THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: ScrambledGregs on 30 Dec 2006, 02:57
-
I've been re-reading High Fidelity lately (yeah, yeah, shut up) and the whole thing about what people are like versus what they like confounds me. I don't think it's a black and white situation, that what people like matters more than what they're like, or vice versa. But in my own personal experience, I do tend to be drawn more toward people who like the same things as me. Maybe that makes me petty and superficial??
For instance, on the rare occaisions I go to parties, I find myself talking to people about music because I'm rather shy and it's the only subject I feel I know enough about to discuss with others. When I find the one or two people at the party who have similar taste to me, I like them the best and end up talking to them the rest of the night. At a large party once I happened upon a guy that liked Captain Beefheart and, in my drunken stupor, I promised him a taped copy of my Lick My Decals Off, Baby vinyl. "Now here's a guy I can drink with, god damnit!!" I shouted to my then-girlfriend across the room as her guests looked perplexed back and forth between us.
I do think that what people are like matters a lot, too. I just am attracted to people who like the same things as me, and from there I see what they're like. Does this preclude me from people I could get along with really well but who like terrible music, books, and movies?? Well, this raises a whole 'nother topic of what makes for friends and lovers...is it having things in common, or being a like, both, or none of those?? But we'll skip that for now.
-
You have to have common ground in the aesthetic arena to truly like someone. There's gotta be something. Even if it is just Stairway to Heaven, it's something. Without that, the whole of social interaction would all just be superfluous diplomacy.
-
Do you meet any of those people in real life? The humorous ones, I mean.
-
I don't necesarily get along with someone just because they like the same music. As long as they can carry on the conversation about music, whether I like it or not I generally get along with them.
-
I am drawn more to people who like the same sort of things I do, but I find myself more caring about whether or not they are utter dicks. I find that informs my decisions far greater than any other factor.
-
Meet a lot of chavs, do you?
-
"Don't hate nothin' at all 'cept hatred..."
-
In Britain you will never meet someone who is not openly guilty of at least one of those four types of prejudice.
That's a blatant exaggeration/lie.
-
No, it's not.
-
Not that I've been to Britain for more than 3 days in my life, but it seems less racist, sexist, and homophobic over there than it is here. But then maybe we can attribute that to the law of "the grass is always greener..." Dunno. The US is definitely a fucked up place as far as those kinds of prejudices go. Classism in particular. We have wayyyyy rich people here and wayyyyyy poor people and noooooooootttt that many in the middle.
-
Britain has the biggest economic divide between the rich and the poor in the developed world, but I have to say, I've never really experienced classism. That's probably because the high school I attend is in a very rich town very near to manchester, so roughly half of the students are middle class, and the other half are working class, so the numbers of both are large enough that nobody bothers eachother.
Homophobia is something I've noticed, though, outside of my close circle of friends (and a couple of people in my circle of friends) are homophobic. Usually not to massive degrees, but it's always there, even if it's just using the word "gay" to describe anything that's bad. Sexism is again something that's there on a small scale, I know a lot of guys who are really offensive and obectify girls. In my experience, the only guys I really know who don't objectify girls are the ones who are still too afraid to really talk to girls all that much, most of the ones that do are total pigs.
-
There's racism, classism and homophobia here, as well as a surprising, if not enormous, amount of prejudice against the handicapped for some bizarre reason. I cannot fathom it being much different in a lot of places, Britain included.
-
I use the word "gay" to describe anything negative. I do so all the time. And so do my homosexual friends.
-
They're taking it back, I presume.
-
I don't actually know many people from Bournemouth, so I wouldn't pass judgement. Those I do know don't seem to exhibit such feelings, except one really christian guy who's a bit homophobic. The Arts Institute is a pretty liberal place, I don't see much prejudice round here. To be honest, I don't know much prejudice among the people I know on the Isle of Wight. Bits and pieces, among certain people, I don't know, I've never expected everyone in the world to be completely unprejudiced, I know I'm probably not. Your problem probably stems from the fact that you seem to be a moral absolutist. I mean, because someone uses the word gay to describe something as negative doesn't mean they're a homophobe. I must have been using that word for four years before I even knew what homosexuality was, it slips out sometimes when I'm drunk or pissed. And I've had sex with guys.
-
In The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman, the play about Matthew Sheppard's death, a Catholic priest says that saying things like fag or dyke is a form of violence, and that calling someone any of those terms is akin to actual physical violence. Honestly that's true - names first, then sticks and stones later. That's how it goes.
If you've had sex with men it seems like it would be in your best interests to avoid using "gay" as a derogatory or negative term. Were somebody to choose one of my physical or psychological attributes and turn it into a slur, I would do everything I was able to in order to remove the negative power from that term.
-
There are an awful lot of things which could go in place of "gay."
"That's absurd."
"That's ridiculous."
"That's stupid."
"That's insane."
"That stinks."
"That sucks."
"That's bogus."
I try and dissuade people from using "gay" when there are a plethora of alternatives.
-
Alternatives are gay.
-
We lend power to these divisive labels when we have any concern over their use whatsoever. It's gay.
-
In The Laramie Project by Moises Kaufman, the play about Matthew Sheppard's death, a Catholic priest says that saying things like fag or dyke is a form of violence, and that calling someone any of those terms is akin to actual physical violence. Honestly that's true - names first, then sticks and stones later. That's how it goes.
If you've had sex with men it seems like it would be in your best interests to avoid using "gay" as a derogatory or negative term. Were somebody to choose one of my physical or psychological attributes and turn it into a slur, I would do everything I was able to in order to remove the negative power from that term.
For one, that is hyperbole, for two, the way I might use the word 'gay' without thinking about it is slightly different from me calling someone a 'fucking faggot', for three, I do avoid using it, all I'm saying is it's a word I've been using since I was about 8, and I haven't always given a shit about things like that, so it comes out sometimes, especially in certain social circumstances (like when I'm with the friends I had when I was 12/13). What I'm saying is, if I say it, it is not from some conscious decision to denigrate homosexuality or set back gay liberation, and you cannot assume that anyone who uses the word is actually homophobic. Similiar with a lot of things. Insensitive, yes. Un-PC, yes. I admit that it would be better if I could avoid using it, but I've never been entirely proficient in pre-analysing every word that comes from my mouth, so hey. You'll notice I never use it, or indeed any other similiar prejudicial terms, in internet correspondence, where I have time to think about what I'm saying. I do not think it is a positive thing that I occasionally come out with it, I'm just saying it happens, and that I am one of the least homophobic people you're ever likely to meet for, well, obvious reasons. To expect everyone to speak in a PC manner is unrealistic. I personally wouldn't do it because, despite the fact that I do think that, to an extent, words are power, and I don't like the way our society employs them, I fucking loathe political correctness even more.
-
What I'm saying is, if I say it, it is not from some conscious decision to denigrate homosexuality or set back gay liberation, and you cannot assume that anyone who uses the word is actually homophobic.
I know it's not conscious, and I know it's not not a sign of homophobia necessarily. However it condones it, actively or no.
-
Congrats, you managed to completely derail my thread in the mere...I dunno, 5 or 6 hours since I posted it.
-
They are TALENTED at it! It is what they are good at. At least it's intelligent and not huarahagha-esque.
ON TOPIC: My friends have shitty taste in everything! Well, most of them. They like horrible (yet usually pretty fun) music (as opposed to my impeccible top-of-the-barrel indie taste), like horrible movies like She's the Man and Just My Luck, misuse the word "whom" (It is NOT interchangeable with who!!!), and overall have bad taste (and by "bad", I mean "different than me"). Are they kickass people? Why yes!
This is probably bad too, but I go slightly out of my way to NOT look like I like the music I do. I like solid color basic shirts, normal jeans, nice solid color basic sweaters... I have the black frame glasses but everyone does. I prefer to meet people and be friends on better basis than just "OH U LIKE MAN MAN TOO OMG U R KEWL!!!" (though I have made friends with a baristo based on his delightful facial hair). It's nice to have things like taste in common, but there must be much more than that in common for me to be friends with that person.
-
I like to think that Johnny and I have a mutual respect and friendship despite having extremely different tastes in music. In fact, I would like to think that people are not so shallow as to make their judgements of other people based on something as trivial as musical taste. I mean, I like music a lot and all, but it's so ancillary to my relationships with people. One of my coworkers is a really good friend of mine and likes all kinds of terrible gangsta rap or whatever.
Of course, Johnny could just be extremely diplomatic and secretly mock me behind my back. I wouldn't know.
(Note that Johnny was just an example, I could have substituted Emilio or somebody else I know well on the forum and my point would remain the same.)
-
Storm Rider makes a superb point, guys. I am messing it up slightly here but I would say that if your tastes in music aren't aligned then you can probably find something else in common, even if it's a general appreciation of the other person's differences. I do find myself attracted to girls whose tastes are similar to mine but that is in the same sense that I find myself liking brunettes more than blondes. If a blonde girl showed interest in me and I was interested in her then there is a connection that goes beyond hairstyle. In a similar vein if a girl liked awful things and yet honestly cared about me and I could say the same about her then that is the part that counts. With friends I don't even have those preferences, it's just tommy's "crap/not crap" simplification turned into "dick/not dick."
-
A lot of times for me, it's more a case of do they have the same KIND of appreciation for things as I do. I understand that not everybody likes the same music that I do, and that's okay. Ideally, I'd love to meet a girl who loves Converge as much as me, but that's not an absolute necessity. Same thing with my friends; they don't always like the same things I like, but they all have the same passion for what they DO like, and that's more important to me. I'd rather have a discussion with someone over coffee on how Band A and Band B both affected our lives in our own ways than to go back and forth with "dude, they rock" "yeah totally." I'm the same way with books and movies - my best friend has been working on me for a couple of years to get me to read the Harry Potter books, which I still haven't, but he is as excited about that series as I am about House of Leaves. That's what the connection is, more so than that we like the exact same things.
-
Storm Rider makes a superb point, guys. I am messing it up slightly here but I would say that if your tastes in music aren't aligned then you can probably find something else in common, even if it's a general appreciation of the other person's differences. I do find myself attracted to girls whose tastes are similar to mine but that is in the same sense that I find myself liking brunettes more than blondes. If a blonde girl showed interest in me and I was interested in her then there is a connection that goes beyond hairstyle. In a similar vein if a girl liked awful things and yet honestly cared about me and I could say the same about her then that is the part that counts. With friends I don't even have those preferences, it's just tommy's "crap/not crap" simplification turned into "dick/not dick."
Hammer, meet the head of the nail.
-
I agree with ?; it's less important that my friends like exactly the same books/movies/music that I do, but more that they are excited about SOMETHING. I am an extremely outgoing/diplomatic person and I can talk to just about anyone for a while....but it's immensely boring to me if a person doesn't seem to be passionate about anything. If, when asked about music taste for example, a person just says 'oh, I listen to a little bit of everything' without saying anything further to clarify or exemplify I take it as a cop-off answer. And I usually find it difficult to become friends with a person like that.
There isn't a lot in common between myself and my close friends now in terms of WHAT bands/music we like (I'm ridiculously into new Canadian 'indie'...I loathe that term but there it is...they're into hardcore) but it's more important to me that we're all really into what we like, and actively search for new stuff. And can understand one another's hyperbolic excitement when a new album comes out. And understand if, occasionally, we get blown off for a show. 'Cause sometimes...you just have to go.
And the whole dick/not dick aspect comes into play too. Not dick (which really is THE most important part of the equation) + not boring = OMG BFF 4 EVERZ!!1!!
-
I know what you mean. Almost all o the people I know who are my age listen to mainstream music, don't read and I baisically have nothing in common with. Most of them thought I was insane when I told them I like buying CDs insted of downloading them, and that I have almost 300 CDs in my pesonal collection. And that I enjoy reading.
The only person I met who had similar views, opinions, and music taste was 12 years older then me.
The argument between Tommy and Khar kind of reminds me of here.
I hate where I live. I think this city the rectum of Israel, seriously. But none of my highschool friends seems to mind living here. I find that insane.
-
In Britain you will never meet someone who is not openly guilty of at least one of those four types of prejudice.
That's a blatant exaggeration/lie.
Yes, yes it is.
-
Basically, IF YOU DONT LIKE HEAVYU METAL YOUR NOT MY DFRIEND
woo
-
It would be silly for me to expect people i like to have as brilliant and refined taste as mine.
-
Man, you like Cyndi Lauper and Elephant Orcestras. You are not good taste
-
I refuse to be judged by a boy who listens to so much Journey.
-
Hey, man, I am not claiming superiority
we are on the same level of suck
-
That is so not true, i have a vynil of every Niagra record on German import.
-
I have a white label of every seminal Detroit techno hit - 1985, '86, '87.
-
I listened to a promo copy of that single when you were 13.
-
I made that single
when I was 13
take that
-
I made you.
When I was 13.
-
take that
(http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/REIN/13616~Robbie-Williams-Torso-Posters.jpg)
??? :?
-
In my experience musical taste is a very useful touchstone, but not always an essential one. On one hand when I finally met someone who was into obscure New Zealand drone artists we nattered on for hours and it was great, we've been meeting up fairly regularly to swap burnt CDs and discuss new finds. He has something of a one-up on me as he's actually been to NZ and met a bunch of the people who make the records. On the other hand me and a ladyfriend of mine don't exactly share the same taste, but are able to stand each others preferences. It's been good for a laugh on my part, such as the time she thought Swervedriver were angry and the fact that she finds Mark E. Smith's voice to funny.
-
I refuse to be judged by a boy who listens to so much Journey.
THIS THREAD IS DEAD TO ME
-
I refuse to be judged by a boy who listens to so much Journey.
THIS THREAD IS DEAD TO ME
The truth hurts, huh?? I routinely get made fun of at work for playing my indie whatever shite while everyone else there is either into modern country or 80s hair metal/butt rock.
-
I routinely get made fun of at work for playing my indie whatever shite while everyone else there is either into modern country or 80s hair metal/butt rock.
I routinely get made fun of at school for playing my indie whatever shite
I routinely get made fun of at friends' houses for playing my indie whatever shite
I routinely get made fun of in public for playing my indie whatever shite
I routinely get made fun of in the car for playing my indie whatever shite
I routinely get made fun of at home for playing my indie whatever shite
I routinely get made fun of at all of those places for playing my indie whatever shite even when I'm not playing it
-
I'm not sure what your point was, but I was being completely serious. I work with rednecks, essentially, and they reacted so violently to Comets On Fire and Blur(?!) that when I left the back to go help a customer, they unplugged my CD player and hid it. Everything I play at work is either "weird" or "annoying" or "noisy shit" or "gay." The end!!
-
My point was an extension of your point. Here is a conversation I might have and in fact have had:
Me: "Oh, you want music for your party? I can burn you a disc." (I am thinking of putting on Daft Punk, Gwen Stefani, Justin Timberlake, Basement Jaxx, ABBA, Madonna, etc.)
Friend: "It better not be full of stupid indie shit!"
Me: "Well it wasn't going to be."
-
I think something needs to be cleared up here. I really like Kai, and we have a huge taste overlap. It's just that he was implying that my taste was anything but impeccable.
-
EMILIO IS MY FRIIIIIIIEEENNND
I am just saying both of our taste in music is shit
-
Anybody who has what could be called "impeccable" music taste is either lying or so pretentious it's not funny.
-
I find that the "stupid until proven otherwise" approach on people works very well. You're never disappointed and often pleasantly surprised.
-
My point was an extension of your point. Here is a conversation I might have and in fact have had:
Me: "Oh, you want music for your party? I can burn you a disc." (I am thinking of putting on Daft Punk, Gwen Stefani, Justin Timberlake, Basement Jaxx, ABBA, Madonna, etc.)
Friend: "It better not be full of stupid indie shit!"
Me: "Well it wasn't going to be."
All of which makes me think that people claiming that the indie or hipster thing as being the new mainstream is bullshit. I have never met one person in real life who likes the same music as me. The closest I've gotten is two girlfriends who were avowed, obsessed Modest Mouse and Bright Eyes fans, respectively, until I played them some of the stuff I like.
People I work with knew/know the grunge/alternative bands, like Pearl Jam, Nirvana, and the Smashing Pumpkins, who were mainstream and popular. But until I go into work and put on Tapes 'N Tapes and am met with "oh I know this song...what's it called??", I will never accept the fact that indie is somehow mainstream. Maybe, on the unrepresentative sample that is the Internet, and specifically the QC forums, it is the mainstream. But not in reality.
-
Half the people I know, like, IN REAL LIFE, are into indie stuff. I met none of these people through the internet (with the exception of two, I don't count people on the internet as "people I know"). The thing is though, I didn't know most of them liked indie until I knew them for a good while. I don't think many indie people actually talk about their music a lot. I bet a lot of people here, even with how vocal they are about music on this forum, almost never talk about music outside of the internet because they think "I'm so indie, nobody has heard of the stuff I listen to anyway, so why bother?"
At least, this has been my experience with indie people. It is generally due to themselves that they think nobody else listens to the same music. Also, if someone listens to anything mainstream, indie people will generally write you off right away. Apparently, one can't like Sufjan Stevens or Man Man when you also like Staind and Audioslave. You will be accused of "name dropping for the sake of joining a conversation". Seriously, indie kids aren't rare. Just arrogant. There are people more indie than you ALL AROUND YOU.
-
I have never met anybody with similar taste to me. I have one good friend who I share ALL of my music with, but he won't like a lot of it. Just the poppier stuff.
He doesn't give me recommendations because he knows I'll just make fun of him for liking bad music.
Even though we don't have the same taste in music, we know eachother's pretty well. I could hear something and think 'Hey, buddy would love this' and I'd be right. Similarly, he could do the exact same thing.
When you're unlikely to ever meet and start a lasting active friendship with somebody who likes the same music you do, you have to learn to appreciate people's personalities.
Your personality is NOT the music you listen to. If it was, I'd have no friends and nobody would like me.
...
Okay, point taken, but it's because I have a rotten personality, not rotten taste in music. My music taste is infallible.
-
I've been re-reading High Fidelity lately (yeah, yeah, shut up) and the whole thing about what people are like versus what they like confounds me. I don't think it's a black and white situation, that what people like matters more than what they're like, or vice versa. But in my own personal experience, I do tend to be drawn more toward people who like the same things as me. Maybe that makes me petty and superficial??
For instance, on the rare occaisions I go to parties, I find myself talking to people about music because I'm rather shy and it's the only subject I feel I know enough about to discuss with others. When I find the one or two people at the party who have similar taste to me, I like them the best and end up talking to them the rest of the night. At a large party once I happened upon a guy that liked Captain Beefheart and, in my drunken stupor, I promised him a taped copy of my Lick My Decals Off, Baby vinyl. "Now here's a guy I can drink with, god damnit!!" I shouted to my then-girlfriend across the room as her guests looked perplexed back and forth between us.
I do think that what people are like matters a lot, too. I just am attracted to people who like the same things as me, and from there I see what they're like. Does this preclude me from people I could get along with really well but who like terrible music, books, and movies?? Well, this raises a whole 'nother topic of what makes for friends and lovers...is it having things in common, or being a like, both, or none of those?? But we'll skip that for now.
Look, liking people that have the same music taste as you doesn't make you superficial, IMHO. 1st of all, to get to know a person, you should have something to talk about. Seriously, do you think that if you put and emo and a metalhead in the same room alone they'll talk at all with one another?
BUT! If you make fun of people because of the music they listen to that is teh superficialism(bah I made up a word:P )
anywho, my new year's resolution this year was "no more labels on people" so yeah.
nurr
-
My point was an extension of your point. Here is a conversation I might have and in fact have had:
Me: "Oh, you want music for your party? I can burn you a disc." (I am thinking of putting on Daft Punk, Gwen Stefani, Justin Timberlake, Basement Jaxx, ABBA, Madonna, etc.)
Friend: "It better not be full of stupid indie shit!"
Me: "Well it wasn't going to be."
god I hate it when that sort of things happen >_>
-
I uh, think you should change your avatar.
-
I don't think many indie people actually talk about their music a lot. I bet a lot of people here, even with how vocal they are about music on this forum, almost never talk about music outside of the internet because they think "I'm so indie, nobody has heard of the stuff I listen to anyway, so why bother?"
This is truth, in my experience. I and a very large percentage of my friends like metal, and share a lot of bands in common. Where we differ, however, is that I usually consider the bands we share in common to be the more "mainstream" side of my tastes (i.e; bands more popular in the metal community at large or bands making more "conventional" music). When I was first getting into more avant-garde or experimental styles of music I tried to introduce bands like Ulver to my friends, only to be met with mild bemusement at the best of times. I basically stopped trying after that, except for the occasional stab to get my more indie-rock-inclined friends into The Decemberists and Regina Spektor (also usually met with indifference)
-
The metal scene here kind of blows balls. It's frowned upon to make any kind of metal other than BR00TAL DEATH METAL DEATH TO FALSE METAL RARARARARA. I like melody, myself.
-
hey man, we're kvlt as fuck.
-
kvit. looked like you were trying to say 'svelte'
-
No, no, it's definitely kvlt.
-
tr00, n3kr0 and fr0stb1tt3n as well.
-
Combining 1337 speak with black metal terminology is actually definitely lukewarm and poserish.
-
Hey, Khar, I've been wondering ever since I first saw the term...what the FUCK is kvlt? I know it's a black metal slogan, but does it have any real definition to it? Fgure if anyone can give me an answer to this that will make sense to my head, it'd be you.
-
I believe it's a corrupted spelling of cult, which in turn is a shortened form of occult. I might be wrong though.
-
kvlt is half a term of praise, half a term of derision, depends on its context. It refers to music that sticks true to the most under-underground ideals of black metal: bleak aesthetics, murky or super-saturated black and white artwork, atmosphere over production, and often limited releases, perhaps vinyl-only, no website, no label, etc. etc. You might apply it as praise to something that sticks to this sort of style and ideal, but is really fucking good, you might apply it to the detriment of a band (and many exist) which is obviously using these tactics of production, distribution and design to make their releases literally 'cult', by artificially inflating the demand for their work with limited editions of albums and creating an aura of mystery around themselves with limited press, in at least a few known cases as a cover for actually giving their own bands great reviews on websites and in zines, and then often as not bootlegging their own releases.
As far as origin, pretty sure it stems from a mix of the word 'cult' (as in a cult movie) and cult as in death cult, with grimmed up spelling.
-
what Khar said, if you're hanging out with BM elitists (good help you if you are) and you said Moonblood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moonblood) was "cult", they'd agree with you. If you said the same thing about Dark Funeral (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Funeral) they'd probably laugh.
On the net kvlt with garbaled spelling is kind of used to mock BM elitists along with "Nekro" "Troo" etc.
The BM scene is one of the most fucking annoying things around. People go out of there way to find the most obscure limit release demos whatever they can find and the more kvlt it is the better. Then you get shit like Velvet Cacoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Cacoon) that comes along spread all this bullshit about a dissel fume powered harp and being "eco-terrorists" and the BM scene eats it up because these guys are "cult as fuck" and the whole scene starts collectively sucking their cock and declaring them as the next big thing. They make a bit of money and wind up having a huge laugh at the scene.
Another example, look at the whole Krieg shit.
Kanwulf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nargaroth) puts out an album called Black Metal ist Krieg: a dedication monument" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Metal_ist_Krieg) Which is he's way of stating that the black metal aesthetic (http://www.blackmetal.co.uk/ForumsPro/viewtopic/t=3967.html) is dead and it has been defeated by commericalism (krieg is German for war). It was an attempt of he's to point out that the whole fucking BM scene has sold out. The whole album is Kanwulf attempting to pay remind people what the BM he grew up with stood for, thats why its got songs on there like "The Day Burzum killed Mayhem" and "Possessed by Black Metal". Just look at the lyrics
1993, this year of misery was the knife
which split the Black Metal scene apart.
Since that mighty day Black metal split his Way,
Lies, rumors and hate. Moneymaking, sadness
And shame
And all this by, the Day as Burzum Killed Mayhem.
Remember this day! Remember this way!
That you never betray, what here leads you
On your way!
And I never will forget
But Nothing More Remained. Because Black Metal Died.
Gone The Days Of Pure Underground. Of Spirit, Pain And Fire.
So Listen To Your heart, What Black Metal Means To You.
and the truly ironic thing is no one fucking listened to he's message, "Krieg" became the new "necro" or the new "cult" and that is why the BM scene shits me too no end, they are a bunch of ignorant fucks who have no idea about the Black Metal Aesthetic at all, its more important to them to be cult, necro and cold, they'll just felate the same old shit over and over again and dismiss anything that tries to be innovative or creative because it doesn't sound like De Mysteriis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Mysteriis_Dom_Sathanas).
Sorry about the rant, was just in the mood to vent.
edit: added some links for those who have no idea what I'm crapping on about.
-
I actually talk about my music all the time, but only when people ask me. You've got to keep in mind, though, that 80% of my co-workers are 40 or older and don't take music as seriously/obsessively as I do. If they ask me who I'm playing, I tell them, or younger people I work with.
-
I typically listen to metal, but most people would probably look at me, talk to me, and think I'm a kid who got rejected from the fraternity he tried to join. or some shit like that.
-
I work at a video store and we have one copy of the Devil and Daniel Johnston. It doesn't get rented out too often, but when it does, OH BOY do I get excited and well... first I'll ask if they're acquainted with him (turns out some psychology professor was assigning it for extra credit, so few did); if they are I get really excited.
Then there's my favorite baristo who I started having a good repore with because he cut his beard off but left a Zappa 'stache. I love Zappa. So does he!
So... I talk about music when the other person actually cares. (Also, I work downtown so most of my coworkers have fairly eclectic tastes anyway)
-
@ Scytale: I've always had a different spin on it. The basic thing is that, quite honestly, 'Black Metal Ist Krieg' is a completely ridiculous album. Kanwulf himself is probably one of the best examplars of the idea of 'kvlt', past obvious candidates like Velvet Cacoon, Moonblood, Vlad Tepes and whatnot. The mans a damn cartoon character, and he takes himself with ridiculous seriousness. I've always considered, and read about, the origin of 'Krieg' as a term basically being a mockery of Kanwulfs backwards looking, pretentious, faux black metal mafia buffoonery, and the massive gravitas with which he clearly views himself. Kanwulf is a prime example, in fact, of what I would say my main problem with the black metal scene is (though I've got to say I back up most of your criticisms, and in fact most of Kanwulfs, though from a different position), which is the fact that its often as not completely philosophically bankrupt. Fans just parrot slogans and views from their favourite bands, rather than doing anything like, say, reading a book, which I'm sure most of the better bands would want them to do. Whether you disagree with it or not (and I often tend to be half and half, again, I come from a different position to some of the same conclusions), Black Metal, in its ideal form, functions as a serious vessel for philosophical, aesthetic and spiritual concepts. Many bands ignore this: I can accept that readily if its just to go for a bit of rock 'n roll (a la Carpathian Forest), but far too many bands are committing that worst of sins, that is pretending to have ideas. I guess I also find this unthinking tendency dangerous because you really do have to approach Black Metal with some critical filters down or its going to turn you in to someone with roughly the same outlook on life as an SS Officer from a 1960's boys adventure comic.
That said, I have bootlegs of every single Vlad Tepes demo and split.
-
The metal scene here kind of blows balls. It's frowned upon to make any kind of metal other than BR00TAL DEATH METAL DEATH TO FALSE METAL RARARARARA. I like melody, myself.
The whole metal scene here consists of metalcore and some leftovers from the nu-metal boom. The whole metal scene in the rest of Holland consists of shitty Within Temptation ripoffs who also use Evanescence as an influence for their 'symphonic metal' which they seem to fondly refer to as 'goth rock'.
Woe is us.
-
Wierd, I always consider the dutch scene to basically just be full of somewhat mongoloid death metal and grind purists.
-
You'd think that, but most of those are just metalcore in disguise. Sometimes, you'd get a band on stage that goes "we play a mix between speed and death metal" and they're neither f4st nor kvlt. Just some guy cookie monstering over downtuned guitars.
-
Seriously, do you think that if you put and emo and a metalhead in the same room alone they'll talk at all with one another?
Two things. One: people that like predominantly fast, aggressive music and people that like predominantly fast, aggressive music will probably have one or two bands they can agree on. Two: if the only thing you ever have to talk about is music then you're excessively dull and not worth having a conversation with anyway.
-
Yesterday I found out that John Darnielle of the Mountain Goats HATES Lord of the Rings. Books and movies. I found this out via his blog's forum, where he was a bit mean about it, and i was thinking "do i want to pay $40 to see a guy who hates stuff I really like?", even when that had nothing to do with his music.
He's a big metalhead- love his music, don't so much love the music he's into.
I've had trouble with people not having the same music tastes as me, but it goes both way - mainstream people who consider me too indie and the indie types i hang out with who think i'm way too mainstream 'cause i tend to listen to more mainstream indie like Tom Waits and the Decemberists... plus the occasional reflexsive hate for The Hold Steady and Springsteen
-
I don't get not liking Lord of the Rings. To me, not liking the Lord of the Rings in any way, means or form probably indicates that you have some difference in your outlook on life to me so fundamental that trying to get along may simply be unproductive.
-
"Indie" is mainstream. Not in the sense that you're going to hear the new Yo La Tengo album at a frat party, but in the sense that "mainstream, popular kids" listen to stuff like The Killers, Modest Mouse, Death Cab For Cutie, Interpol, and Bright Eyes. Whether you accept those bands as being part of the "indie" definition depends on how much of a picky hipster snob you are, I reckon.
And even "real" indie is a lot more popular now than when I was growing up - not in all parts of the world, but in more significant numbers in more cities. For example, I live in Knoxville, TN - a pretty backwards, redneck town, even though it has a college - and recently Broken Social Scene nearly sold out a large, fancy theater. 8 years ago, Low and Tarentel played here and both could barely pull 50 people into a coffee shop. When Melt Banana played here last year, the club was so full you literally couldn't move. Same with Trans Am about 5 years ago. Now, I didn't move here til I was 23, but people I know who grew up here assure me that in the early 90s you'd be lucky to know one other kid in your highschool who could even spell Sebadoh.
-
Not if the sole criteria is being on an Independent Record Label, which was the original definition.
I know that, Pedantic Man, but you have to realize that nobody uses that definition of "indie rock" outside of some people who, like you, live in the UK. The two definitions people use in a global sense now are:
1. Some vague stylistic definition that broadly has something to do with being smarter than other "rock" bands - everything from Pavement to Sonic Youth. Sonic Youth has not been on an independant label for 17 years, but most people who aren't being pedantic twits would broadly categorize them as "indie rock", or at least, "parents of indie rock".
2. Some arbitrary ethical definition that broadly has something to do with being more "real" than other "rock" bands - everything from Bright Eyes to the Mountain Goats.
Now, both of those definitions are also useless, but are at least marginally more useful than calling everything on an indie label "indie rock", which results in lumping Acid Mothers Temple and Belle and Sebastian together. While I enjoy both of those bands, I think it's a lot more specific and useful to call the former "psychedelic rock" and the latter "indie pop" rather than calling either of them "indie rock". OK?
To quote the melancholy rhino:
"There's two ways of discussing 'indie' - one generic/categoric/analytic, an attempt at objectivity, the other judgmental/personal/anecdotal, an application of attitude that subsumes both aesthetics and economics - and there's no obvious way of separating them out.
The generic bit is easily enough determined. It's generally agreed that indie starts with Nirvana - there was plenty of music around before 1991 that didn't fit into the mainstream and was put out on independent labels or white labels and had a cult following, but it was called underground in the 70's, post-punk in the 80's, and alternative thereafter, and it wasn't until ‘Never Mind’ went supernova that the word 'indie' started to be used by the mainstream media to tag something that had previously been ignored. Its usage differed subtly in the UK and the States, in that UK indie emerged as a reaction to the commodification of Britpop (Oasis - believe it or not - were seminal once) and has been personnified by a distinctively non-metropolitan (ie proudly detached from the London club scene) sound, like that of groups such as Super Furry Animals, Gorky's Zygotic Mynci, and Manic Street Preachers, from Wales, and Mogwai, Arab Strap, the Delgados, and Belle and Sebastian, from Glasgow, being less rock-centric, in general, than its US manifestation - 'indie rock' - which some say evolved out of the different styles of just three highly influential bands: Sebadoh (lo-fi aesthetic - big on enthusiasm, small on technical proficiency), Pavement (quirkier, art-damaged, self-referential, musically diverse), and Superchunk (punky - guitars, more guitars, and very loud drums).
But this is the sort of contentious lippy stuff that barstool musicologists will contentedly blab on about til the cows come home and still no-one will be any the wiser. Can Radiohead still be thought of as indie despite being signed to a major? Is Sigur R?s selling its soul to EMI, or are they just ensuring a vastly wider audience than ever they could have achieved via the resources available to Bad Taste or Fat Cat? Does this sort of thing matter except as a major source of procrastination at exam revision time?"
-
I don't get not liking Lord of the Rings. To me, not liking the Lord of the Rings in any way, means or form probably indicates that you have some difference in your outlook on life to me so fundamental that trying to get along may simply be unproductive.
There's alot of cognitive dissonance involved when hanging around Last Plane to Jakarta and its forums... mostly its that The Mountain Goats are real low-fi indie folk, which is why I went to the blog, but the guy's writing poems about Drastus so to understand them I need to absorb all the stuff you said about kreig and kvult and all that, so now i'm listening to a guy i love who writes really great songs telling me to listen to Bolthrower and arguging with other metalheads about.... but now that i understand the black metal aesthetic I can apply it to how he makes his music...
Mountain Goats aside, i fall with indie as general/catagoric label. If the Mountain Goats sign to a major label and play the same sort of music then its 'indie' + folk/whatever, 'cause it still falls under what 'indie' fans listen to and whats played on 'indie' radio. Its a handy definition - if you like similar bands with an intelligent aesthetic that are a bit outside the mainstream and fit with a dominant trend in indie (in this case, low-fi or folk), then you should give the Mountain Goats a listen. If John starts writing black metal albums instead of just writing about them, though, then it goes to black metal or hell 'indie black metal' like Mastodon or something (i.e. metal its okay for me to like).
As a label indie is kinda useless, but as a qualifier- indie rock, indie pop - its a bit helpful. It won't tell you about the sound, but it will tell you about the general audience. The bands i like might sound different, but they're all generally intelligent, kinda outside the mainstream, and have the same sort of fans... but then you could argue that the fanbase defines the label, so whatever the 'indie' fanbase listens to is 'indie'.
I dunno... working for a live events website its a helpful label, since indie is a coherant fanbase in my area. I guess alot of that black metal stuff is more indie/independent then something like the Shins or Modest Mouse (tiny labels, etc), but it dosen't generally get called indie for some reason...
-
I have heard all the arguments that say Interpol are Indie and I've decided they are erroneous for my own reasons. That doesn't make me a pedant or a snob, that makes me someone who has thoughtfully considered the possible implications of a word and decided he prefers the original definition.
Wait - Interpol's two albums are on an independant label. Are you saying that in the UK they're on a major? Now I'm just confused.
I think we fundamentally agree, though, so I apologize for calling you pedantic.
-
Yeah, Interpol is signed to Capitol, but haven't released anything for them yet.
It took me a while to get into them. When their first album came out, I hated it. I mean I really hated it. I thought it was the most obvious rip-off of every late-80s/early-90s British band I'd loved - Lush, the Church, Slowdive, the Chameleons, you name it. The one comparison I never got was the "Joy Division rip-off". And I'm a huge Joy Division fan.
Fast forward to their second album. I heard "Slow Hands" on the local college station and liked it, took a chance on buying the second album, and loved it. It's much less derivative and calculated than the first, though I have grown to like the first one now, as well.
The only other band I can think of that I went from hating to loving is Neutral Milk Hotel, though it only took me a few months in '98 for that to happen, whereas it took me 2 years to reverse on Interpol.
-
Zerodrone are you me in disguise?
-
1) I don't know what they're like currently, but I loved the first Interpol album. LOVED.
2) I just today bought the book Our Band Could Be Your Life, and while the original definition of indie may have been being on an independent record label, I think today it just as easily applies to bands who go for the same aesthetic/ideology of the bands in that book, insofar as wanting control over their music and not trying to be the biggest band in the world. Like a lot of things in human culture, I can't define 'indie' well enough for a fitting dictionary entry, but I know it when I hear it/see it.
-
That's why I'm so hesitant to recommend music to people. I just think of how bad I thought most of it was the first ten times I heard it and imagine them going "jeez, why did Tommy tell me to listen to this shit, what an asshat etc". I guess I have very little confidence in the music I enjoy.
A lot of the stuff I listen to today are bands you recommended on the forum (Joan of Arc, Silkworm, Rites of Spring, Shellac, Low etc).
-
No list of essential punk/indie books would be complete without Rollins' "Get In the Van".
-
Please Kill Me by Legs McNeil and Gillian McCain.
You really owe it to yourself to read this book. It's absolutely captivating.
-
2) I just today bought the book Our Band Could Be Your Life, and while the original definition of indie may have been being on an independent record label, I think today it just as easily applies to bands who go for the same aesthetic/ideology of the bands in that book, insofar as wanting control over their music and not trying to be the biggest band in the world. Like a lot of things in human culture, I can't define 'indie' well enough for a fitting dictionary entry, but I know it when I hear it/see it.
This is something like what I was going to write. 'Indie' is more about DIY than anything else. Indie encompasses bands with certain ethics and aesthetics and culture and a range of sounds, and that's all there is to it. You can call it 'missapropriation', and say that the original meaning of indie was to apply to bands on independent record labels back in the 80's, but that's not true. I mean, I can trawl through my music collection and give some examples. Alien Sex Fiend, Death in June, The Birthday Party, Bauhaus, Current 93...All bands that have never been on a major label, and have also never been referred to as indie. Same with lots of other bands: any ska band, any metal band, any punk band, countless others, at least those not on majors. In your view, it would be completely acceptable to call anyone from The Specials to Darkthrone 'indie'. Now, to you, this may make sense, but, however, in the english language, words are defined by their usage, and as I've said, we can't even say here that they're being used wrong, as with the way other musical terms are sometimes applied: the fact is they've never been used any other way. Like it or not, indie is a concrete thing, and no clever wordplay will get you out of it.
-
Most people I know who are really into breakcore also take too many drugs for me to comfortably hang out with them all the time.
Drum'n'bass heads can be fun, but often will bore you to tears going on and on about production and this new tune they're working on.
On the other hand, I've met a bunch of people with similar music tastes to me who I don't get along with at all. Still, it's fun to go on and on about obscure artists etc with someone who kinda knows what you're talking about.
(And to derail this thread again, momentarily: regarding the cult/kvlt thing a few pages back. I don't not much (i.e. anything) about metal, but the Latin alphabet originally used the V character to represent both U and V in writing. A separate glyph for U didn't turn up until the Middle Ages. I'd guess that's a possible explanation for the spelling? Got nothing for the C/K change though -- maybe K was used more for "hard C" sounds, back in the day? *shrug* )
-
A K just makes it look more Scandinavian/Germanic/Medieval (the time of the lack of soft C's). The V, similiarly, is a reference to such things, and also to the more common runic futharks (which have no letter U, and ironically no letter V either, though you wouldn't think it to hear Old Norse or Icelandic spoken). Not that I'm saying that these are conscious, crafted references of course, all this stuff is just a part of the accumulated aesthetics around black metal. If you're in to it, then spelling cult 'kvlt' just makes sense.