Fun Stuff > BAND

QC Music Blog discussion thread

<< < (4/46) > >>

Inlander:
Hmm. What I find dull about that article is that it simply lists the albums as they came out, with little or no attempt to examine how each album relates to and builds on the albums before it. However unsuccessfully, one of the things I tried to do in my article was point out how in that mid-to-late-nineties period, everything the Dirty Three did was a refinement of what they'd done in the immediate past. I tried to give a sense of the band growing and strengthening.

Jackie Blue:
Have you heard Bedhead's three albums?  That article more than accurately describes the evolution of their sound, meaning, there was very little.

Inlander:
No, I haven't, and the only information that I get from the article is that they put out an album, and then they put out another album, and then they put out another album.

Jackie Blue:
Well, I don't get much more info than that from your Dirty Three article is my point here.

Like I said, it would help if you contextualised D3's sound with other artists contemporary to them.

In the past several replies you've said both that you have no interest in describing their sound and that you have an interest in describing how their sound evolved.

Highly illogical, Captain.

Inlander:
I'm working from a base assumption that the people who read the article will be familiar with the essential sound of the Dirty Three. I'm assuming that people who are reading the article, when somebody says "Dirty Three", will be able to go, "Ah, they sound like this". Of course there are many people who do not know what the Dirty Three sound like, but I am not writing for them. You can't write for everybody, and if you attempt to do so you will be doomed to failure. However, I think the evolution of the Dirty Three's sound is something that is frequently overlooked - for instance, I read a review of Whatever You Love, You Are that, while glowing about the album, claimed that all of the Dirty Three's albums sounded basically the same, as if somebody had just turned off the microphones in the studio and left the band to play, and then come back a couple of years later and turned the microphones on again. This strikes me as being manifestly untrue, but it seems to be a commonly held opinion. In essence a band has two "sounds": their "general sound", the one that enables you to hear a song and immediately know who the band is, and their "specific sound", which is the way in which a band makes subtle (or unsubtle) alterations to their "general sound" over the course of their career. I am not interested in describing the Dirty Three's "general sound", and as stated above, I assume that readers will already be familiar with this. However I also assume that many of the readers who are familiar with the band's "general sound" will not have paid any heed to the "specific sound" of the individual albums. This is the sound I'm interested in examining.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page