Led Zeppelin (as always), so look at November 1971 (http://www.everyhit.co.uk/retrocharts/1971-November.html), the month Stairway to Heaven was released as a single (though it wasn't released in the US).  That's not chosen specifically to prove a point: I was 1 at the time, so had no idea what I'd find.  I used the UK chart, but the US charts (http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/charts/yearend_chart_index.jsp) at that point are, if anything, worse. The UK top thirty are:


It is, as now, possible to do what I did and pick out a few decent acts (although mainly with mediocre releases), but it's mainly awful, awful crap, and if you take a look at the 1960s charts on that site, they are even worse. Ken Dodd and the Diddymen.  Look at the top sellers year by year (which filters out quit a bit of the worst dross): Zeppelin doesn't have a single record in the entire 100 of the 1970s annual top selling records.  Donny Osmond, Lee Marvin and David Cassidy crowd them out.


It was to Sky, re the "moronic mainstream" remark.  I am pretty sure I agree with you.  And I love the Rakes.

I have to be honest, as cliche as it may be now, I was disappointed that this link wasn't Tay Zonday or Rick Astley.

You guys are right. The mainstream radio music listener is a paragon of musical erudition. Kanye is a musical genius and Fergie is the new Aretha.

 :uhrr:

Also, I'm very open-minded to music. I dig lots of new stuff, and am willing to take the heat, since people here apparently think Mars Volta somehow sucks despite being an amazing band. MCR and Fallout Boy are both great rock bands doing interesting stuff while maintaining a mainstream writing style. I originally hated Arcade Fire when I saw them on SNL, but after watching their Austin City Limits performance I was swayed. Still wouldn't buy an album, but they are doing some interesting stuff and I can dig a band that can change up their instrumentation like that.

Way to ignore 98% of a post and quote one bit that you disagree with (Kanye) while offering no reasons for your sarcastic dismissal. (edit, lol I just quoted the bit from yours I disagreed with but that's different because I say so).

Further, what I said was: "look, mainstream listeners have always bought a lot of dumb stuff so your 'you guys are right' act is downright shenaniganism (which should be a word). And nobody mentioned Fergie in the whole thread: don't ask me to defend that stuff!

Anyway, to address your implied criticism, Kanye is mad as a coot and I don't think much of the bulk of his stuff myself, but I can recognise the originality of some of his work, while respecting the fact that he is not simply phoning it in.  The false snobbery of "it's mainstream so it must be shit" is wearisome, and I really don't think even you believe it.  Since that's all we were disagreeing about, originally, then your comments about MCR and Fall Out Boy suggest it was just a touch of jaded cynicism.

Ironically, I think FOB have got lazier in the kind of way you describe since hitting the big time!  Either that or it's that difficult second album again.

Edit: added the noun - FOB - to the blank space in the last sentence.

Kanye produces/engineers some good shit. Not much of an MC in my eyes though.

As far as top 40 goes, unfortunately, most of the stuff I like doesn't or or hasn't make/made it there.... But I don't think I should knock it. I like a good song, no matter how popular it is. I'm a musician, and when it comes down to it, I just like noise. Good music is good music. Some of it is very popular. Pretty simple.

Rick Astley has better hair. I think a badger is napping on that guy's dome.

Holy shit! I just watched Astley on Youtube. I didn't know someone could actually top Gilbert Sullivan. I stand corrected.  :ye_gods:

[edit] And apparently, I just "rick rolled" myself for doing that.

Not for nothing did Pop Will Eat Itself begin "Preaching to the Perverted" with the lines:

"Astley's in the noose (hang loose kid)
Lift the lid on the crimes he did..."

(Link to Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIe8BsRWibA) for those with tolerance for low quality live bootleg videos).

Which, of course, was in turn a reference to The Wonder Stuff's track "Astley in the Noose", off the superb "The Eight Legged Groove Machine" album.  Fuck I hated that bloke.

I saw Nirvana live a couple of times (before Grohl and with him), and I'm glad that I did. They (Cobain in particular) were certainly more in their element in a small club venue than they were in the larger venues that they played after they broke, but they adapted to the rapid change well. Although they have become somewhat legendary due to the Cobain's suicide and the focus has been on him, they were in fact a very talented band that were more than the sum of their parts. In that regard, they share something with Joy Division, who like Nirvana also got too much subsequent press due to the demise of their frontman rather than the quality of their music. However, to begrudge a band their popularity because it was in part fueled by exposure surrounding their demise when their talent was this great would be unreasonable.

Comparing today's popular music to 1971 doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There may be a bunch of crap in any 'top 30' from any given time, but you'd be hard pressed to find as much crap as there is in any chart today. The most significant reason that the music industry is dying comes not from illegal downloads but because of the wasteland of bland manufactured shit typified by boy bands and 'Pop Idol' TV shows that they are trying to force the diminishing market to listen to. Where is the 'Jeepster' or 'Riders On The Storm' in this chart:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio1/chart/singles.shtml

(you can reference this link next week, next month or whenever, and I venture it will contain as much putrid bile as it does today - but right now, the most worthwhile song in there is an Elvis re-issue)

Not that there's a shortage of good music today - far from it, we're living during an exciting period with a lot of really talented artists making music - but the major labels are spectacularly failing to embrace and promote it.

Looking at that BBC chart depresses me. Its as if the world is slipping back to 1982. Did someone hit the reset button somewhere? Signe, are you contemplating aerobics with legwarmers?

Nah, we're way past 1982. This time 25 years ago, we at least had Night Porter by Japan & Mad World by Tears For Fears:

http://www.chartstats.com/chart.php?date=01%2F12%2F1982

You are ignoring the fact that the radio industry itself has totally changed. It has nothing to do with nostalgia.

Hey now, only a little less than 4 years ago we had the Gary Jules version of Mad World (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4N3N1MlvVc4) for Donnie Darko.  The rest of the chart for that week is really depressing, though:

http://www.chartstats.com/chart.php?week=20040110

"Very metal riffs polluting the air.
Can you dig it?  HELL YEAH!"


  :rock_hard:

Yes, the music industry remains good at reselling things they've sold in the past. A handful of covers and re-issues doesn't make the current situation much better however. The singles chart has always been led by the whimsy and banality of teenage fashion, but with record companies peddling a diverse portfolio comprising of products from many contemporary bands, that fashion could uncover interesting artists and place their music in front of the more complex market for albums and live music. When the record companies started to focus on producing formulaic songs written by a handful of professional songwriters and dealt out to carefully controlled boy bands, bimbettes and rappers in order address the more easily led teen market directly, they largely abandoned the diversity. If you look at the portfolio of currently represented artists under a label such as EMI today, you'll see that alongside the 'classic' dinosaurs that they continue to milk, the contemporary artists are primarily dancing mannequins and vocalists paid to deliver some 60-70 year old songwriter's lyrics while dressed in 'street' fashion duds. Its hard to find a young U2 (for example) when you're not taking chances with diverse acts that control their own music. The worthwhile artists that are succeeding tend to be doing so against the odds, and are being signed up by the major labels after they have already demonstrated their ability to sell products via personal or indie labels., and even then, they rarely get good representation.

In the 1970s and 1980s, more music changed hands on cassette tape in playgrounds than ever did from retailer to purchaser. Although the Internet has made the playground bigger, the loss of industry sales is largely the fault of greedy boardroom pillocks with their heads stuck up their asses. The 'lost sales' were never there - people who don't have thousands of dollars to spend on buying music just don't. The industry may have used fashion whim to help expose artists, but it was the 20-40 year olds with disposable income that were making them the money, not the high school kids, and failing to find, promote and nurture complex and diverse artists is a failure to make money. Every dollar they pay useless cunts like Simon Cowell is a thousand dollars they take away from their own pocketbooks.

I don't disagree with any of that.  I just wanted to link to that Gary Jules version of the song because it's  :awesome_for_real:

Dude, awesome for real doesn't mean awesome for real. It's sarcastic. Look at the face!

Looks like an excited anime face to me.  All that's missing is some drool coming out of the corner of its mouth.  Can we get into a sissy slapfight about this, too?  :awesome_for_real:

I like leg warmers.  And arm warmers.  And funny little gloves.  I may have run out of sissy fight smilies.  Have a dancing Jesus, instead.  (http://www.democraticwarrior.com/forum/images/smilies/jesus.gif)

I'm not sure if it's grunge or what....

But I kind of like Paramore. As I am told, most people are scrred to admit to liking them, but I don't care.

You may blame NHL 08 for this post.



Also, I'll never try to say I have good taste in music. My music collection is epic lulz Incarnate.

Paramore is Twee.  How do you like THAT for a music category?

The diversity issue is what I was alluding to with my comments on the radio industry. It surprises me that there are even 40 songs to put on the top 40 these days. Of course top 40 and radio has always mostly been crap, but in the "old days" radio was far more diverse. These days very small playlists are devised at some central office and that's pretty much it, every part of the country getting the same list every day.

Yep, in the "old days" (not really that long ago actually), it was left up to the discretion of the DJ, like in college radio. Hell, the DJ was considered a Rock Star is in own right. In the old days. All DJ's these days go by the name of Clear Channel though.

Gee, that couldn't have anything to do with why the music industry is 'losing'* so much money, could it?  No, it must be teh pirates! (http://salempirates.home.comcast.net/images/smiley_pirate.gif)

*If by 'losing' you mean 'not making quite enough to install solid gold bidets in all the corporate bathrooms this quarter'.

The only money the music industry is losing is the profits they claim they would have made if someone who downloads the songs they would never have bought had actually bought the songs they downloaded. Otherwise, those assholes are making more than enough money. The guys losing money are the artists who don't get enough money for their songs in the first place.

The sentiment of your post is correct, but this bit is actually wrong - the industry is contracting because of a lack of sales and nearly all companies have been running with operating losses for the past six years - people other than artists are being laid off - in management, promotion, CD pressing, etc. Its an industry in crisis, but it  is not because of illegal downloads.

Fuck the music industry - they're irrelevant.

By these assholes, I mean the music industry executives, who like corporate executives all over America, are making bank while their company/industry goes to shit. The entire music industry could collapse tomorrow, and "these assholes" would still be living in their mansions.

Hay guyz, people don't buy shitty products! Amazing!

Actually, a massive number of people buy shitty products. But people who buy quality products are finding alternate avenues that don't load up money on the middlemen. I always try to buy directly from the artist if possible.

You always have dipshits buying enough crap to keep the industry around in some form to leverage their media assets to assault the mainstream with their products. It's just saturation marketing, oh who will sell more albums, Fitty or Kanye? Who gives a fuck?

Meanwhile, I'll support artists who do this: http://stores.musictoday.com/store/dept.asp?band_id=551&dept_id=6707&sfid=2

I got the FLAC version of the Haynes/Allman disc and burned it to CD, it sounds great. Real musicians don't need no steenkin studios. And techno/rap/whateverthefuck can do it on their mac and don't need a studio either. A studio is becoming a luxury. It's fucking awesome.

http://www.inrainbows.com/

I read somewhere that the site will be taken down soon. Get it while it's hot!

There was an email stating that it'll be up till the 10th. UK time, I assume.

In Rainbows fucking rocks.  It's about time Nude made it on an album.  I bought the physical copy and paid $20 to download it.

I got so frustrated with the music industry in the late 90s (fuck Relapse) that I completely quit paying attention to the modern bullshit being churned out and 8 years later am still working my way through old jazz albums and supporting obscure indie bands like Autechre.

40GBP? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING? can you buy the fucker without fucking vinyl?

I'm almost tempted to do 1GBP for the MP3. Because I'm pissy about the box being so much.

I don't think you can get it without the vinyl.  The price really didn't phase me as Radiohead is a favorite of mine.  The album will probably still be haning on my wall 15 years from now.

Just download it for free, they don't mind.  I was just happy to support them in their big "fuck you" to the modern music industry.

I'll support the fuck out of Reznor's new album too.

Total Goods Price     £ 1.45

Thanks for the cheap MP3s. Now plz to not be charging an arm and a leg for a CD and vinyl.

Haha!  £ 1.45 for what is IMO the best album of the year.  A winner is you!

God damn Radiohead rules.

Ok.

(http://www.inrainbows.com/Content/13.gif)

That's not really worth it to me. Expensive as fuck.

You can't give an FU to the music industry charging that much.

Now, I am happy with my copy of Burning Empires from VNV Nation that I paid too much for to get it the day after it was released in Germany.

Speaking of - I missed the bowie box release 2 months ago.

CLICK (http://www.amazon.com/David-Bowie-Box/dp/B000W1V46G/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1197189332&sr=8-1) TO PAY

Hah! Didn't know he did a cover of Pablo Picasso.

His new album is Bowie Taking a Piss on his Fans.

Who did that originally? That was on the Repo Man soundtrack, iirc? Used to be in rotation at our half-pipe when I was a youngster.

The Modern Lovers.

[edit] The Burning Sensations did the Repo version.

Meh, In Rainbows didn't really thrill me one way or the other. I still have yet to figure out what people think is so amazing about Radiohead.

Maybe you need better weed.  :uhrr:

If drugs is what it takes to appreciate Radiohead, then I can begin to understand the luv for the band. I bought their first album based on one song, and it happened to be the only song worth a damn on the album. In Rainbows hasn't really made me change my opinion of the band at all.

I enjoyed the Kid A/Hail to the Thief stuff. I can still dig it now and again, but my tastes have drifted away from that stuff in the last few years. I mostly listen to blues and 'period' jazz (django or basie, not bitches brew).

The Bends is a rockin' album, but I never understood the big deal about anything after that.

Pablo Honey and The Bends had some good songs, but as far as the rest of their catalog I seriously can't understand what everyone thinks is so great about Radiohead.

'Sup liked-Pablo-Honey-and-The-Bends crew?  The first time i heard Creep (in an alternative club in London when i was down on business) I thought it was Morrissey: can't say fairer than that.

There have been good tracks - some very good tracks - since, but winning votes for best album of all time points at self-fuelling critical hype.

I liked the track "Harrowdown Hill" by Yorke as a solo artist.  Again, I listened to the album and was impressed, just as I was by OK Computer, but that didn't make me listen to it often.

Anyway, Coldplay say they were heavily influenced by OK Computer.  That is enough for me to confidently assert that, were I gifted a time machine, I would use it to go back in time and sabotage the recording sessions.  Obviously, I'd then pop round the corner and shoot Coldplay.  Can't be too careful in these types of things: I've seen movies.

I don't mind Coldplay... Not buying their albums or anything either... But it's good guitar playing.

As for Radiohead, I'm pretty much biased towards guitars. I admit that. The Bends is a good example of it. And the more and more they moved away from guitars (at least how I like them played), the less I could get into their albums.

Neither come from any Brit Rock/Pop strand that I'm into though. I like things more stripped down, raunchy, garage-y, poetic stuff.. Going back to the Beatles, Stones, Who, Kinks. I love the Clash, Gang of Four, Wire. And I think Pete Doherty is the best thing since the Clash. Completely toasted or not, he makes fun, simple, honest music.

See, I liked Creep and could have done without the rest of that album. I listened to In Rainbows again, and Nude is a good song. The others are ok, but just don't stand out at all.

Why are people so critical of Coldplay? I love their first album.

Short of 2 or 3 songs, Coldplay is interchangeable with any radio dreck.

Sometimes, even radio dreck is listenable. Not often, but just because it's popular doesn't mean it sucks.

I love Radiohead because they push the boundaries between jazz, electronica, blues, and rock and all the while doing it with exquisite style and respect.  Their song writing is also unparalleled in modern rock IMO.  No one comes close unless you count Pink Floyd :)

There I'm done spooging.

Now Pink Floyd I do not like. I might even say that it's the only band that I hate completely.

Don't bother giving me shit about it though. I've heard it all before.  :wink:

No one said that. In fact, I said the opposite.

I labeled a genre of radio as radio dreck. I didn't say it was interchangable with any of the shit on the radio. Rather, there was a key word after that.

I do drugs.. and do not like Radiohead.  :ye_gods:

I'll bother anyway.

Philistine.

Radiohead are strongly influenced by a style of experimental music first significantly pioneered in Germany in the early 70s, and referred to as Krautrock and its most evident on In Rainbows. It fuses elements of rock music with jazz and modern classical ideas and is quite different from the predominantly blues-derived rock music that dominates the mainstream. In recent times, music that is developed from similar influences has been lumped under the label 'post-rock' but Radiohead are fairly singular in their vocal approach, and also in that their sound continues to evolve rather than solely represent a fairly static style, unlike most post-rock artists. I find Radiohead to be creative and inventive, using more influences and sources than most contemporary bands. They evolve their sound over time, and yet retain a group dynamic that is markedly their own.

Reckoner uses both guitar and drum parts that could have come straight from Neu! but has that wonderful Yorke vocal - its superb.

Yeah, that's a lot of it Righ. I do like experimental bands when the result is something pleasing musically, often it's not. Yorke's vocals are great and have a nice forlorn and manic driving quality. I got into Radiohead after seeing them do Idioteque on SNL. I'd heard and enjoyed Creep, but that's the performance that made me buy a cd (Kid A).

Just the sheer inventiveness of their stage show and Yorke going from forlorn to manic blew me away.

Speaking of multi-genre creative rock, I hope Mars Volta continues to be as creative as they've been. Probably my favorite of the newer bands, though I know they're not real popular around here. Not sure why, they totally rock. The only negative I can say about MV is they like to put in a lot of sonic mood stuff between songs that you can't skip on the cd. But imo they're the new Rush+.

TMV are great, I just wish they'd find somebody who didn't compress the hell out of their albums in the mastering stage. They could also do with making a 50 minute album from the best ideas rather than trying too hard to fill a CD. However I wouldn't call them the 'new Rush' - there is no new Rush, though the last Rush album was astonishingly good by their recent standards. Claudio Sanchez of Coheed & Cambria sounds eerily like a younger Geddy at times though.

By that I mean MV push creative boundaries while still maintaining some radio-friendliness (like the Widow), and when my fiancee first heard them she thought it was Geddy Lee singing.

I need to check out some Coheed and Cambria, I've liked what I've heard of theirs and they are a great interview. Had a recent guitar disc with them showing off some riffs. Another band Guitar World turned me onto was Mastadon.

I first heard Sea Beast by Mastodon on MTV2 and loved it.  I then saw them supporting Tool and would have been delighted just to have seen them in concert (although Tool were a step beyond them, as it turned out.  Or actually two steps).

I've seen Tool a couple times, the most memorable was at some tiny place the size of a high school gym (bleachers and all) in Poughkeepsie. Got to meet the band after, very cool night. Melvins opened up and I became a big fan of them, too, not sure how I missed them in the 90s. Lysol pwns.

Yes to the Melvins.

I'd love to see them in a small venue: the Barrowlands Ballroom in Glasgow would be brilliant, and Kin Tut's Wah Wah Hut (consistently voted the best venue in the UK) even better.  But seeing them in what amounted to a small stadium (the conference centre in Glasgow) was still astonishing.  The Smashing Pumpkins signally failed to fill the same space on their increasingly-innacurately-named fairwell tour, and bands like MCR struggle badly to deal with the rotten acoustics, but Tool's really intricate and closely-interwoven micture of set design, music, lighting, back-projected visuals and lasers was easily the most impressive overall show of any I have ever seen.  And I've seen a lot of bands in the last 25 years.

Most impressive show I've seen is a 15 minute abruptly shortened set of the Butthole Surfers burning a stage, followed by Gibby firing a shotgun and getting chased off by cops. Second coolest show was Steel Pulse.

That's a tough act to follow, so to speak.  i can only imagine that there is a steep drop-off in drama levels between numbers one and two.

Heh yeah.. The Pulse wins just by virtue of the tunes themselves.



So anyways....


Albums of the year anyone? Got a top 3 at least?

MIA - Kala
Tomahawk - Anonymous
Babyshambles - Shotter's Nation

Tricky one: it's been a pretty good year for music, but not a year with obvious masterpieces that will clearly define it.

I'd go with:

Neon Bible by Arcade Fire (almost as good as their first album, which is an achievement for any attempt at the "difficult second album")
From Here We Go Sublime by The Field
and (partly for contentiousness sake, but also because I believe it)
The Black Parade by My Chemical Romance

The latter may be mainstream and popular but it is full of really good tunes, and is superb performed live.


I also really liked Situation, by Buck 65, but I'm not sure that it's up there in the top three.  I also really liked iLiKETRAiNS' Elegies To Lessons Learnt, but I suspect that many people are put off by either their morose sound or their tendency to write songs about history.  Still, it's another chance to link to Terra Nova and its great video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hoHloQFJNvs).  Also, it was released outside the US last year.

That is a cool vid. Thanks. I had a Godspeed/Sigur/Mogwai kick several years back, but I can barely do it anymore album wise. Deep inside, I just like pop tunes! Always good guitar playing from bands like that though.

Granted, Anonymous (by Tomahawk) is by no means a pop album either... But I haven't heard anything like it ever. Still rocks in it's weird sort of way, but musically speaking, it's one of the more experimental things I've heard in awhile. Every band that tried to borrow from Native American culture just sounded like blues. This sounds like what a true fusion and rock and indian music should be. Mescal Rite 1 (http://homepage.mac.com/kthompsen/songs/tomahawk_mescal_rite_1.mp3)

MIA is unlike anything I've heard either... But damn, I think she's catchy. Too bad there isn't a Paper Planes vid yet. Boyz (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZv-G7IISgs) is funny though.

Babyshambles has a great vid for Shotter's Nation. French Dog Blues (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esQaDBWvtuY)

I loved the Mescal Rite 1: the fusion stuff I like is usually that working with a blend of western and middle-eastern or indian influences, like Michael Green's work with U. Srinivas, "Dream", but that was excellent and very different.

The MIA trrack, funnily enough, did give me a touch of that eastern feeling: it really did seem to reference Bhangra, both in sound and in the dance element.

I have the Babyshambles album: in fact I have both of their albumc, as well as those by the Libertines and their other "post-decay product", the Dirty Pretty Things.  I wish Docherty would stop dicking about and actually concentrate on writing songs.  i also, incidentally, wish he would get rid of that hat.

MIA is Sri Lankan/Brit, so yeah, there's this Indian-ish thing goin' on with her stuff. She's fusing a bunch of shit though. Dub, ragga, hip hop, sampling the Clash, covering the Pixies..., and making it all dancable and sing-a-long. She's pretty much THE shit right now imo.

Pete finally did accomplish something with writing on this album, I think. The last one, not even close. The whole burnout thing definitely got in the way there. I'd say that I like Shotter's Nation better than the Libertines albums though.

Ah, well that would tend to explain it :)  I thought she was from the Carribean for some reason.

She's got a little Salt n Pepa thing goin' on in that vid, I guess.

She spoofed an old Bollywood disco song on this album too. Lol, definitely not looking Carribean here: Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9_Dk_F98cU&feature=related)

That was just fucking dreadful. I'd prefer a 24 hour Tunak Tunak marathon.

Well, it was supposed to be funny...

When she's serious about fusing that culture, it sounds like Bird Flu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDSnLcu2HTI) or that Boyz song.

[EDIT]

By the way, just to cause you more pain, Schild, here's the original version of Jimmy Adja: CLICK (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE1HvMadQOI)

You know you want to sing along.

I've been staying out of this thread because I don't like being a snobby arsehole with every post I make, but I can't believe no one called you on this.

I like Xiu Xiu, TV On The Radio, and The Knife. Let me have it.

Nothing wrong with any bands mentioned, in my opinion. Usually the only criticism leveled against bands like My Chemical Romance and Fallout Boy is because some people don't think they should be called "punk". But what-the-fuck-ever. That's just being clique-ish and not actually talking about the music itself. People were trying to tell the Exploited and Social D that they weren't punk in their day either. I mean, for what? Because they were several years too late from the original "scene"?

You're right. Fallout Boy is a "great rock band doing interesting stuff."  :awesome_for_real:

I'm not talking about what Sky said. I'm saying that the main reason they may get frowned upon isn't the music itself, but whether or not pop punk qualifies as punk. It shouldn't matter. What he said is better: They're should just be taken as a rock band, and criticized accordingly....

At the risk of sounding sheltered and ignorant of today's music, I've become quite fond of Lacuna Coil and Silversun Pickups. They are admittedly a bit more pop than Stray's tastes, but I'm more interested in good songwriting than I am in experimental 'tactics' that haven't been tried before. Sonic Youth, bless their hearts, did a lot of experimental stuff that only a mother could love, but managed to actually write a batch of good songs despite their inability to control their instruments' feedback. They are famous for the latter, but only because of the former.

I'm not sure I could name most impressive shows, there are so many levels and eras to think about.

I also had a great Butthole Surfers experience, waaay back in 86. I was a huge fan, they were another in the regular rotation at the half pipe in 85/86. Anyway, Gibby was tripping and had an effects rack at the front of the stage. For most of the show he just sat on a stool in front of the effects rack and messed around. I was in the "front row" (there wasn't really a front row, it was the Lost Horizon bar I've mentioned that had a sunken concrete pit surrounded by steel rails...best metal venue evar). At one point I was asking him to play songs and he launched into every one, to this day I'm not sure if he knew it was an external suggestion or not, heh.

Then at the same venue, I saw Manson play on the first tour behind Portrait of An American Family with Daisy Ramirez on guitar (who fucking rocks). They made us stand outside the venue for an hour in upstate NY january and then an hour inside with the place absolutely packed full (over fire codes, I'm sure). The place was brimming with hostility. Manson played four or five tunes and kept getting shocked from a poorly-grounded mic (which also gave his vocals an even /more/ aggressive edge). Finally, he threw the mic at the sound guy and stormed off stage. The place blew up. It was especially cool for the local musicians, because even though it was a great venue, if you weren't a Syracuse band the owner would stiff you on pay pretty regularly. The place got totally destroyed and the guy sold it. It's never been the same since, but goddamn that was an intense show.

Impressive musically is also tough. Brian Setzer was amazing as a showman and musical virtuoso, but I've seen so many great acts over the years, it's hard to choose.

Best album of the year, I can't even get into. I don't really buy or listen to enough new music to make an informed vote. Hell, I don't even have the new Tool yet and I've only given the new MV a few listens. I do dig the new kids like MCR and Fallout Boy, as I mentioned. I got a nice acoustic album I've mentioned here that was recorded at red rocks this year, Allman and Haynes. Most of the stuff I bought this year is older stuff, Tony Bennett, Johnny Cash at Folsom, Count Basie, Duke, Etta James, Muddy, Luther Allison (amazing), Roosevelt Sykes, Leon Redbone, etc, etc, etc.

Well, I do like pop. I don't want to admit just how much, but believe me, it can get pretty silly. As for Sonic Youth, my tastes can be a bit contradictory there.. Sonic Youth has written some good pop songs, but I really just like EVOL and Sister. Which are kind of teeter tottering between the experimental and pop oriented periods, I guess. Favorite song is Death Valley 69 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abFsnnsa_6A) though -- and I love the video. Kim Gordon with a shotgun!  :inluv:

[edit] I seem to have a fascination with musicians with shotguns.

Fallout Boy's first album was really good, fun pop, well written, cleverly worded and almost intolerably catchy.  What annoys me is that it's totally acceptable to like well-crafted pop, so long as it is old.  It is fine to say that you like Motown, but laughable to appreciate anything new.

Fallout Boy can be Emotown!  (http://forums.di.fm/images/smilies/lmao.gif)

Best three albums of the year... I probably won't settle on that until some time next year - the stuff that came out in the last few months hasn't had enough plays. It takes listening a few times, taking a break from the album and later going back to it to really get the measure of roughly how good it is for comparative purposes. Candidates:

Porcupine Tree - Fear of a Blank Planet
Fish - 13th Star
Rush - Snakes and Arrows
LCD Soundsystem - Sound of Silver
Fovea Hex - Neither Speak Nor Remain Silent: Allure
Radiohead - In Rainbows

Up there, but a touch shy of top honors:

Riverside - Rapid Eye Movement
Underworld - Oblivion With Bells
Anekdoten - A Time of Day
Kristin Hersh - Learn To Sing Like A Star
The Resonance Association - Failure of the Grand Design
Ex Wise Heads - Liquid Assets
Pelican - City of Echoes

Things still on the 2007 shopping list which will need listening to in order to make the call:

The Aliens - Astronomy For Dogs
Oceansize - Frames
Tangerine Dream - Summer In Nagasaki

And there were a lot of good bands that put out decent albums in 2007, but which just didn't live up to their potential or what turned out to be a pretty good year for music: NIN, Ministry, Dinosaur Jr, Foo Fighters, QotSA, Threshold, Pain of Salvation, Explosions In The Sky, Do Make Say Think, Einsturzende Neubauten, Thurston Moore, Buckethead...

I would describe something like Spoon or possibly even Arcade Fire in that way... but Fall Out Boy doesn't seem well written, cleverly worded or even especially catchy to me. I find it to be quite mediocre and uninspired.

Easy for me...

Best day of music was the following line-up at Bonnaroo 2003:

Jack Johnson (guest appearance by G. Love), then Ben Harper, then Neil Young.

Best individual show was actually the next day of the same fest and was a midnight show by the Flaming Lips.


Edit: Oh and fuck Fall Out Boy. I fucking hate them. They are quickly moving up my list of most hated bands which is topped by AC/DC, yeah I've already heard the argument about how AC/DC is awesome but I still hate them, fuck them and their big balls.

Best day/night of music for me hands down was Phish new year's 2000 at Big Cypress.  After playing an afternoon set, they came back on stage at midnight and played till sunrise non-stop.  Truly an amazing experience.

Wow, an AC/DC hater.

You must be the spawn of Satan.

Actually, that'd a little too ironic if he was the spawn of Satan.

Hmm, what's the correct insult for a person like that...?

There's no such thing as an AC/DC hater.  I don't believe in UD_Delt.  I think he is an urban myth, like Frank Sinatra.

Yep, he's awesome

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH3FWM2ZCeQ

 :awesome_for_real:

Fuck I almost lost it around the 2 minute mark...


Edit: By the way when did Madonna become Rock & Roll?
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/12/13/rockhall.inductees.ap/index.html

She started off in a punk band actually (singing and playing guitar).

Fuck me I need to pay more attention. Pelican put out another album and I didn't even get the once off t-shirt?! Hydra Head's mailinglist must be getting caught in the filter. :(

Must find money.

I came here to post this.

That said, this one is the best (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXbCt_1mrak&feature=related) of the shredding series.  The Iron Man bit is brilliant.

My daughter had her first birthday the other week.  She got a bubble skirt.  Scared scared scared.

Just noticed Righ's post. Wanted to comment on Einsturzende Neubauten.

Been going downhill since Silence is Sexy.

Paging Draconian to this thread.

Damn that's funny  :rofl:

[edit] By the way, speaking of the early Madonna.. She wasn't bad. Kind of had a Chrissie Hynde thing going on. Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVeSDKZwpi4&feature=related)

Speaking of strange crossovers, lets be glad this one never came to fruition:

(http://t-rex.hobix.com/archives/deedeemc.jpg)

Oh god damnit thank you for this thread.  I had no idea there was a new Underworld album out.  I thought they and Tomato were done.

 :heart:

Doesn't do the packaging justice. My copy of the special edition finally arrived. The grey bit on the top right is the hard card slip case. The black bit in the lower middle is the back of the enclosed gatefold. The gatefold is a heavier card than most any album released after 1965. The two vinyl records (both half the main album, in glorious 45 RPM cuts) are in either side of the gatefold in soft plastic lined inner sleeves. Inside the left half of the gatefold is a slip cover of roughly the thickness of a modern exterior album cover which contains the art booklet, which you see top right. The inside of the right half of the gatefold is split in two vertically, with the left half of that being a mounted lyric booklet. The right half is thick card with two cutouts to hold the CD and the companion 'extra' CD. Somebody should get an award for this packaging.

And of course, it sounds much better than the MP3s did, but you'll be able to get the single disc CD version soon enough for that.

I necroed to quote myself.

In Rainbows started to grow on me. I listened to it like 3 times, and after a few weeks, I started wanting to hear the songs again. So I listened a bit harder. And the more I listened, the more I started to really dig the album. So I got Kid A and started listening to it and now I think I really like Radiohead. I just don't think my mind was ready to wrap itself around the songs before. Weird.

That happens to me with Radiohead, Tool and a few others that are hard to get into at first.

That happens to me with almost any album. Even the Spice Girls. Not sure if I'm just easily susceptible to brainwashing or that I just have an open mind. I used to think it was because I was a musician, but that probably isn't it. Most musicians I know are heavily biased when it comes to music.

Most of the musicians I've worked with close enough to become friendly and social with seem to have very eclectic tastes in music, regardless of the sort of music they perform themselves.  Even knowing that, their record collections, even conversations about music, always have a surprise or two.  It's interesting where some people get their inspiration and influences from. There were a few exceptions.  Like a pretty well known singer I know who has a very difficult time listening to anything but his own music.  Even out in public, hearing music used to make him twitchy.  Even Christmas music!  That was weird enough to be neurotic, I think. 

 :oh_i_see:

Although I can usually tell if I'll like an album or not from first listens, critical listening takes more time. Often something new may seem better (or worse) due to my mood or environment. But listening to the Spice Girls more often will not improve my opinion of their music. It will simply annoy me.

New tool albums always take me a few listens to get into. Mars Volta can be that way, too. But then they really rock once you can piece together what's going on. I've been trying to get more into jazz recently, and I've given up on Bitches Brew. I just don't like it. However, I am loving the Django 5-disc set I got over the weekend. Django, Grappelli, Basie, that's the stuff I like.

Have you tried Kind of Blue at least? That's the Jazz I like especially. Bop era. Especially Coltrane.

I like Django, but for the most part, I can't get into Jazz guitar. He's a little different, whatwith the gypsy thing, and I like Wes Montgomery too -- but generally, I prefer horns over guitars. Jazz guitarists are so damn technical and neat and "smooth". Horn players are wild, unorthodox, adventurous... I've mentioned before how much I like Tom Verlaine from Television -- HE is the closest I've seen a guitarist come to Coltrane -- and he was a punk!

It's on the list to check out (Kind of Blue). I was previewing some Montgomery at B&N and maybe it was just the albums I picked out, but it was way too slick and produced. I've heard alot about him in relation to playing stuff in octaves, which I still throw in now and again, but I was underwhelmed.

It's not just about guitars for me, either. Horn lines, pianos, I don't care. I just like good music. But Django...he's from another planet. Nobody should be that good with only two fingers!

Heh Montgomery had more fingers, but he's pretty unique in that he only picked with his thumb, and he started playing late.. 19 i think. Both of those factors alone make him a helluva lot less pretentious than the average jazz guitarist. But yet, he's the one most of them are trying to sound like.

Not sure what albums you're talking about, must have been late period if they sounded like that. My favorite was his cover of California Dreaming (and the album by the same name).

Most albums take me a few listens through before I really get them, but with Radiohead it was just an aversion right up until the music started to reverb in my head. Then I just had to keep listening. It's a tumor!

There is quite an assortment of music that takes me some getting used to.  Frank Zappa is pretty bad about that.  Some of his stuff is very inaccessible but what is going on once you hear it and understand it is pretty interesting compared to what the average 3 or 4 piece on the radio was doing at the time.

I dislike AC/DC. Just boring music.

Lot's of albums take multiple listens to get into. Often when I first listen to a new album I do it while I am doing something else, like working, to let it sink in on a subconcious level before I really listen to it.

Don't think that would really work for the Spice Girls though. Works well for new genres, unfamiliar arrangements and such, not standard pop.

As a point of order, how is Social D not punk . . . unless you mean "1975-77" as the "original 'scene'"

FFS, Another State of Mind (the film, not the song) lands them smack dab in the middle of the L.A. punk scene.


That's why I love WXRT here in Chicago. Their DJs still pick the songs. It's glorious. They also stream their broadcast (http://player.streamtheworld.com/CBS/?CALLSIGN=WXRTFM), so anyone can listen to what is pretty damn good radio 99% of the time.

Yeah, the 77 people. It's stupid, I know. There are a lot of people out there who wouldn't consider anything post 77, post New York to be "punk". That even bands from the NY area, but yet, post 77, weren't punk either (like the Misfits). British bands (even the Pistols), LA bands, whatever, get the shaft..

I'm definitely not saying that though. Social Distortion is one of my favorite bands. A lot of LA bands were (big fan of X too).

A lot of people are crazy, stupid, and can't let go.

I used to be a little snooty when I was younger (not as snooty as those original ny scenesters), when I didn't give any credit to bands after the 80's that played punk. I couldn't "let go" so to speak. But that was stupid too. Nowadays, I think I like just as many newer punk bands as I do old ones. I draw the line with the sum41/blink182 stuff, but you can't blame me there. And even then, I don't necessarily hate a lot of songs or riffs from those bands. It's just the childish singing I don't like.

OK Schild... If you're reading, recommend me some synthpop made in the last 5 years or so. That's your deal, right?

The catchier/poppier, the better. Preferably English lyrics. In the spirit of my avatar, give me a top 5 list.

[edit] Shit, one other thing... If you pay attention to this kind of thing at least, I'd prefer bands with at least a part-time guitarist. Like a lot of earlier bands had.

I too would look upon such a list with interest.  This is one area where Schild comes off as not-insane to me.

Catchy, pop, synths and samples, part-time-guitarists, amusing lyrics:

PWEI
Carter

OK, so they fall down on the "last five years" bit.  I'm not at home to Mr Picky.

Pwei is not really what I'm going for.. That's a little too rock and breakbeaty.

Anyways, there's a good reason why I say past five years -- the sound of older drum beats and synths from back then have really dated. That's why I'm curious really. What's being done with new gear these days. Not to say I don't like older stuff anymore -- as long as the songs were good, that's fine. And in some cases, I wouldn't want some things to change a bit.

One other note about guitars: I don't mean metalish or hard rock riffs. Like a lot of industrial bands try to do. Just the occasional thing like DM did is fine. Or anyone who sounds like Johnny Marr.

[edit] Hmm, Carter just sounds like a pop/rock band with synths.

Last 5 years? Ironically, that could be hard. The only release I've bought in the last 5 years was uhmmmm the new VNV Nation and Covenant albums. I picked up a lot of older, rare stuff. Celebrate the Nun, a Silke Bischoff album (not really synthpop, more folk), and uhmmm yea. Most of my favorite synth stuff came between 1998 and 2003.  It was pretty much the high point of modern synthpop. Whatwith Wolfsheim's 'Spectators,' VNV Nation's '(Burning) Empires,' Iris' 'Disconnect,' And One's '9.9.99 Uhr,' and Covenant's 'United States of Mind.'

Iris' Disconnect is probably the most poppy out of those. The latter 2 are more industrial/EBM than anything else. Wolfsheim's album is the most poppy OF their albums.

If you want to drop into the poppiest shit you need to hunt down stuff like Evil's Toy (Later rebranded T.O.Y.), Beborn Beton, S.P.O.C.K. (which, if I remember correctly, stands for Space Pirates on Channel K - anyway, it's Star Trek themed music (and some generic sci-fi stuff, better than the tv shows IMO), De/Vision, Neuropa (though, I like to call this GayPop).

Anyway, what I'm getting at is this - it's definitely evolved from New Wave and didn't exactly pick up where the late 80s/early 90s left off. Guitarists are few and far between. The only band that had a regular guitarist (post 1995) that I can remember playing on my radio show was Bella Morte. Not kidding. And they are _not_synthpop_. But rather, a small, local goth band until they won a ferret award or some shit. They were on the Vampire: The Masquerade: Bloodlines soundtrack I believe. Or at least, their poster was in the first club you went to.

Edit: Also, I've been listening to In Transit (the Covenant album that recently came out) in my car alot. And I only like one track. Synthpop had a resurgence there for a while. But it's pretty much gone to trash again. Hell, even Iris - whose Disconnect is fucking amazing - scored a big fat zero from me on Reconnect. Though they're good live.

OK, De/Vision's cool. I've heard them, and kind of what I'm going for.

But you answered my question, I guess... About New Wave and such (which is ultimately what I want more of... Just with newer synths). I'll look into the other stuff though. Thanks.

Some bands have a guitar when they play live. But those are few and far between. Problem is, when a guitar riff is needed, it's rare simply because synthesizers have come a long way since Kraftwerk laid down Dentaku.

Oh, also, if you somehow have access to them (local music store or something, I don't know), you can really tell how the last 5 years has turned to shit compared to going back 6-10 years ago simply by listening to the compilation CDs that came with Orkus magazine.

Edit: Here's a top ten from some random blog (http://synthpopreviews.blogspot.com/2007/10/top-10-modern-synthpop-must-have-albums.html). It's not bad. I'd replace Bodypop with another And One album. I'd probably replace Neuroactive with some Statemachine (but the Neuroactive album is easily their best). Take of Echo Image, throw on Cosmicity (maybe, tough call). I would DEFINITELY replace Endanger with Evil's Toy though. Otherwise, even the descriptions there are good.

Edit 2: Also, here's the 20 most popular reviews from synthpop.net. As you can see, Iris' Disconnect just won't disappear. And that's because it's a fucking masterpiece of an album.

1) Loveless - Hello World   
2) Intervox - The Darkest Hour
3) Leiahdorus - Ashes, Ashes....
4) In-A-Sense - Seclusion
5) I Satellite - Auto:matic
6) The Dignity Of Labour - Demo
7) Hyperbubble - Airbrushed Alibi's
8) Red Flag - Who Are The Skulls?
9) Mesh - Who watches over me (Home Records)
10) Iris - Disconnect
11) Various Artists - Synthphony REMIXed! Vol. 2
12) Various Artists - Popaganda: The Speed Of Sound
13) Blind Faith And Envy - The Charming Factor
14) Various Artists - Rocket: A Tribute To Dead Or Alive
15) The Dignity Of Labour - XRV MCD
16) Depeche Mode - Exciter (Mute/Reprise)
17) Hyperbubble - Airbrushed Alibis In Dub
18) Opaq Face - Close Enough
19) Spray - I Am Gothic Remix Project EP
20) Avenpitch - Butterfly Radio

On a less facetious note, Dave Gahan's solo track "Kingdom" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwcUi-Aok6Q) is bloody good, in a kind of Covenant (Call the Ships to Port phase) meets (unsurprisingly (Depeche Mode)) way.

I get crap from my more goth friends for liking them, but I have a soft spot for She Wants Revenge, with stuff like "Tear You Apart (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BIm8jcfWog)" and "Written in Blood (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4cqN85aumg)" (technically probably not so work-friendly that you could watch it withthe boss looking at the screen).  I can't help it, though: it appeals to the part of me who liked Ultravox before they left their Bat Cave-ish era and had hits.

Shit Schild that is some obscure stuff, I tried the top five there and only got a hit for "Loveless - Hello World" which turned out to be set to some super-dodgy youtube footage of Japanese-style young-topless-boys hentai.

Yes. Gahan is the shit. I'm a sucker for any baritone, and he's one of the best. I could just simplify my requests here, and say I want more variations of Depeche Mode, but that might be simplifying it.

Kind of surprised Exciter made that list above though. I thought it kind of sucked. Playing the Angel is the better new-ish DM album.

Yea, Exciter was poopy.

But gothies love their DM.

Also, most gothsynthebmtypes are not to be trusted with anything. Especially not your car keys.

I don't know what qualifies as goth anymore. Used to hang around some of them, but they were into much older shit, like Christian Death.

Modern synthpop:

http://www.myspace.com/revolutionbynight

http://www.myspace.com/melotronmusic

http://www.myspace.com/weseekcolony5

Goth went to Electro land. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Rg1kvnr_h4)

Christian Death's Church Of No Return, together with Alien Sex fiend's Acid Bath, were what got me into Goth music when I was 13 or 14.  Girls in fishnets and bob cuts were what held my interest pretty soon afterwards.

Well... It was only the girls that held my interest from the beginning. ;)

Bloody hell I like that Colony 5 stuff a lot (though I'd appreciate a version of Knives where the lead singer tones down the Protentuous Voice bit a bit). I'll be having that when I get home.

Yeah I liked it too... Not what I had in mind, but the sound was good nonetheless.

Meh to some of the lyrics of these bands though...

Oh the lyrics are awful.  I suspect that this has a lot to do with them being German (and that's not necessarily a second language thing: it's an earnestness thing).

I know that there is a no lyrics rule, but I can't stop myself.  From that Colony 5 link:


I am making love to all the girls, yes?

Edit: OK they're Swedish.  Same thing applies.

I'm a few years older and lived in Leeds, so I got into Goth through local bands like Sisters of Mercy, March Violets and Rose of Avalanche. I guess it wasn't a bad time to be in Leeds. I don't think that much of what's popularly termed goth today has much to do with the earlier generation. Mallgoths. ;)

(Colony 5 are Swedish - lyrics guaranteed to be more awful than those of German bands).

Heh yeah. Not the most poetic way of putting it, but I'm behind the idea, I guess.

I never could get into Melotron much. Have a few of their albums and singles, I think I like all of two tracks.

Would you say you are a completist, an optimist or a slow learner?

Typically a completist. When I get into something, I can't really stop.

Call it OCD.

I call it awesome. I have all sorts of neat... collections.

I'm a completist, but don't really want to be. When I like a band, I'll pointlessly hunt down foreign ep's, band member guest appearances, bootlegs, shit like that. But I never like any of it. Deep down, I'm just a sucker for catchy songs. My true liking for something will almost always come down to their singles -- or what I think are the singles.

OK, synthpop aside (I am exploring those bands atm..thanks for that), I had another question...

This is a little old, but Stadium Arcadium is a fucking great album. This is just dawning on me.

I've been a chili peppers fan since way back, like in elementary school... But I've put my foot down with just about every album after mother's milk (blood sugar was good, but i was a little snobby when it came out I hate to admit). Definitely didn't like a lot of things afterwards though. Californication had maybe 2 tracks I could hang with. Stadium, even with it a double album with a ton of tracks, is just so good though. Their best one. They finally merged that funk punk side with the poppy stuff they've been into in recent years, and it works perfectly.

What I'm wondering though is, can anyone think of other bands that have done that for you? Where something so late in their catalog trumps everything else?

Its not really. Great albums need to sound great. That album is heavily compressed and mastered so hot and is so bereft of any dynamic range that its painful to listen to. Its why TMV are great live but sound flat on CD. Its why Muse write subtle songs that sound anything but subtle. Its why Rush put out an album (Vapor Trails) that had better writing than many before it and yet it stinks.


Quite a few. I suppose the most obvious one would be Pulp - Different Class, which was some 17 years into the band's history.

I don't like heavy compression either, but considering the style of music they play, I think it works in their favor. Frusciante and Flea are punchy funky types to begin with. They were already loading up on heavy compression in their gear all of these years. Kiedis can be a smooth singer, but he's got his staccato rap thing and George Clintonisms as well -- compression doesn't get in the way of that either. If it was harder rock like Rush with a singer like Geddy, a band that needed more spaciousness, then I could agree.

All that being said, production and engineering (or even musicianship/virtuosity for that matter) don't constitute "great" to me. The musician part of me can appreciate it and all that, but it's nothing I truly gravitate towards. I'm sure you know by now that I'm a sucker for singalong pop songs. I love a catchy song, good riffs, good lyrics, and stadium I think is better than what the chili peppers have done in the past. No big stand out tracks, but all of them are pretty good in their own way. I can't say that for their older albums. There was a lot of tripe in them.