THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Ernest on 11 Dec 2006, 11:02
-
I just wanna know everyone's take on them. I think they're enjoyable, but I was just wondering what my fellow amateur (and professional) music critics think. I don't know what made me ask about them.
-
They are just a bit too angry for me :-)
-
Ah, I think they're a great band. A lot of hype around them, but I'm one of those trendy "I hate everything on the radio" people, so it matters not to me.
I like that they do quirky and unique things, and they seem oddly intelligent lyricly. Even though their lyrics are often crazy.
-
it's all downhill after Toxicity
they are a good band, definately more interesting that a lot of the other stuff that you hear on the radio, but now they have grown a little stale, as they have found a formula that works and are sticking to it
-
I really wanna hear what Khar thinks of them. :-D
-
I appreciate the message they're trying to get out, but they go about it way too bluntly. Soapboxing is hard to listen to :|.
Musically, they don't make very good metal IMHO.
-
This thread is essentially like covering yourself in a vest made of steak and asking a few of your friends to help you into a pit of lions.
-
Lol. I just want to see what will happen. I'm attached to a rope, so I can always quickly withdraw.
-
I can't really stand them. Its mostly the singers voice grating me and the lyrics being uninspired, but theres not a whole lot to write home about musically speaking for the rest of the band.
-
well the first 3 albums were fine (i'm counting the demo collection)...then something happened...they lost a whole lot of anger, a whole lot of scream and songs started appearing on the radio...to take the indie aproach
"i like them better before they sold out"
-
Lol. I just want to see what will happen. I'm attached to a rope, so I can always quickly withdraw.
No, your friends can withdraw the shreds of your being.
I have no problem with you liking System of a Down. They are not my thing but whatever. I would also be upset with anyone who tore into you for liking them as it's not their choice whether or not you like a band. However I do not think that System of a Down are, objectively, very good. This is a view I suspect is shared by a lot of other people on this forum.
Your posts to date seem generally smart, so I have to ask you and everyone reading this to not go around just baiting and trying to create trouble. If you look on the front page of this music forum you will see plenty of perfectly worthwhile threads featuring mostly-legit discourse about music. To bring a thread into existence just to stir up controversy is ill-advised.
-
Hey... i liked hearing them on the radio, and i've always been a Dylan/Costello/Cohen kind of guy. Angry and did interesting things with the music... wasn't bad to listen to, i reckon
-
I used to take their first cd from my roommate and listen to it while I showered. It was loud enough to wake me up.
-
I really hate System of a Down. Like, a lot. But whatever floats your boat, man.
-
They've made one album over and over and over. Plus Toxicity has no swearing on it. That in itself is not a bad thing but they did it so they would get more radio play etc.
Plus your average SOAD fan blathers on about how clever their lyrics are and how intelligent they are. Fine, they might be smart dudes but their lyrics are weak, obvious and not in the least bit challenging.
OMG bush sukz teh big1!!!1!!1!!11 lolz.
-
@Johnny C- Okay, this lion pit metaphor is a dead horse (not lion, or me, or steak, or whatever). Anyway, I'm actually kind of conducting a test with this thread. I personally don't hate System of a Down, but I don't particularly like them that much anymore (I had Toxicity memorized in 7th or 8th grade, though). I just was surprised that Rise Against wasn't getting slammed in the thread about them. I decided to see if System of a Down would get slammed in a general thread about them. Got a bit of both sides, but I guess I asked for it.
I realize my coherence may be in question at this point, so I'm going to go to sleep.
-
They've made one album over and over and over. Plus Toxicity has no swearing on it. That in itself is not a bad thing but they did it so they would get more radio play etc.
Plus your average SOAD fan blathers on about how clever their lyrics are and how intelligent they are. Fine, they might be smart dudes but their lyrics are weak, obvious and not in the least bit challenging.
OMG bush sukz teh big1!!!1!!1!!11 lolz.
Those first two statements scare by brain cells, and since I don't want them to suffer horrible deaths, I'm going to not get involved in them. BUT....
...Their lyrics aren't weak. You just don't like them. They've never bluntly said "Bush sucks" in a song or even specificly addressed him by name, but if they did, that wouldnt make them uninspired. In fact, if that's what they believe in, then they're definitely inspired when they sing about it.
-
Hey... i liked hearing them on the radio, and i've always been a Dylan/Costello/Cohen kind of guy. Angry and did interesting things with the music... wasn't bad to listen to, i reckon
I CANT BELIEVE YOU LISTEN TO THE RADIO :'(
Their lyrics aren't weak
(http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/4420/thedudedg6.jpg)
-
I like, or at least used to like them. Everything but their latest release was enjoyable, to a varying degree. Haven't really listened to them in a whila though.
-
I just was surprised that Rise Against wasn't getting slammed in the thread about them.
That's because Rise Against are a pretty decent band.
-
Fine, they might be smart dudes but their lyrics are weak, obvious and not in the least bit challenging.
Explain this please. Not for the newer albums, obvously, where they let their guitarist write the lyrics and it turned into a big shitstorm of cliches, but more for s/t, Toxicity and Steal This Album.
Because I really fail to see how a band as large as SOAD writing songs about things like the Armenian Genocide, MK-ULTRA, Charles Mansons environmental ideas, gnosis and fuck knows what else isn't challenging, especially not the way they present their lyrics. Of course, the poetry used on the earlier albums completely works against them. 95% of people I know who like SOAD don't actually have a fucking clue what their lyrics are about. Many of them actually think the band is deliberately spouting nonsense.
SOAD are interesting because they raise an important question about the political use of music. I, personally, am not going to be found hating on SOAD, even though I didn't like their second to last album, I haven't heard their latest one at all and I barely ever listen to their earlier material anymore. This is because they are out there expounding political ideas that I generally agree with, with far more scope and impact than any DIY punk band in history. The question of course is, is it better to 'stay true', or to actually be heard? I'm pretty sure SOAD have done more good in this world than you or I, in one way or another, and their music isn't really that bad. It's somewhat original, if not massively interesting. I have no objections, even if I won't listen to them. It's the same kind of thing where I laugh at BM fans who go on about how much they hate Marilyn Manson (when in fact it's jealousy: Marilyn Manson is achieving exactly what they want to achieve vis a vis the destruction of christianity, and he gets to fuck Dita Von Teese).
Also, just as a closing point, I'm glad no one's called them nu-metal, because that's bollocks. Anyway, I'm kinda in the middle of something so...
-
I too have a a bit of a "middle-of-the-road" opinion on SOAD. I think that they're mostly enjoyable to listen to, at least whenever I'm around someone that is playing their albums (usually in the form of the sound guy at a show I'm attending), but I don't find them engaging enough to own any of their music. I don't much care for how heavy-handed some of their songs can get, but I guess it's respectable that they're at least trying to say something. I'll be honest; I'm enough of an elitist prick that a lot of my distaste for this band is because of their stereotypical fanbase...they seem to appeal to the denizens of Hot Topic that are too "mature" for Slipknot, but still want to wear edgy band t-shirts in size 4XL.
-
HEY MAN I ONLY WEAR 2XL.
But honestly, I think their music is certainly interesting. I enjoy listening to it from time to time (but I'll that agree their earlier albums are definitely stronger).
-
Actually, this is one of the reasons I like posting in this forum: I get to discuss music of ALL kinds with people who like what they like for reasons beyond being what the heaviest pop-culture influence told them was cool enough to like...
-
I'm pretty sure SOAD have done more good in this world than you or I, in one way or another, and their music isn't really that bad.
Really? I wouldn't bank on that too heavily. The SOAD fans I know, even when grasping the political side of the lyrics, could give two shits about going and doing something about it, while the band spends an awful lot of money on making terrible music videos and staging big-ass tours. On the other hand I volunteered with Oxfam last year, worked as a truck driver at a charity for four months that I still volunteer at periodically and I've talked with my family about switching to green power next year, all while not giving a shit about System of a Down, and a lot of people on this forum could probably make quite similar statements.
SOAD are a dangerously overrated and radio-friendly band as it is without people attaching lofty statements of social worth to their music. I am okay with you enjoying their music but the second I hear about how awesome their contributions are to the world at large I might just snap.
-
I agree with Khar on this one.
I gave away all of my copies of SOAD albums because I just don't listen to them anymore, but I still think their first album was really good.
-
That is in fact what it is called.
-
They've made one album over and over and over. Plus Toxicity has no swearing on it. That in itself is not a bad thing but they did it so they would get more radio play etc.
Plus your average SOAD fan blathers on about how clever their lyrics are and how intelligent they are. Fine, they might be smart dudes but their lyrics are weak, obvious and not in the least bit challenging.
OMG bush sukz teh big1!!!1!!1!!11 lolz.
lol.
That's like saying "OMG Bob Dylan told me to get high and Bruce Springsteen totally loved being Born in America".
-
I used to like them quite a bit actually, definitely enjoyed their first three albums. I haven't listened to them in years though their last two singles I heard on mtv and didn't really like. I haven't really thought about them in a really long time. Since I listened to them the amount of music I listen to regularly as increased 10 fold (and as a result I think I've gotten a lot better at evaluating music). I'd check and see how they sound now but my usual computer is being repaired.
Heres my question about politics in music:
If your goal is to spread a message with your songs is their a limit to how intelligent your lyrics can be? Is there a limit to how sophisticated your music can be (must you then always be held to generic stuctures, pop hooks etc.)? Should we give political bands a break for writing boring music? Am I being elitist by asking these questions?
-
FOR ME, bad music with a good political message is as shit as bad music about diccionaries. Good music with a good political message is as good as good music about toasters, but i will probably hold the artist in higher esteem, see Fugazi and Death In June
-
Explain this please. Not for the newer albums, obvously, where they let their guitarist write the lyrics and it turned into a big shitstorm of cliches, but more for s/t, Toxicity and Steal This Album.
Well, I was specifically refering to their latest album but their earlier albums seem so muddled that I couldn't pick out any particular message. I guess that puts me in the 95%. If 95% of people listening to them don't get it then it seems that the message ain't getting through.
And BYOB... well lets not examine the latent political aspects of that song. It's been the most recent albums that have gathered the most success which says something about their marketing and fanbase.
Let me make it clear, I am biased. I don't like them, I don't like the way they present their music. That said, it's not difficult to make a commecially successful political record these days. See what AntiFlag, Greenday and Rise Against are doing. Obviously their messages are more overt but they're there none the less.
Now I've forgotten what my point was and I probably couldn't back it up anyway. I haven't sat through a SOAD album in the better part of 5 years now.
(And for the record, my decision is still out on whether to go big to promote your ideology. I appreciate the way Rise Against has done it but by the same token I don't like the way SOAD have e.g. removal of swearing to promote commercial success)
-
As far as I remember, SOAD said that Toxicity lacked swearing because they wanted to prove they could write a record without swearing as a sort of maturity thing. Normally I wouldn't be too inclined to believe such a tale, except that as far as I remember their newer albums have included swearing, not to mention gratuitous references to porn, drugs and whatnot. So, y'know.
Johnny: They also blow loads of money on co-running a charity and publicising the Armenian genocide, among a variety of other activist type causes. I don't know if you want to be congratulated for your personal efforts, which are obviously admirable, but all I wanted to point out is that System of a Down, despite whatever you think of them, are a positive force with good intentions, who have managed to achieve commercial success and fame whilst promoting some relatively radical messages to people who might not otherwise here them, and should be respected as such. I know a good few people who have been politicised in the right (well, left) direction by SOAD, me quite possibly included. Even if their message is only actually getting through to a relatively small number of their listeners then at least it is getting through, and they are, however ineffectively from our principled (and poor) standpoint, using their fame and money for some sort of positive ends, which makes them a damn site more admirable than most successful bands I can think of.
-
Yeah, in that sense, at least they're doing something. More than you can say for a lot of bands.
-
Is it really all that crucial whether or a not a band has swearing in their music? I can understand the point about them removing it just for more commercial success - jury seems to still be out on that one - but I don't know if I really get the idea of judging a band's worth by the number of times they can say fuck or shit. I think there's something to be said for a writer who can express the same emotions that those words quickly convey, and actually not resort to the old stand-by. Kind of a derailer of the current topic, but it's something I wanted to point out.
-
I liked their first two albums, but after that I lost intest in them.
-
The issue with SOAD and swearing is more that they say motherfucker about thirty times on the first album, and then don't swear at all on the second, which obviously leads to the idea that they'd cleaned up mainly to gain commercial success, though it's also worth pointing out about half the songs on the first album don't have swearing in them either.
-
Johnny: They also blow loads of money on co-running a charity and publicising the Armenian genocide, among a variety of other activist type causes. I don't know if you want to be congratulated for your personal efforts, which are obviously admirable, but all I wanted to point out is that System of a Down, despite whatever you think of them, are a positive force with good intentions, who have managed to achieve commercial success and fame whilst promoting some relatively radical messages to people who might not otherwise here them, and should be respected as such.
I want to point out that my post was just cautioning against burdening these guys with undue expectations regarding their contributions to society. Banking their value as musicians based on how responsible they are is a slippery slope towards forgetting music. I have to say that it is really cool that they're outspoken about the genocide and the war in Iraq, among other things, but as someone who is not a fan of their music I just wanted to point out that when judging anything musical the music comes first. I think that's something that I am constantly saying in every music discussion.
Sufjan Stevens' 50 States Project is interesting but what I care about is the music that comes out of it. Fugazi's anti-merchandising stance pisses me off because, had I listened to them before they broke up, I probably would have wanted to show my support for them and advertise them via t-shirt, because that is how I get people to know about Metric and The Arcade Fire and Bell Orchestre and a bunch of other bands, but whatever, because Fugazi made consistently great music. Whatever else an artist does, the art comes first. Everything else is biography and doesn't belong in any value judgement.
(p.s. i don't want to be congratulated because to be fair i feel that i did a pretty shit job at all of those things. i was just using myself as an example. darryl did something cool for his school and the environment recently, and had he posted it earlier i would have used it.)
-
Whatever else an artist does, the art comes first. Everything else is biography and doesn't belong in any value judgement.
I can't always agree with that statement. I mean, Johnny Rebel wrote some catchy songs, but they were all about hating black people.
By the way, I don't believe Fugazi has officially "broken up." I'm pretty sure they're just working on other projects right now.
-
I use the past tense because for the time being they're done making it. Sleater-Kinney are on "indefinite hiatus" now but I can almost promise you they won't make another record.
I'll amend my previous statement. Everything other than the art is biography and doesn't belong in any initial value judgement. However, I can almost guarantee that, just like "Jesus Loves Me" by Cocorosie which is essentially musical blackface and therefore for me nearly unlistenable, the lyrics of Johnny Rebel's tunes can probably help you decide whether or not the songs as a whole are good or bad.
-
I was cool with them till I heard Boom! specifically the line:
While billions are spent on bombs,
CREATING DEATH SHOWERS!!!
that ruined it all for me. Ug.
-
I was cool with them till I heard Boom! specifically the line:
While billions are spent on bombs,
CREATING DEATH SHOWERS!!!
that ruined it all for me. Ug.
Why? Because you can't deal with political lyrics that are trying to make a point?
That's just sad.
-
Where did you get that from? Or was that sarcasm? It has nothing to do with politics, CREATING DEATHSHOWERS is an amerturish, melodramatic, overly blunt line. There are plenty of good politcal lyrics. That is not one of them.
-
One of the best overtly-political moments I've heard in song in the last few years was the bridge in "Let's Impeach The President" by Neil Young. All it has is clips of Bush contradicting himself while Young and his choir sing "Flip... Flop!"
-
It has nothing to do with politics, CREATING DEATHSHOWERS is an amerturish, melodramatic, overly blunt line. There are plenty of good politcal lyrics. That is not one of them.
Ok, so: You let one line ruin your opinion of a band's entire output? It's not like SoaD hadn't used any amateurish, melodramatic, overly blunt lines before. I mean: "I cry / When angels deserve to die?" Or how about this subtle and nuanced gem from "Prison Song":
"Drug money is used to rig elections / And train brutal corporate sponsored dictators / around the world!"
Arguably part of the fun of SoaD is the melodramatic, overly blunt lyrics, and their juxtaposition with weird oblique ones. They're pretty obviously a goofy band to some extent, so if you're trying to take them 100% seriously all the time you might kind of be missing the point.
-
No, I know, I was exaggerating when I said that line alone ruined my opinion of the band, that's just sort of the epitome of all I dislike about it, and even that wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't a spoken word piece. I still enjoy a few songs by them (forest, toxicity) but on the whole I don't find listening to bad lyrics fun. Ridiculous, goofy lyrics sure, but not just straight up bad ones.
-
Oh, heavens no! They weren't vague about what they were saying and said it "dramaticly"! They should calm down and say something emotionless and cryptic, so we can hear good intentions, but be too confused to know in which direction to think. YAY!
Seriously, I guess you just don't like their lyrical style. "Death showers" isn't over-dramatic, it's a rather obvious way to describe what "raining bombs" is. What would you have prefered? "While billions are spent on bombs, CREATING A RAIN OF BOMBS!" Or "While billions are spent on bombs, CREATING HUGE BOOMS!!!" ... ... ... ... ...Yeah, that last one was overly bad, I apoligize for that one.
When making a point, don't you think it's best to be clear and have feeling behind it?
-
I think music should be good before it should be political. Having a good message does not make up for sucking. I disagree with you saying its over dramatic, that song is about as histrionic as you can get. You can make metaphors that aren't cliches, and actually bring poetic value to the song, that make a point.
-
I think music should be good before it should be political.
WINNER
-
I'm generally anti-politics in music and art, and i prefer lyrics about dictionaries. I make an exception for some Ted Leo, some Dylan (not the obvious stuff, but good stuff like Lonesome Death of Hattie Carol) and, um, Springsteen
basically, good art comes before politics, and i prefer politics out of music and any art. i gave my ex shit about being a Micheal Franti fan 'cause he seemed to be political and care about stuff
its kinda an asshole stance
-
I think music should be good before it should be political. Having a good message does not make up for sucking. I disagree with you saying its over dramatic, that song is about as histrionic as you can get. You can make metaphors that aren't cliches, and actually bring poetic value to the song, that make a point.
The sad part about that is that you can only judge what has artistic value or is well done for yourself, so I guess we're just stuck at a point where you just don't like the metaphor. Oh well.
-
i prefer politics out of music and any art.
Well, quite apart from the fact that pretty much all art makes a sociopolitical statement whether you want it to or not, I completely disagree with this. I'm an artist and a musician and I believe art and music are two of the most powerful political tools available. I plan to (and indeed do) use my music and art to communicate my political, social and philosophical ideas. I also feel that as far as keeping the politics out of art goes, out of the three project briefs I have in this part of my course, one is expressly political and one could easily be political, simply because of the nature of the brief. Already this year mini-briefs I've been given have included designing a new logo for the conservative party and manipulating a section of a billboard to express a political or social message. Art IS politics.
-
Well theres a difference between politics and Politics (though obviously not in the spelling). Pretty much everything is political but not everything makes an explicit point regarding which party or faction should or should not control the governement. Music about the latter tends to be boring, simplistic and oblivious because the topic is explicit, the position of the artics is a known quanity and the message is one most intelligent people have heard before. Further generally speaking I think this sort of music implicitly refuses to accept that it's message might be wrong. None of that is inherrantly bad but those characteristics tend to result in less interesting music.
Part of this is because when an artist is really explicit about the music's message the listener's enjoyment will be undermined the monent the listener hears part of the message that she disagrees with. For example, I can't stand Greenday's "American Idiot", mostly this is because the tune sucks but I also find the message to be short-sighted, simplisitic and at times offensive and just wrong ("redneck agenda"). I actually wonder if history hasn't made the 60's conflict more clear cut than it was. I've assumed "Masters of War" was more compelling when it was written but its definitely possible I would have thought it too simplistic.
Khar is still mostly right though.
-
On the "art is politics" line of discussion; I don't know if I necessarily agree, at least if the argument is that art is ALWAYS politics. I don't think that art by definition must be politically skewed, or even politically minded. I think that art should be driven by passion. Therein lies the crossover; Khar, you say that you are using your art to, quote: "communicate my political, social and philosophical ideas." I guess I'm trying to argue that this is just a reflection of what you are passionate about, so that is where you find your muse. I commend you for it. I haven't had the opportunity to see any of your artwork, but I appreciate that you are trying to use it as a vehicle. By the same token, let's take someone who writes a sonnet for his lover, or who paints a portrait of his mother to show his appreciation for all she's done for him, or anything along that line; it's political in nature, but I would argue it has as much artistic merit as anything in the "political" spectrum.
I'm very much entralled by the idea of art as emotion and passion, more so than art as politics. I just think there is much crossover between the two.
Hopefully this didn't sound too pretentious, and I didn't come across as having my head stuck quite far up my ass...
-
Here's a simple solution to your "politics shouldnt be in music thing". If it messes with your enjoyment of the music, then you probably disagree with what they're saying. So... Don't listen to it. You're doing the right thing by notl istenign to it, because you shouldn't. It's sort ofl ike a christian complaining about a not being able to enjoy a non-christian movie.
They can express what ever they want, you thinking they shouldnt talk about what they believe is right is artistic tyranny.
And saying they shouldn't act like they know they're riht is a little odd, isn't it? If they didn't think they were right, that would sort of contradict them believing it, wouldn't it?
-
Well, i'm ok with it as its not the motivation or the ideas that i'm feeling from the music (afterall, how could such things be felt), but rather the convictions and feelings of the artists behind the ideas they put into the music, and how they are conveyed.
-
I'm not a big fan.
They've got some really neat instrumental stuff, and are good song-writers, I'll give them that. But I don't care for their whole attitude. They are a little too careless and offensive for me, although some of their songs are very clever.