Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › SF Music Club - The Albums
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SF Music Club - The Albums - Page 2

post #16 of 208
1/17/10 at 1:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiHero84 View Post
I tend not to like contemporary rock music.
+1 for the most part. Outside of a handful of distinctive or excessively talented bands, too many bands' sounds are molded in the same typology of urban/indie/Williamsburg/Montreal hipsters. Every time I see of a photo of an acclaimed band I can just picture them sitting around somebody's loft eating Kashi cereal and drinking microbrews. Where are the Prince and David Bowie figures that actually have creative sounds or distinguishable personalities? Does anybody set shit on fire anymore? Although in general there is some quality music, it's often redundant in the same way many hairbands were. It's groupthink on a public image level.
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 208
1/17/10 at 1:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
+1 for the most part. Outside of a handful of distinctive or excessively talented bands, too many bands' sounds are molded in the same typology of urban/indie/Williamsburg/Montreal hipsters. Every time I see of a photo of an acclaimed band I can just picture them sitting around somebody's loft eating Kashi cereal and drinking microbrews. Where are the Prince and David Bowie figures that actually have creative sounds or distinguishable personalities? Does anybody set shit on fire anymore? Although in general there is some quality music, it's often redundant in the same way many hairbands were. It's groupthink on a public image level.
I think I am now looking forward to your album.
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 208
1/17/10 at 2:09am
I'm going to start a band and create a new, distinct sound the world has never heard. Here's the lineup:


Kunk on tambourine
Manton on organ
Labelking on piccolo
Teger on fiddle
Conne on sound board

We'll start with Devo covers and go from there.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 208
1/17/10 at 3:38am
I meant the album you pick for the rest of us to listen to. But hey, if you can press that shit before it's your week - I'm down to give it an ear or two.
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 208
1/17/10 at 3:51am
or a video of a concert or two.

fwiw, i like the album. it's been on repeat for a few hours now, while i do other stuff, but i'll give it a proper listen tomorrow
Reply
Reply
post #21 of 208
1/17/10 at 10:54am
Interesting, that puts some of the opinions into perspective then, I guess. Makes me wonder how you guys are going to feel about my pick.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiHero84 View Post
I tend not to like contemporary rock music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StephenHero View Post
+1 for the most part. Outside of a handful of distinctive or excessively talented bands, too many bands' sounds are molded in the same typology of urban/indie/Williamsburg/Montreal hipsters. Every time I see of a photo of an acclaimed band I can just picture them sitting around somebody's loft eating Kashi cereal and drinking microbrews. Where are the Prince and David Bowie figures that actually have creative sounds or distinguishable personalities? Does anybody set shit on fire anymore? Although in general there is some quality music, it's often redundant in the same way many hairbands were. It's groupthink on a public image level.
I don't think it's fair to compare today's rock artists to the ones of yesteryear, given the vastly different media landscape. It's impossible for any artist to become so distinguished as the figures you mention because of the niche-nature Internet. But on the flip side, I'm willing to bet there were many, many artists just as distinguished and talented and versatile as Prince and Bowie, but they never saw the light of day because of how corporately controlled the music industry was. I'll give you this, the 60s/70s/80s are over. Rock is not about rebellion and upheaval anymore. If anyone set their guitars on fire today, it would just be cliche and, as you say, redundant. I guess I'm just OK with that and expect different things from rock music.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
It means that if this was an instrumental album, it wouldn't have gotten any acclaim. There's nothing that really separates this album's MUSIC from a whole host of other generic "contemporary" (as you put it) stuff right now. I would also hesitate to call this "rock music" but maybe that's just me. I tend to "not give a shit" about music publications. If I don't like it, a positive review isn't going to change my mind. I do like "quotes" though.
I don't believe that any instrumental album these days, barring the electronic, could receive any substantial acclaim. I think the only real innovation possible anymore lies in the actual sounds used in music. Everything melodic and rhythmic and atonal and arhythmic has been done, but we have electronics that will allow us to do them all over again with a different palate, and that is a subtle chunk of what I enjoy musically about this album.
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 208
1/17/10 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedalus View Post
Interesting, that puts some of the opinions into perspective then, I guess. Makes me wonder how you guys are going to feel about my pick.





I don't think it's fair to compare today's rock artists to the ones of yesteryear, given the vastly different media landscape. It's impossible for any artist to become so distinguished as the figures you mention because of the niche-nature Internet. But on the flip side, I'm willing to bet there were many, many artists just as distinguished and talented and versatile as Prince and Bowie, but they never saw the light of day because of how corporately controlled the music industry was.

I'll give you this, the 60s/70s/80s are over. Rock is not about rebellion and upheaval anymore. If anyone set their guitars on fire today, it would just be cliche and, as you say, redundant. I guess I'm just OK with that and expect different things from rock music.



I don't believe that any instrumental album these days, barring the electronic, could receive any substantial acclaim. I think the only real innovation possible anymore lies in the actual sounds used in music. Everything melodic and rhythmic and atonal and arhythmic has been done, but we have electronics that will allow us to do them all over again with a different palate, and that is a subtle chunk of what I enjoy musically about this album.

Nice reply. You old guys are terrible. I hope you enjoy festering in "classic" music because the narrow view some of you seem to cling to is causing you to miss out on a lot of music.

PS - I'm kind of ing at these claims of instrumental music being a completely explored medium. What kind of statement is that? Maybe you're trying to say something like "painting/drawing is dead"? Neither statement is true, though it might have been for a period of time through a certain art historical lense, everything (especially art and music) goes through revivals and reinterpretation and you can choose to view it as derivative but that's a pretty pedantic and naive way of limiting your experiences.
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 208
1/17/10 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewRyanWallace View Post
PS - I'm kind of ing at these claims of instrumental music being a completely explored medium. What kind of statement is that? Maybe you're trying to say something like "painting/drawing is dead"? Neither statement is true, though it might have been for a period of time through a certain art historical lense, everything (especially art and music) goes through revivals and reinterpretation and you can choose to view it as derivative but that's a pretty pedantic and naive way of limiting your experiences.

I don't know, the diminished seventh of Romantic music or the modal improvisation of jazz, I don't think those have ever been considered derivative. But uniqueness and innovation is not what defines musical worth to me anyways. I would hardly consider a medium dead even if completely explored. My main point is that it's so easy to say 'do something to set you apart instrumentally,' but when you look at what has been done, that is very difficult to do on any significant level.
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 208
1/17/10 at 12:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedalus View Post
I don't know, the diminished seventh of Romantic music or the modal improvisation of jazz, I don't think those have ever been considered derivative. But uniqueness and innovation is not what defines musical worth to me anyways. I would hardly consider a medium dead even if completely explored. My main point is that it's so easy to say 'do something to set you apart instrumentally,' but when you look at what has been done, that is very difficult to do on any significant level.
I think you're right, though I guess it's all about what we mean by "significant". Some people don't really care about things like texture or tonality, other people don't find appeal in dynamism or subtlety. Someone posted about how they don't care about lyrics very much at all; other people don't care for instrumentation. I just try to be open, and I am very vain when it comes to how I interpret and enjoy music, so if it makes me feel certain things that's usually enough. What makes a musical experience unique for my listening pleasure are the details.
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 208
1/17/10 at 12:59pm
Yeah, I'm old. I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I don't get off on this emo shit. Sue me. Personally, it's not about the texture tonality and subtlety or whatever pitchfork bullshit we want to discuss right now. It just isn't that great of an album. I'm listening to Dept. Of Eagles - In Ear Park right now, which is somewhat similar, but far more interesting and enjoyable to listen to, IMO.
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 208
1/17/10 at 1:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedalus View Post
I don't think it's fair to compare today's rock artists to the ones of yesteryear, given the vastly different media landscape. It's impossible for any artist to become so distinguished as the figures you mention because of the niche-nature Internet. But on the flip side, I'm willing to bet there were many, many artists just as distinguished and talented and versatile as Prince and Bowie, but they never saw the light of day because of how corporately controlled the music industry was.

I see your point, but some of my favorite music punk rock and hardcore. Two genres where many bands sound incredibly similar, if not exactly the same. These are also two genres where obscurity is often prized instead of being distinguished due to their popularity. Now, I don't completely limit myself to these two genres, but I do direct myself to music with similar qualities, particularly the energy and sincerity musicians use in creating their work. That being said, I feel that a lot of contemporary rock music is missing these key qualities. I know this isn't true in every instance, but it's a common gripe of mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dedalus View Post
I'll give you this, the 60s/70s/80s are over. Rock is not about rebellion and upheaval anymore. If anyone set their guitars on fire today, it would just be cliche and, as you say, redundant. I guess I'm just OK with that and expect different things from rock music.

Sorry, but I really disagree here. Rock is rebellion and upheaval. At least it should be. However, I agree with Tokyo Slim that this isn't exactly "rock" music.
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 208
1/17/10 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiHero84 View Post
Sorry, but I really disagree here. Rock is rebellion and upheaval. At least it should be. However, I agree with Tokyo Slim that this isn't exactly "rock" music.

+1. Which means that I agree with both you and, I guess myself.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 208
1/17/10 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Yeah, I'm old. I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I don't get off on this emo shit. Sue me.

Personally, it's not about the texture tonality and subtlety or whatever pitchfork bullshit we want to discuss right now. It just isn't that great of an album.

I'm listening to Dept. Of Eagles - In Ear Park right now, which is somewhat similar, but far more interesting and enjoyable to listen to, IMO.

Was strongly considering using this for my album, good stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 208
1/17/10 at 6:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewRyanWallace View Post
Was strongly considering using this for my album, good stuff.

I wouldn't try and stop you. I've been considering a whole bunch of disparate and eclectic stuff.
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 208
1/17/10 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndrewRyanWallace View Post
I think you're right, though I guess it's all about what we mean by "significant". Some people don't really care about things like texture or tonality, other people don't find appeal in dynamism or subtlety. Someone posted about how they don't care about lyrics very much at all; other people don't care for instrumentation. I just try to be open, and I am very vain when it comes to how I interpret and enjoy music, so if it makes me feel certain things that's usually enough. What makes a musical experience unique for my listening pleasure are the details.

I'm not even sure yet what I myself expect or want from new music. Am I looking to relate to it? Or do I want a challenge, to conquer what I don't understand? I guess it varies from genre to genre.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
Yeah, I'm old. I grew up in the 80's and 90's. I don't get off on this emo shit. Sue me.

Personally, it's not about the texture tonality and subtlety or whatever pitchfork bullshit we want to discuss right now. It just isn't that great of an album.

I'm listening to Dept. Of Eagles - In Ear Park right now, which is somewhat similar, but far more interesting and enjoyable to listen to, IMO.

Fair enough

Quote:
Originally Posted by AntiHero84 View Post
Sorry, but I really disagree here. Rock is rebellion and upheaval. At least it should be. However, I agree with Tokyo Slim that this isn't exactly "rock" music.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tokyo Slim View Post
+1. Which means that I agree with both you and, I guess myself.

I really wish that I could agree with the bolded. But what parent today would feel anxiety over their child getting into rock culture, even assuming the kid was listening to "real" rock? It's not like parents will assume devil worship, premarital sex, or illicit drug use because their child listens to rock. Hell, premarital sex and drug use is probably expected to some degree, and devil worship in these times is laughable.

I think most reasonable parents today would think, "oh, I remember the 70s, of sex drugs and rock and roll. Good to see he's not in a gang hustling rock or going to rave orgies on ecstasy." Rock music, even if sincere and energetic, seems like a safe rebellion. The psychedelic and punk rockers and metalheads are all old now. Ozzy's kids are brats, not revolutionaries.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › General › Entertainment and Culture › SF Music Club - The Albums