THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)

Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Inlander on 15 Dec 2007, 19:31

Title: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 15 Dec 2007, 19:31
As per conversation in this (http://forums.questionablecontent.net/index.php/topic,18355.0.html) thread.

This is the thread for making any comments you wish to make about anything you read on the music blog! Don't feel you have to post in this thread just because it's here. But if you have something you really really want to say, don't be shy!

Also, I guess this thread could be used to let everyone know when a new article is put up on the music blog. For instance, I've finally got around to posting part 2 of the Dirty Three retrospective. It has pictures! The pictures distract from all the words! (Because there are a lot of words.)

So let me start "discussion" by saying: Hey, Kieffer, if you like the Lucksmiths you really owe it to yourself to check out Darren Hanlon.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 15 Dec 2007, 22:07
The signal to noise ratio of that Dirty Three article is not good.

Too many words without actually saying much.

I'm not sure I properly understand the function of the music blog, though, so maybe it's perfect.

As for the actual opinions expressed in it, I disagree that Ocean Songs is anything more than a mediocre album.  "Authentic Celestial Music" is the only song on it that I ever listen to.  All their other albums are amazing, particularly Whatever You Love... and She Has No Strings Apollo for technical execution and the debut and Horse Stories for rocking the fuck out.

Why didn't you mention that the central theme and title inspiration of Horse Stories was heroin usage?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 15 Dec 2007, 22:59
To be honest I'm not entirely satisfied with the latest installment in Dirty Three piece, in part for reasons I alluded to at the end. But I've been promising it for weeks now so I felt compelled to put it up. It's the best I can do at the moment. Apart from time constraints, part of the problem is that in my opinion Horse Stories, Ocean Songs, and Whatever You Love, You Are are all incredible albums, and there's only so many ways you can say "Holy shit, this album's great!" before it gets repetitive. So I settled for the approach of a straight-up run-through of each album, highlighting particular strengths, while indicating the growth in the band's music between each album. The article will perhaps work best if read in installments, as three separate album reviews, rather than as a continuous piece.

I didn't mention the heroin thing because honestly, that's the first I've heard of it. However I don't find it to be particularly interesting: I don't really like music writing (or writing about any kind of art, for that matter) that dwells upon that kind of "insider knowledge". Utlimately, and especially for a band like the Dirty Three, the music is the thing. If I need to know some piece of arcane knowledge to fully appreciate it then it's not going to hold my attention for very long. If the band is doing a good enough job of their music-making then I as a listener won't need to know the specifics in order to appreciate the generalities (i.e., the latent emotion within the music, which shines through on Horse Stories).

The third and final part of the Dirty Three retrospective will cover She Has No Strings Apollo and Cinder (as well as a brief look at the Live at Meredith album). I think there are several of interesting things to comment on in this part of the band's career: it's a kind of post-glory and then rebuilding phase and shows the band very clearly trying to figure out the way forwards for their music. The idea of how such a high-quality band goes about following up such a stunningly good run of albums is very interesting to me, and the ways in which they occasionally fail in their attempts to do so, are very interesting to me.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 16 Dec 2007, 00:20
i thought your first dirty three installment was really interesting. I think this is because it came very strongly from the perspective of discovering them in Melbourne in the 90's. For me they are such a Melbourne band- even though they have now extended themselves all over the world. As I walk through the streets of the city they are such a perfect accompianment to it's environment.

I haven't gotten all the way through the second one though I'm finding it a tad tedious, which is dissappointing because I was looking forward to it.

I understand where you're coming from though, when you are so passionate about an album or band it can be really hard to express objectively why they are great.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 00:36
Actually I discovered them in Canberra!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 16 Dec 2007, 02:09
Oh really? Shit, sorry man, I thought you were a Melbournian.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: dalconnsuch on 16 Dec 2007, 02:19
i actually really liked the dirty three's work from now and from then, i think they're good at painting an audio picture in my head

of course thats me
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 04:54
Went out to see a band, got inspired, came home, re-wrote it (http://www.questionablecontent.net/rlblog/2007/12/dirty-three-retrospective-in-three.html).
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 07:08
I'm as gay for Dirty Three as you are but really, the article is just going on and on about how awesome they sound.  It would help if you gave some context about their sound in relation to other music.  If someone had never heard the band I'm not sure they'd get a whole lot out of your descriptions of thier sound, other than that they're really cool and they have violins and sometimes they are noisy.

I'm not trying to be a dick, but when someone asks for my opinion I feel compelled to be completely honest.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 07:21
To be honest, I'm not trying to describe their sound and I think it would be completely pointless to do so. If somebody's never heard a band before, and they've got an internet connection, then the absolute last resource they're going to use to find out what that band's work sounds like is a blog. I'm more interested in what makes each of the band's albums different from the last, and the relative merits of those albums. Everything else in the article is "human interest" stuff to hopefully make it more interesting to read.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 09:12
I suppose I misunderstood the point of the blog then.  It's written for people who already like Dirty Three, is that what you're saying?

I find out about plenty of bands by reading articles about them.  I think that even in the Internet Era there's still a lot of room for that.  If I hadn't read about Jane's Addiction in SPIN in 1988 it would have taken me a lot longer to get into good music, I think.  And that article wasn't just "Here's these guys, they sound cool."  It was contextual and compelling.

If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to do is sort of like fakejazz's "Cooler Than You" articles.  If so, I'd have a look at this one and try to take a cue from its style (and brevity).

http://www.fakejazz.com/fake/archives/2006/07/cooler_than_you_9.php
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: 2HourHiatus on 16 Dec 2007, 10:27
someone else knows of Video Hippos? Awesome. I saw them back in October, I was about 3 feet from the drummer. Right after the show I went out and got their album from the merch table. I'm glad to see the possibility of some recognition going their way.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: SeanBateman on 16 Dec 2007, 11:46
Yeah they're really cool.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 17:07
If I understand you correctly, what you're trying to do is sort of like fakejazz's "Cooler Than You" articles.  If so, I'd have a look at this one and try to take a cue from its style (and brevity).

http://www.fakejazz.com/fake/archives/2006/07/cooler_than_you_9.php

I find the style of that article to be little more than a tedious list of facts, with discussion of the music limited almost exclusively to "this is probably my favourite album" and "this is probably my favourite song". It's short, yes, but brevity is not in itself a merit. I found myself getting bored and the temptation to skip sentences and even paragraphs was great. Perhaps the problem is that you and I appreciate very different styles of writing? Fortunately there are three other people contributing to the music blog, each with their own style.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 17:43
Well, I linked that article because your Dirty Three article seemed to me to be in the same style - some facts and some "this song is like this" and a bunch of "these guys are awesome".  So now I'm totally confused.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 17:57
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.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 18:53
Have you heard Bedhead's three albums?  That article more than accurately describes the evolution of their sound, meaning, there was very little.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 18:58
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.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 19:35
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.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 19:56
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.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 20:05
OK.

So you're writing for people who have heard their music but haven't really thought about it?

Shrug.  OK then.  Carry on.

For me, the idea of knowing a band and not thinking about their music is incomprehensible.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Dec 2007, 20:17
Or people who used to follow the band keenly, then got distracted, still know what they sound like but aren't entirely sure what they've been up to. Like me until recently.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: MusicScribbles on 16 Dec 2007, 20:46
This thread is turning out so well. I wonder if we'll argue about the next blog entry.

EDIT: I don't know why that second sentence turned into a question. Also, 500 posts.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 16 Dec 2007, 21:06
I wasn't arguing.  I was discussing.

It's the same old Internet Message Board thing.  If you ask for an opinion, don't be secretly only asking for positive opinions.  Inlander has responded to my queries and comments well enough.  I still don't like the article, but now I have at least an idea of why he wrote it the way he did.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Joseph on 17 Dec 2007, 06:12
There's definitely no need to call any disagreement an argument, and certainly this one has been more than civil.

Anyhow, on another note, between the article and the discussion here, I've been inspired to actually get around to checking out Dirty Three.  Is there a place that would be best to start from?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 17 Dec 2007, 06:20
That really depends on whether you want to start with their absolute best work, knowing that everything after that may be ever-so-slightly disappointing. If you want to do that, then get Whatever You Love, You Are. If your budget stretches to two albums, get Horse Stories too. Personally I think that it's not as good an album as Ocean Songs, but getting it in addition to Whatever You Love will give you a better idea of the range in their music. If you're feeling particularly wealthy, splash out and get all three of these albums.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 17 Dec 2007, 11:07
I would actually start with the first, self-titled Dirty Three album.  In some ways "Indian Love Song" is the best thing they've ever written.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 17 Dec 2007, 12:15
I could maybe see the shift between the first two and the last one, and yeah, WhatFunLifeWas is a lot louder than Beheaded, but I still don't think the sound evolved to the degree that many bands do.

Well, anecdotally, one of my ex-girlfriends always said that everything Bedhead and The New Year did sounded basically the same, though she liked it.  Some people just don't listen very hard (as Inlander points out about Dirty Three, a band I would never say "always sounds the same" even though a lot of people do say that).
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Caspian on 19 Dec 2007, 01:11
All I will say is:

THE BLOG NEEDS MORE DRONE DOOM.

That is all.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Lummer on 19 Dec 2007, 05:23
I completely agree with Jeph about Baroness. Good god, do they kick ass!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 21 Dec 2007, 18:16
Tommy, you write real good, loved the Polvo piece. You have been responsible for getting me into many of the great bands I've been listening to this year. Thank you.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 22 Dec 2007, 20:45
I completely agree with Jeph about Baroness. Good god, do they kick ass!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Dec 2007, 09:29
You spent half that Polvo article talking about Black Flag.

That's like spending half a Bright Eyes article talking about Led Zeppelin.

 :?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Dec 2007, 10:59
It's amusing to me that great music was being made on the other coast by genuinely independent bands while the press and record-buying public were convinced of the brilliance of all those shitty Seattle groups (Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Alice in Chains and their ilk). The point I was trying to get across was that Black Flag's musical legacy is that they made a bunch of shitty bands very rich. Through Greg Ginn's label they put out a lot of great records, including those undeniably influential Sonic Youth albums.

I think that is more than enough direct correlation for it to be considered relevant.

Perhaps it is because you are writing from outside America and outside the time period, but I'm not sure the apple/orange mixing your're doing here is particularly relevant (which is where my Bright Eyes/Zeppelin comment comes in).  Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, and other similar bands were, at the time, entirely mainstream and not even in the discussion.  The same heyday for them was also the heyday of Matador records, when even in backwards little towns you couldn't throw a rock without hitting a Pavement fan.  Polvo were as popular as they possibly could be, so I don't see the poiint in rambling on about what was happening on the Billboard charts as a result of Black Flag as a segue to talking about Polvo.  It's just not interesting.

To expand on the Conor/Zep: It would be like if you opened an article on Bright Eyes by discussing at length that Led Zeppelin had created a rock-centric musical climate, with even the vast majority of successful indie bands being about rocking and looking cool, and only with the advent of Neutral Milk Hotel and Bright Eyes in 1998 did it really start to become "cool" to write personal, awkward, uncool music again.

Now that I think about it, that would be an interesting article.  Too bad I was never considered for the music blog.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Dec 2007, 11:50
I supposed I was just assuming that the average teenage QC reader never bothered to look at the music blog, or check out the bands in it.

My experience has been that such people, no matter how eloquently you wax about a pre-2000s band, generally listen to them if you absolutely press the issue, say "Eh, I guess that's okay" and then go back to Funeral.  Perhaps you are more of an optimist than I.  At this point I've given up on "enlightening" people to good old music unless they already show an interest in such.  I think a large part of it is that a lot of the new crop of younger indie people are resistant to authority and resent anybody telling them what to listen to, preferring to find out about the bands for themselves, because they have a sense of "coolness" that they cling to which derives from "finding it out on my own".  Which is frankly the complete opposite of my younger experience; I was always more than happy to find out about bands by listening to older, more knowledgeable people (usually college radio DJs).

As far as an article about how the indie world has been very slow to shift to personal music, I think it would be as relevant as any piece of rock journalism, which is to say, academic.  One wouldn't specifically have to talk only about Led Zeppelin and Bright Eyes, those were just two examples.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 27 Dec 2007, 20:58
My only complaint about the Music Blog thus far is that some of the material thus far has been on bands that are quite obscure.  They're excellent bands, at least the one's I've gotten ahold of records for, but maybe throw in a few more (and I hate to say it) "mainstream" reviews from time to time.  Jeph tends to do that, but you, Harry, and Sean are the main contributors.  All I'm saying is maybe review some stuff that has had a little more attention.  And perhaps more varied genres of music.  Other than that, it's excellent writing.  Your 'Hammer of the Gods' article made me want to haul out my dad's turntable.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Dec 2007, 21:25
Polvo and Dirty Three are "quite obscure"?

I officially am confused.

Is the average QC reader actually the kind of teenage indie kid who still thinks Death Cab For Cutie are relevant?

I don't really read the comic any more because, well, let's just leave it at that, but when I did, it seemed like most of the music references were pretty non-mainstream.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: kablaaamo on 27 Dec 2007, 21:33
Actually, no, the average QC reader isn't even that into music, it seems.

I have a bunch of friends who read the comic who have NEVER got any of the music references. No Spoon. No Explosions in the Sky, no Wilco...the joke about Sam Beam and his beard flew WAY over their heads...(I am basically whipping stuff off of the top of my head that I remember from the comic, there were SO MANY MORE, and probably a bunch of metal ones that I didn't get either)....so assuming that the average fan even thinks at all about Death Cab for Cutie is taking it a little far.

Which is kind of strange, but there you go. That's how it's been in my experience, anyhow.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 27 Dec 2007, 22:25
When I say obscure, I mean "hard to find".  There's only one local record shop within 30 minutes of me, and that's all I've got in terms of finding stuff like that.  I'm not going to be bothered to spend large quantities of money to import an album via the internet.  It's fine that they're reviewing stuff like that, I'm just saying they need to have some slightly 'less indie' reviews from time to time.  If you do one on a band that has gotten more attention, the odds that someone looking at the blog has heard of and maybe even listened to them go up.  Then they start paying more attention to the blog and put forth the effort to hunt down those records. 

I guess what I'm saying is if you review stuff like Low, Neutral Milk Hotel, Mastodon even; just some of the more recognizable names in general, more people will read the blog and be interested in expanding their music taste.  The reviews as they are right now make it sound like these bands barely get any attention outside of their home state/province/municipality. 
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 27 Dec 2007, 22:34
When I say obscure, I mean "hard to find".  There's only one local record shop within 30 minutes of me, and that's all I've got in terms of finding stuff like that.  I'm not going to be bothered to spend large quantities of money to import an album via the internet.

Um.  Dirty Three, Polvo, etc. are all available on Amazon for less than $8 per CD.  Nothing discussed in the blogs is anything you can't find in a big used record store.  I live in Knoxville, Tennessee for God's sake and even here there are used copies of way more obscure stuff.

Quote
I guess what I'm saying is if you review stuff like Low, Neutral Milk Hotel, Mastodon even

Low is significantly more obscure than the bands talked about in the blog.

Especially Dirty Three.  Seriously, they are one of the most recognisable post-rock bands of all time.

Quote
The reviews as they are right now make it sound like these bands barely get any attention outside of their home state/province/municipality. 

That is not even remotely true.

I don't intend to sound mean but you seriously don't have any idea what you're talking about.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 27 Dec 2007, 22:55
Chalk it up to me being lazy and running off of little sleep for the past several days then.  I have this odd tendency to just suck at boarding when I'm exhausted.  If you're telling the truth, which I'm pretty sure you are, then I need to go on a spree.  I'd never even heard of the Dirty Three at all until that blog post, but apparently they're more popular than Low.  I swear, I am so ass-backwards at this kind of thing.  Apologies all.  I still think there should be a little more variation in types of music reviewed, though.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Dec 2007, 09:59
I'm not demanding that the blog change, and I was under the apparently false impression that the people reading it were different than they are.

I don't know why you say I'll never "like" anything written in the blog, though.  Something can entertain me while still being full of information I already know.  An example of this is Freaky Trigger.  Tom writes about songs that are so universal they're part of the collective unconscious and I still find him consistently engaging, and the other writers on the site are usually just as good.  Take this as an example:

http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/pop/2007/12/the-trouble-with-pop-avril-lavigne/
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: amok on 28 Dec 2007, 10:14
http://freakytrigger.co.uk/ft/pop/2007/12/the-trouble-with-pop-avril-lavigne/

Well that certainly was a blow by blow account of an Avril Lavigne video.

This bit was good though.

Quote
before hearing ‘My Humps’ I had no interest in Fergie or the Black Eyed Peas, I assumed they churned out mediocre R’n'B

tee hee

On a more constructive note, thanks to the blog and this thread for introducing me to Dirty Three, who I'm quite enjoying.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Dec 2007, 10:36
I'm not asking you to change who you're writing about.  When did I ever say that?

If criticism is unwelcome, perhaps this thread should be locked and deleted.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Dec 2007, 10:57
I'm not asking you to stop writing the blog.  I understand the blog's exisntance.  At this point all I am saying is that I certainly could enjoy articles about Dirty Three and Polvo, were they written in a way that entertains me.

If the purpose of the blog is, as you state, merely to expose people to new music, then I think the posts should be more factual and less editorial.  This is more in reference to Inlander's Dirty Three article than the Polvo one.

(And to use the argument "Lots of people like the blog, so it must be good" is the same logic that I was vilified for when saying "Lots of people like the Eagles, so they must be good".  Pick one and stick with it, people!  Either populist opinion matters or it doesn't.)
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 28 Dec 2007, 11:12
And its effectiveness is not something I'm doubting.

I think we've achieved détante.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: facism is sneaky on 28 Dec 2007, 23:27
Look guys, I for one am a huge fan of the ridiculously obscure indie band that only 5 people have heard of.That said, if you want a review of bands that are less indie, write it. Theres no reason to criticise othe people for presenting what they want to present, just start something new if you believe it needs to be started.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Dec 2007, 07:31
Lurk more.

I never once said I cared about which bands the blog covers.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 29 Dec 2007, 12:15
I have to significantly disagree with most of what you've said, man. Everything from the notion that Polvo are not only not obscure but somehow less obscure than Low to the declaration that their writing should be a bit more factual when only three posts earlier you link to Freakytrigger who are some of the smarmiest, most subjective "poptimists" on the planet. Having spent ten months writing for Stylus Magazine along with Tom Ewing, I can assure you that however good his writing is his taste in pop music is rather dire. Dude loves T.a.T.u. with all his heart.

Honestly, if you're a reader and fan of Freakytrigger then I feel comfortable saying that the writing of nearly no-one on this forum will interest you in the slightest. The writing style and the subject matter will both be a world apart from the self-conscious cleverness and pop culture awareness of that website.

I think the blog is fine. If anything it could use a little bit more focus as the articles at the moment tend to sprawl a wee bit, and when the idea has already expanded into a serial format that makes for an awful lot of ground being covered. It gets overwhelming. However, it's nothing unreadable and it's certainly not bad. The Black Flag bit alluded to earlier is some of the funniest music writing I've read in a while.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Dec 2007, 12:26
I have to significantly disagree with most of what you've said, man.

What a shock.

I've known Tom Ewing for 12 years.  I enjoy his writing style and I think he has good taste in pop music.

That does not imply that I can not enjoy other writing styles or other tastes in music.

Appreciation of Public Enemy does not imply dismissal of John Prine.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 29 Dec 2007, 12:35
To you, maybe. Personally I think Prine can be trusted as much as the police.

It doesn't imply that you can't appreciate other styles any more than suggesting that you liking steak supersedes liking broccoli. However, if you give steak as an example of something you'd prefer broccoli to taste more like, one can infer that you aren't really a fan of broccoli to begin with.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Dec 2007, 13:26
Please follow along with what I am actually saying instead of putting words in my mouth.

It was suggested that I will never like the blog because the content will likely always be information I am already familiar with.

I linked a Freaky Trigger article to demonstrate that I can still be entertained by something which provides me with no new information.

At no point did I suggest that the QC music blog should be similar to Freaky Trigger in content.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Spinless on 29 Dec 2007, 16:59
Yes you did. You stated that you'd enjoy the articles if they were written in a style you liked. You then linked Freaky Trigger as an example of writing that you enjoyed. The implication is right there, whether it was intentional or not.

I like you, but you're flat out denying the events of this thread! You're a thread denialist! Next you'll tell me that we don't treat the attractive forum members any differently to the rest of us, or that the mass genocide of forum lurkers earlier this year never happened. YOU GUYS DIDN'T THINK WE WOULDN'T NOTICE? WE NOTICED! WE NOTICED ALL THOSE PEOPLE GO MISSING!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Dec 2007, 17:28
Yes you did. You stated that you'd enjoy the articles if they were written in a style you liked. You then linked Freaky Trigger as an example of writing that you enjoyed. The implication is right there, whether it was intentional or not.

Yes, a STYLE that I like.  A style as in, "funny", "entertaining", "amusing", "insightful", whatever.  I most definitely did not suggest that the QC blog should cover Avril Lavigne.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 29 Dec 2007, 17:30
I find all the discussion here about the "purpose" of the music blog to be somewhat amusing, if a little baffling. The very first post on the blog was Jeph's Mission Statement (http://www.questionablecontent.net/rlblog/2007_08_01_archive.html). The pertinent sentence is this:

Quote
The mission of this blog is simply to talk about music.

I can't speak for Jeph, Tommy, or Kieffer, because I haven't discussed the blog with any of them, but in my own writing for the music blog I've never once sat down and thought "Who am I writing this for?" Perhaps I should. But my mind just doesn't work like that. I start writing something and see where it takes me, in a free-association kind of a way. The only audience I'm writing for is the audience that feels like reading my stuff. On some days that might include any one of you. On other days it might not.

The other contributors to the blog, for all I know, may have a completely different approach. Talking about some kind of unified goal or aim or audience for the blog is utterly misguided.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 29 Dec 2007, 17:37
I should think it should be implicit that any content placed for public viewing should be intended to be enjoyable for somebody.  Not that you should specifically think about "who" will enjoy reading what you're writing, but that you shouldn't submit it until you've read it over a few times and seriously reached the conclusion that it is worth inflicting on people.

Example: Ever seen a poetry message board?  Ever clicked on a poem by some dark gothic teenager and thought "Dear Jesus, there's simply no way that anyone in the world, ever, could enjoy reading this."?

I'm not saying that any of the QC blogs are even close to that bad, but you see my point.  QC should also stand for Quality Control.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: SeanBateman on 30 Dec 2007, 09:48
I am weighing in! I think you guys write too many words! I like both of you, and the way you write, but no way am I gonna be arsed to read about a band I already don't really care about for 10k words, especially not in that tiny ass type that Tommy inexplicably uses.

I feel like, since the blog replaced the old Recommended Listening page, maybe instead of just jerkin it about music you really like, you should talk about music in a way that is accessible to people who do not already listen to the music you like? And maybe instead of jumping right into multi part retrospectives on entire movements in music, you could just write about some shit you are listening to and other people might want to hear in a way that is approachable? Approachable doesn't mean badly written!


Like that Will Oldham review! That was cool, Tommy! That was some cool shit!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 30 Dec 2007, 09:53
I think the problem right now is there isn't a balance of the longer pieces with the shorter ones. On the first page of the blog is Jeph's "How To Enjoy Alive 2007" which is really brief and the Oldham bit which is basically a medium-length review, but the remainder of them are lengthy pieces.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: SeanBateman on 30 Dec 2007, 09:59
Yeah that is mostly what I mean. The occasional really long thing is totally cool, especially after a long series of short shit! But right now most of the stuff that shows up on there is realllllly long form, and since at least one of those is a series of articles, that is a lot of words! Text is really hard to read through, especially when dealing with so few image breaks. It's more like reading essays than music journalism. I ain't care about your thesis on early 90's indie rock!

Also tommy. Really, that font? Cmon.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Dec 2007, 10:12
maybe instead of jumping right into multi part retrospectives on entire movements in music, you could just write about some shit you are listening to and other people might want to hear in a way that is approachable?

(http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/2634771/2/istockphoto_2634771_hitting_a_nail_on_the_head.jpg)
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: SeanBateman on 30 Dec 2007, 10:19
Like I said, different strokes for different folks.

No dude that font just makes it hard to read the shit you write. It is not a stroke for a folk, it is just fucking obnoxious.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Spinless on 30 Dec 2007, 11:33
Tommy's font is fine, fix your browser settings.
Long post are great, get off the crack. If I wanted to see more things like the short post, I'd read the music forums.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 30 Dec 2007, 11:49
Long posts are great but there is a place for the short ones outside of this forum. A few of them are good posts but would not make very good forum topics.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Spinless on 30 Dec 2007, 13:42
Anything I can see Harry or Tommy posting in a 'short' post could easily be any number of their forum post. Remember, they were writing before the music blog started, and they were posting it all right here. Their long post, which are usually packed with information you'd struggle to find anywhere else, are far more useful. But long post are time consuming!
We can't have it both ways. Those guys are writing, for free, because they enjoy it. They enjoy the way they're doing things, they enjoy the way they are writing. You either appreciate it and be thankful, or you keep your mouth shut until something comes along that you CAN enjoy and maybe talk about a little. Harry writes like Harry, Tommy writes like Tommy, I wouldn't have them any other way. I'd actually like to see Kieffer and Jeph write something with a little more substance for the blog.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 30 Dec 2007, 13:44
You either appreciate it and be thankful, or you keep your mouth shut

If this is the mandate, then this thread should not exist, or should be renamed to "Tell Us What You Like About The Music Blog".
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 30 Dec 2007, 15:41
since the blog replaced the old Recommended Listening page

Whoa, really? I didn't know that.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Dec 2007, 00:59
You either appreciate it and be thankful, or you keep your mouth shut until something comes along that you CAN enjoy and maybe talk about a little.

Daz, I understand what you're saying, but you've phrased it in a manner which completely defeats the notion of constructive criticism.

I think I've already covered that I like the Chapel Hill series, and if you have to press me I'd say that, offhand, Kieffer's live review of Wilco a while back was right on the money.

And this wouldn't be the first time in forum history that a thread deviated from its strict origins, guys.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 31 Dec 2007, 01:21
since the blog replaced the old Recommended Listening page

Whoa, really? I didn't know that.

Yeah that was kind of the whole point! I figured it would be more interesting and more useful to people who read QC to get more updates from different people whose opinions I respect in addition to myself. So far I think it has worked quite well. The blog is getting pretty decent traffic too- over 100,000 hits this month, which is none too shabby.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 31 Dec 2007, 06:51
Well in that case I might try to do more straight-ahead record reviews in future to replicate in some way the recommended listening page. Like the Clap Your Hands review, I guess.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Dec 2007, 08:43
over 100,000 hits this month, which is none too shabby.

Holy shit!

Sometimes I forget just how popular QC actually is.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 31 Dec 2007, 13:43
Well in that case I might try to do more straight-ahead record reviews in future to replicate in some way the recommended listening page. Like the Clap Your Hands review, I guess.

I specifically invited you guys because I figured you could write whatever you felt like and it would be good reading. Just do your thing!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jimbunny on 31 Dec 2007, 14:34
And it is good reading! Harry and Tommy, you both write in a style I find lucid, witty, and informative. If you were writing for a professional publication, I would advise a quick trip to the editor's office (and, indeed, in a professional setting this would most likely be mandatory anyway) to clean up some phrasing. But for a blog, I feel you are doing an amazing job. I really can't believe the time and effort that you are putting into this, completely voluntarily.

There, that's all that really needs to be said in that vein.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 31 Dec 2007, 19:43
Frankly, Jeph, I take it as a personal offense that Sound of Silver did not make your #1. Being that I am gay for James Murphy and all.

 :-D
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 01 Jan 2008, 16:13
i hate to tell you dude but he is married

to a lady
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: casull on 01 Jan 2008, 16:19
Man, I find myself wishing I could write an article on a band or style that is cool, yet outside the pitchfork pantheon.

Instead, all I have to offer is my comprehensive knowledge of texas/contest style fiddling. I guess my target audience would be people who want to have more obscure music than their friends as a fashion statement, because as far as I can tell there are about two people ever who care about contest fiddling other than the people who do it.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 01 Jan 2008, 16:21
i hate to tell you dude but he is married

to a lady

that does not stop him from having a secret mister in the closet
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 01 Jan 2008, 16:27
if he shows you any unreleased remixes of his stuff you have to upload them here
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 02 Jan 2008, 22:59
oh he shows mixes of his stuff if you know what i mean

i dont think theyd be appropriate to post though
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: yamaha2k3 on 02 Jan 2008, 23:55
I know I'm a little late but I'm glad to see The Field made it in the best albums of 2007 list. From Here We Go Sublime has got to be one of my top favorite albums of all time.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 05 Jan 2008, 18:20
That's just HITS, not pageviews, though.

It's still pretty popular- the blog index got almost 3,000 pageviews just in the last three days. The RL blog is bigger than >90% of all webcomics.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 08 Jan 2008, 11:42
i forgot the music blog existed. i read something on it once...it was pretty good, whatever it was.

i'll try to remember to check it out more regularly.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 10 Jan 2008, 00:03
I can't find a decent place to say this but I feel the need to say it so I figure here's as good a place as any.

Why didn't anyone tell me that Battles really are as good as everyone told me they are? You jerks.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 10 Jan 2008, 05:04
Why didn't everyone tell you they were good, just like everyone told you they were . . .

. . . Wait, what?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Spinless on 10 Jan 2008, 05:59
I really don't like it when I can't tell whether somebody is a genius, or incredibly dim.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 10 Jan 2008, 11:31
can't it be both?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 10 Jan 2008, 14:25
can't it be both?

Right. I mean, I crafted that sentence with brilliant love and care for maximum subtlety and "huh?" effect, and yet for some reason I never before picked up on the utter fact that I ought to be listening to Battles. A lot.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trillian on 10 Jan 2008, 20:44
I have been lurking these forums since a QC forum existed, and up until today I have not really contributed (because apparently I am a bad person).  Hello change!

I know I am a bit late on this subject, but I just wanted to state that I really appreciate what you guys are doing with your blog.  I think what I enjoy about it is that it isn't really like most of the other music blogs that I read or come across mainly because I enjoy the fact that there are four distinct viewpoints and that shows in each of your posts.  It is entertaining, and even if I already know the content I find that it is a pleasure just reading what you have to say about it.  You aren't professional writers.  Great!  I read other blogs/magazines/forums/whatever for different reasons.  I read your blog because it is informative, funny, and I get the distinct impression that you are writing because you love music and that you enjoy trying to get other people to see why.  And frankly, I adore that.  I don't understand the point of withholding what I know because someone may not appreciate it as much as I think they should.  Who the fuck cares?  I love it so I am going to tell people about it, and if they don't love it, well then I guess it is their loss.  Anyway, this has become far more stream of consciousness than I initially intended.  I just wanted to say thanks, mainly because reading through the thread made me feel all negative like, and I prefer to just appreciate what is good.  So rock on.  ;)   
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 10 Jan 2008, 22:00
Thanks! However I do think it'd be good to have at least one female contributor to the blog.

Also, Dirty Three: Part 3 should be up soon. Won't be as long as Part 2, but I think it has some useful things to say.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 11 Jan 2008, 03:52
Good idea, broach the topic with J-dizzle.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 11 Jan 2008, 06:06
Just remember, you've gotta tell it like it is if you wanna tell it to JePhat.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 13 Jan 2008, 19:03
I prefer to be referred to as Tha Notoriouz JRPH.

I am always open to new writer suggestions!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: est on 13 Jan 2008, 19:07
Jrph would you like a writer who goes to trashy Sydney dance clubs, drinks copiously and then writes reviews based on what he can remember of them the next day?

I could also review other things, I guess.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 13 Jan 2008, 19:08
That could be pretty funny!

I think you would have to go for max hilarity with that kind of article.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 13 Jan 2008, 19:17
Every third sentence would have to contain the phrase FUCK YEAH!!!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: est on 13 Jan 2008, 19:24
I would probably have to make more notes about what people were wearing and how douche-y (http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v371/est_xplosif/est_collar.jpg) they were acting than the music.

I'm going to see the Bang Gang this Saturday night at a really seedy place.  I'll try to capture something, at least.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 13 Jan 2008, 19:55
Also everything has to be written with a backwoods Aussie inflection.

"OLLRIOGHT YOU BLAWKES, HEAH'S WOT I DID LAHST NOIGHT"

CROIKEY
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: tommydski on 13 Jan 2008, 20:00
I asked a bunch of female music nerds and none of them seemed to think they could do it.

 :x
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: MusicScribbles on 13 Jan 2008, 20:08
Maybe you should hold tryouts in these Musical Fora?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 13 Jan 2008, 20:10
Dirty Three: part 3 is up.

I think I'll do some plain ol' record reviews for a while now.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: hannahrochelle on 13 Jan 2008, 22:23
I write articles on bands for http://www.fasterlouder.com.au (http://www.fasterlouder.com.au) under the username "ragdoll". But I guess its more talking about the band itself than the music they make. Unless I'm writing a review of something.

Link to stuff: http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/people/ragdoll/#pubPortfolio (http://www.fasterlouder.com.au/people/ragdoll/#pubPortfolio)
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 13 Jan 2008, 22:44
I thought I should point out that I went to my local record store, and couldn't find Low, Polvo or Dirty Three.  They might have just been sold out, though.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: hannahrochelle on 14 Jan 2008, 14:16
Every time I read "The Dirty Three" written somewhere, I automatically think of my friend's band The Dirty Secrets... Yet somehow, I doubt they sound anything alike. The Dirty Secrets are electro rock.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 14 Jan 2008, 15:26
what about the dirty projectors
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 14 Jan 2008, 19:14
I put up a list. Hopefully this will get lists out of my system so I can start just talking about regular ol' music.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 14 Jan 2008, 22:00
I severely disagree that She Has No Strings Apollo is in any way inferior to Whatever You Love, You Are.

Also the song is called "Alice Wading" not "Alice Wades".

Why didn't you cover any of the Mick Turner solo albums?  They are excellent.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 14 Jan 2008, 23:02
Why didn't I cover any of the Tren Brothers recordings? Why didn't I cover any of Warren Ellis's soundtrack work? Because it's an article about the Dirty Three. Not the various side-projects undertaken by the members of the Dirty Three, but the Dirty Three. There's more than enough material to cover there without shooting off into tangents.

I can't believe I got the name of the song wrong. Must have forgotten to proof-read that bit. I'll fix that straight away.

As for She Has No Strings Apollo, I don't expect you meant your comment as a criticism, but I tried to make it clear that my feelings about the album are just one of a variety of possible reactions. I love Ocean Songs, you love Apollo. No worries!

Also, it seems that Lowlands is no longer in print. It's really good, so I'll stick it up in the Sendspace/Mediafire/whatever thread in the near future. Keep an eye out!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 14 Jan 2008, 23:15
Eh it kind of came across to me that you were saying that almost nobody could like Apollo better than Whatever, and I consider it their second best album behind Horse Stories.

Anyway I just meant maybe you could have at least mentioned the side projects, I didn't mean you should have reviewed all of them.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 14 Jan 2008, 23:29
The problem with mentioning side-projects is that it's a slippery slope: once you mention one of them, you're pretty much compelled to mention them all lest you leave yourself open to the criticism that you're only doing half a job. With musicians as busy as Ellis, Turner, and White that's gonna result in a pretty lengthy list of records, which while it might be interesting to the completist is going to be pretty stultifying to the other 95% of people reading the article. Having read Count Basie's autobiography, I can attest that a long string of "what was recorded by who and when" makes pretty tedious reading! I felt that in a retrospective that already stretched to three articles and several thousand words, I had to put my foot down somewhere.

I can easily see how people could love She Has No Strings Apollo, and I very deliberately finished the review of that album with the observation that other people would have different opinions on it from myself, but I'd also hope that anybody who reads music reviews on a blog will take everything said there with a grain of salt, knowing that it's only one person's opinion.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of Cinder?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Jackie Blue on 14 Jan 2008, 23:33
Eh, Cinder is alright, it just doesn't sound like a Dirty Three album.  It sounds like a side project.  It's no bad, but it's my second least favorite behind Ocean Songs.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 15 Jan 2008, 01:28
Cinder was really dissappointing.

Overlong and lacking the intensity of their best efforts.

I'm fucking pissed off because I realised ON THE NIGHT that I was missing out on seeing them support low at the East Brunswick club. Fuck. This makes me angry. It helps me slightly to know that at least I'll see Jim White playing with Cat Power next month.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 15 Jan 2008, 02:47
What?! I knew Mick Turner was playing with Low, but the whole lot of 'em? Surely not!

EDIT: Anchor & Hope website says it was Mick Turner with Jeffrey Wegener on drums: http://anchorandhope.com/dc/index.php/category/tours/ (http://anchorandhope.com/dc/index.php/category/tours/).
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 15 Jan 2008, 03:28
Have a look at the line below that Inlander. Says they're opening for them on the 11th and 12th.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 15 Jan 2008, 03:36
No, that's for Mick Turner and Jeffery Wegener. The formatting makes it a bit unclear, but note the colon after the closing bracket:

Quote
Mick Turner solo (with JEFFERY WEGENER on drums):
11th & 12th Jan 2008 Melbourne, AU East Brunswick Club opening for LOW
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 15 Jan 2008, 04:51
oh ok, while I'm still not utterly convinced that makes me feel a little better *wipes away tear*. Thanks.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trillian on 15 Jan 2008, 09:23
Colons are, indeed, very important. 

I was talking to a few of my friends in Melbourne about this show and I was so disappointed that I live so far away and therefore couldn't go.  So I am pretty much did a little jig of glee when I saw that they are making a stop in Cambridge, Mass. 

Also, in reference to the conversation about the addition of a female writer:
I won't do it.  I am sorry, I am sure you are terribly distressed about this.   :-D 
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: MusicScribbles on 22 Jan 2008, 20:11
I like how this thread is about the Dirty Three. Really, I do! I like the Dirty Three!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 22 Jan 2008, 20:19
I like the dirty three too! How original of us.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: De_El on 29 Jan 2008, 20:09
I definitely downloaded that Long Hair in Three Stages and listened to it, but I must not have been paying very close attention because when I read about how unusual and experimental they were I was thoroughly surprised.  Though, I can't remember what it sounds like at all, aside from definitely not remembering it as something off the wall or silly, but mentally grouped among the slew of emo albums upped on the Mediafire thread. I should probably listen to this again, only much more carefully.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 01 Feb 2008, 22:43
I just put up a few semi-connected thoughts on something that's been on my mind a fair bit recently. I wasn't planning on writing it down, but it just kind of came spilling out this afternoon.

Next thing I put up will just be a short, snappy album review, I promise!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Scandanavian War Machine on 04 Feb 2008, 15:25
not to downplay the quality or importance of the rest of the music blog, but that's easily the best thing i've read on there.

it's excellent, well-written food for thought. i now find myself actually thinking about my own music-filled life and thinking for the first time that it's anything but positive.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 04 Feb 2008, 16:13
I've been working on a piece on music in video games for the blog that goes nicely along with that - with a lot of people, the compulsion is there to score games yourself, whether using the onboard hard drives or blasting out music from a stereo or computer. With games like Shadow Of The Colossus, Half-Life 2 and Defcon this is inarguably detrimental. I don't know where I want to go with it, is the problem, but it's something I'd like to write about; maybe it'll be a piece in defense of maintaining the soundtrack in order to preserve the integrity of the piece as a whole?

It's tremendously geeky but it's something I have an opinion about.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 04 Feb 2008, 17:49
Inland er that article is super good. That sort of thing had never really occured to me before. On the record shop thing, you go to Polyestor yeah? Great store. I'm a Greville Records man myself but I actually find it kinda embarressing cause everytime I go there Warwick gives me a at least 15 bucks off. Yesterday he gave me two Captain Beefheart's for free and he's given me a 35 dollar Judee Sill for free too.

I'm goin to the Lneway festival this year. Do you think I won't enjoy it? Cause I was actually pretty pumped about the line up.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 04 Feb 2008, 18:09
I was this close to getting a ticket for it this year because of the line-up and I had to really remind myself how much I disliked the experience last year. Apparently they've enlarged the site this year (the main stage is going to be in some underground cavern beneath Myer, or something), so it remains to be seen whether that means they're going to sell the same number of tickets last year, or sell more because they've got more space. But the crowds weren't the least pleasant aspect of it for me, like I said in the article the constant and unrelenting music just got too much by the end of the day.

Saw some great bands, though. Probably wouldn't have discovered Fionn Regan without it. I must confess that a part of my displeasure by the end of the day was due to the fact that I didn't really like any of the bands at the top of the bill (Sleepy Jackson, ehh, Peter Bjorn and John turned out to be really dull too, and I'd had enough of it and left before Midnight Juggernauts came on to finish the day). If you've got great bands playing at the end of the day, it could be a lot more fun!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 04 Feb 2008, 21:40
Yeah they've extended it considerably... I just don't think I coul live with myself knowing I'd missed Okkervil River, Broken Social Scene, Feist, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, Dan Deacon and Stars all playing in the same day.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 06 Feb 2008, 06:13
Okay, while it's nice to hear nice words said about the article (thanks, guys!) it makes for pretty lame discussion, and this is meant to be a discussion thread after all, not just a comments thread. So does anyone have a contrary opinion? Anyone think the article didn't go far enough? Anyone got anything to say on any of the issues it raised?

Anyone?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 06 Feb 2008, 08:09
I'm not sure what this says about me or the world I've grown up in, but here is my personal experience on the issue: music is inevitably ubiquitous to the point where even if I took a day of from listening to it, it would still be with me. I've got a pretty much nigh-constant "soundtrack" of sorts in that at any given point I can just start humming or singing or dancing to whatever song is already in progress up there. I can be sitting around reading a book, or taking a walk with a girl, and any silent moments can effortlessly, subconsciously, be filled with music. Almost like getting a song stuck in your head, but instead getting almost every song you've ever heard well enough to know stuck in your head, as though the spirit of music in general has been ingrained into my soul. There's no avoiding it.

Personally, I don't mind this state of affairs. More often than not, music keeps me going; physically, I can put on something dancy and stay awake and active almost like I've had a shot of caffeine; emotionally, certain songs can just support or work to change my state of mind whenever I need; etc. Music does a lot to sustain my lifestyle, so I see absolutely no reason or want to separate it from that lifestyle. If I could play or even effectively write I would, because I'm just as likely to find a song or snippet thereof completely of my own design slip into this "soundtrack" as someone else's song. I can't, of course, and when I've tried the result is something terrible that hardly qualifies as an adequate translation, so these songs stick with me. But the point is that music is vital to me around the clock, and more than minding it, I love it enough that I would do anything to give back to it (and this, in essence, is my justification for actually buying music, which I don't do nearly enough because I can't afford to buy as fast as I can listen).

I have some more to say on the oversaturation of music, but it'll have to wait for a little while later. I'll probably just edit this post with it.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: a pack of wolves on 06 Feb 2008, 09:29
I think it was John Cage, when discussing with somebody the annoyance of sounds from the newly common transistor radio, who said that the way he came to terms with it was to write a piece which used radios, so whenever he came across the sound of them muddling together it became an example of his own work, something he could understand and be happy with. This kind of incorporation of the ubiquity of music is great, it's a way making sense of the auditory environment. But the way mp3 players or the PAs at festivals or in shops are making single audio sources of music which will stay with you unless you stop using them or remove yourself from the location (which can be difficult, music in a place of work for example) are something else. There was a good article written when the ipod was first becoming massively popular by someone who'd purchased one and then begun to have it with him at all times. He said that for a long time he enjoyed having a soundtrack to his life, and the ability to instantly find something which fit his mood. But in the end his experience was that he found the soundtrack trivialising, it fit so well that it was like being in a bad tv show where some annoying appropriate piece of pop music swells up to match and make overblown the emotions of the characters. He was wallowing in his feelings and making his life somehow more trite by constantly flicking on the correct bit of Sigur Ros for a late night walk when feeling low or Public Enemy to match the bustling city streets.

There's a few other questions raised by the post. One is whether listening to a piece of music over and over is somehow necessarily better than hearing a new piece afresh. Adorno raised issues with the too frequent reiteration of any piece of music, saying that this could rob it of its power due to over familiarity. There's obviously an unease with constantly acquiring new things to listen to over repeatedly playing records bought before, but this is not at all necessarily a bad thing. I rarely watch films repeatedly, even those I love. Stalker is probably my favourite film but I doubt I've seen it more than ten times. This kind of statement never raises an eyebrow with cinema, but if I was to say Double Nickels On The Dime was my favourite album but I had only played it a handful of times, each listen with months if not years in between, it would strike most anyone as extremely odd. Since this limitation of the number of times a work is experienced is seen as perfectly legitimate for other forms then why is it seen as strange when applied to music?

One more thing that struck me was the paragraph talking about the daunting nature of making music due to the sheer vast amount that exists, and I presume tying that in with the huge amount so many people have at their fingertips these days. This is only a problem if the creation of art is seen as a competition, particularly one for originality. Why does originality matter though? If we take art to is simplest state then it is fundamentally a means of communication. We don't vet our conversations so rigorously for originality (although we do resist being told the same thing in the same way be the same person repeatedly), so why are we so obsessed with our artistic communications being so original? Instead of a competition if you see the music that has existed before, currently and after you as a dialogue then making music and entering into that dialogue becomes a much less daunting prospect.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 06 Feb 2008, 14:44
I rarely watch films repeatedly, even those I love. Stalker is probably my favourite film but I doubt I've seen it more than ten times. This kind of statement never raises an eyebrow with cinema, but if I was to say Double Nickels On The Dime was my favourite album but I had only played it a handful of times, each listen with months if not years in between, it would strike most anyone as extremely odd. Since this limitation of the number of times a work is experienced is seen as perfectly legitimate for other forms then why is it seen as strange when applied to music?

That's a good point. I guess with music part of the reason we're expected to listen to a particular work repeatedly is because compared to films or books, listening to a particular musical work is a relatively brief experience (due in a large part to the historical limitations of various recording formats) and it's an experience that can be had while doing other things. (Whether you should be doing other things while listening to music is another issue.) Part of what bothers me about the constant quest for the new is not so much artistic side of it, as the commercial: after a while it starts to like just another form of rampant materialism. But that's probably in a large part because I buy all my music in physical form.

Quote
One more thing that struck me was the paragraph talking about the daunting nature of making music due to the sheer vast amount that exists, and I presume tying that in with the huge amount so many people have at their fingertips these days. This is only a problem if the creation of art is seen as a competition, particularly one for originality. Why does originality matter though? If we take art to is simplest state then it is fundamentally a means of communication. We don't vet our conversations so rigorously for originality (although we do resist being told the same thing in the same way be the same person repeatedly), so why are we so obsessed with our artistic communications being so original? Instead of a competition if you see the music that has existed before, currently and after you as a dialogue then making music and entering into that dialogue becomes a much less daunting prospect.

Apart from anything else, if you're going to release your music for public consumption there are copyright issues to be worried about: just look at the mess George Harrison got into with "My Sweet Lord". I do think that artists should strive for originality of some form, especially in this day and age when so much art from the past, be it books, films, music, or whatever, is readily available in some form. Otherwise what's the appeal to me? Why would I want to listen to a band playing in the style of a past band, when I could just go an listen to the original recordings of that past band? That's not to say that the difference between old and new has to be huge: I adore the first two Camera Obscura albums, for instance, even though they're basically playing to a Belle & Sebastian template: the fact that they have a female singer is enough of a differentiation to me.

I guess if I was a musician I probably wouldn't have written that paragraph - it's very much from an outsider's perspective. Thinking back on it now I realise that as a writer I don't feel daunted when I read great novels from the past, but inspired instead. Still, music occupies a uniquely ubiquitous place in our world today and I do wonder how that affects musicians, if at all.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: a pack of wolves on 06 Feb 2008, 16:52
That's an interesting point about the different amounts of time required for music and films, and the capability of doing a greater number of other things while experiencing music. Mind you, I'm typing this while half watching A Life Less Ordinary and I doubt I'd be paying more attention to it if it was a piece of music.

The relative length of albums and films seems to be changing though. While films will always be limited by how long people are willing to sit still albums seem to be gradually growing in length. Tommy's pointed out before the way the CD has led to longer albums, and it's reasonably to suppose that the digital release will lead to even longer albums still. Given the way music is listened to this probably won't decrease the importance placed on both having large amounts of it and listening to it a considerable number of times, people will just end up with even more music they feel they should be getting through.

There's little point in an exact replica, I agree, and when a band is slavishly attempting to replicate something that came before it's pretty unsatisfying. But for me that's because they don't seem to have anything of their own to say, they can only ape what someone else tried to communicate. However, an artist who's merely unconcerned with whether or not what they create resembles the work of somebody else I find a different matter. For example, I like a lot of fast hardcore bands. There isn't a huge amount of difference between these acts, and telling the difference between them can often be a difficult matter even for a fan of the music. If you were to put on a record I hadn't heard by, say, Reagan SS or Devoid of Faith I'm not sure I'd be able to spot which band it was without being told. Nevertheless, I like this music despite its lack of distinction since originality isn't the point. An existing style and its conventions are being used to communicate something by these bands in a similar way to a piece of genre fiction, and that's good enough for me.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: MusicScribbles on 10 Feb 2008, 11:07
Hey, what happened to this thread? I like it now! There is some fun discussing going on in here!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 10 Feb 2008, 14:14
I got lazy! I'll try to get un-lazy later today.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 10 Feb 2008, 18:05
The relative length of albums and films seems to be changing though. While films will always be limited by how long people are willing to sit still albums seem to be gradually growing in length. Tommy's pointed out before the way the CD has led to longer albums, and it's reasonably to suppose that the digital release will lead to even longer albums still.

This raises the whole "death of the album" issue that people are fond of speculating on with the rise of downloadable music: I think there's a greater tendency for people these days to cherry-pick their favourite songs to download and listen to, rather than whole albums. I don't have any empirical evidence for this, though. As an interesting aside, the 3-minute pop song is still pretty much the industry standard, generations after the technology that created that standard became outmoded.

Interestingly, with vinyl making a comeback there are more and more albums, at least by relatively non-mainstream bands, the 60s standard of albums being generally just over half an hour in length is becoming the norm again: to take one example, the Shins' most recent album was also their longest yet - at forty minutes.

Quote
There's little point in an exact replica, I agree, and when a band is slavishly attempting to replicate something that came before it's pretty unsatisfying. But for me that's because they don't seem to have anything of their own to say, they can only ape what someone else tried to communicate. However, an artist who's merely unconcerned with whether or not what they create resembles the work of somebody else I find a different matter. For example, I like a lot of fast hardcore bands. There isn't a huge amount of difference between these acts, and telling the difference between them can often be a difficult matter even for a fan of the music. If you were to put on a record I hadn't heard by, say, Reagan SS or Devoid of Faith I'm not sure I'd be able to spot which band it was without being told. Nevertheless, I like this music despite its lack of distinction since originality isn't the point. An existing style and its conventions are being used to communicate something by these bands in a similar way to a piece of genre fiction, and that's good enough for me.

I think it's less of an issue when you're considering an entire genre of music; however there are many bands who seem devoted to recreating facsimiles of the music of one specific band from the past. I think this is when issues of "style" or "genre" go out the window and the music instead becomes just a pallid imitation.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Latte on 13 Feb 2008, 12:42
Hey guys; just thought I'd pipe up since these are very interesting thoughts and opinions to me.  Also, insert cheap "love the blog" phrase.  (No, seriously, I do)

Just to stick with the topics brought up, I think the digital distribution thing on the whole is fantastic.  This death of the album business, not so much.  The three minute single is definitely the standard, I agree, but it should also be apparent that we then need to look at the different target demographics of music loving culture.  I know I've often started with cherry-picking my tunes but end up coming back again and again to the same group or even album until I have the whole thing!  In my head I feel the concept of an album is sort of a conversation between you and an artist that really needs to be taken in whole, even if some of the songs are lackluster.  It (generally) is created around a moment in time by them for you and seems to: ask a question, mule it around a bit, and maybe come to *a* solution (all rhetorically of course).  Basically, a song needs the context of the other tracks, for me at least.
In a more primal sense, it's also like a circuit or gauntlet of emotions/moods that one can complete.  In the case of something more abstract; I need to complete a post rock album from 1 to 10 (or 3..) since a noticeable climax occurs at some point along the way, and if you were to interrupt this before the finale or bring down ending track(s) it would upset me.

This is just how I see it and enjoy it.  Ooh, an interesting phrase back there, concept albums!  I personally hope to see more of these coming from all sorts of bands and that the internets don't ruin this by making cohesive records unvogue.  Now at the other end of the spectrum, there are the three minute single fans who just want their bon jovi title track and maybe a remix or two of something; which is fine (perhaps debatable  :lol:) as you should enjoy music as you like.  I suppose we will just have to see which bunch makes enough noise that the artists listen and create accordingly - the albums as we know and love them, or just "streaming content" of songs.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: ViolentDove on 13 Feb 2008, 18:43
I'll be checking out that label, cheers Tommy. Incidentally, is that Scotch Pine album any good?

Also, with regards to labels/bands functioning by donations, Australian band The Red Paintings (who I'm not actually a fan of) decided to release an album based on donations alone, in a kind of similar model to those micro-investment films that popped up recently. You pay a small sum of money, and then a band you like gets to make an album, which you then receive a copy of after the fact.

While I've no idea if this is the first time a band has made an album like this, I rather like it as an idea. I think they've raised 40 grand or so, which is quite impressive.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: a pack of wolves on 14 Feb 2008, 06:12
The Scotch Pine thing is only one song. I like it though, it's a nice bit of melancholy lo-fi.

Ah, I'm Being Good. A truly fantastic band. Roughly once a year they come to Leeds and play a gig with the equally superb Bilge Pump, and it's always at one of the good venues like the Brudenell Social Club or the Common Place. They'll massively impressive everybody and then we'll wait for them to come and do it again next year. The thing I like best about bands such as I'm Being Good is that despite being very talented musicians with a huge amount of experience they never leave you with a feeling that making music like that is unattainable. I'm always left feeling more energised and excited about knocking together my own unskilled efforts after seeing them play, and making music which has that effect on people is a remarkable thing.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: David_Dovey on 24 Feb 2008, 20:15
Dear JohnnyC,

I too have been frustrated about poor mixes at bands that I have really anticipated seeing in my concert-going career. I have railed against the obvious incompetence of soundmen and their lackadaisical approach to mixing these bands that we love, whose music, given a good mix, has the potential to lift us above the clouds, and given a bad mix, will just leave us feeling empty and frustrated.

But I'd like to point out that as I've been learning how to engineer sound myself, and have thus started paying more attention to what is going on behind the console, and I've got to say, live engineers cop it way harder than they deserve, an awful lot of the time.

Lets' get this clear: Nobody really cares about the sound engineer. If you know how sound waves work (and I'm assuming you have some knowledge of this), you'll know that the way something sounds, particularly in regards to the balance of frequencies, can differ wildly based on where you stand in a room, particularly if that room is an odd shape, or has, say, a ceiling with varying heights. You'd think a venue owner, interested in making sure his space has as good a sound as possible, would have a vested interest in making sure that the sound engineer is given a good place in the room to mix, a place where the sound he hears will be a reasonable approximation of the sound throughout the room.

This is rarely true. In almost every venue I've been to, the sound engineer has been tucked away in some little corner, a place where the stage is obscured by large poles, or he has a bulkhead or balcony overhead (an absolute nightmare in terms of sound), or some little alcove where not only is it almost impossible to move, but where the standing reflections from the surrounding walls will ruin any possible chance our intrepid soundfellow will have of ever actually interpreting properly what anybody else is hearing. Did you move around at all during the show? Have you talked to other people who were there? Was it consensus that this was a poorly mixed set?

Not to mention that the incompetent sound engineer in question was more likely than not, not a touring FOH man, hired by the band and carted around the country, mixing the band every night. He was more likely a local guy, perhaps someone who had no idea about who A Place To Bury Strangers are, and was simply trying his best to deal with what was undoubtedly some very hot levels coming down his console. To put it this way: Imagine being given an instrument that is not entirely unlike a guitar, but different enough to be confusing, and then told to produce an interesting and cohesive set of music right away. This is something what it is like trying to mix a band "cold."

Of course, I wasn't there so I'm really just giving you possible reasons that might make you a bit more sympathetic to the tribulations of the live engineer. He could've just been a shitty engineer.

Yours,
DD
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Feb 2008, 00:16
He's by no means incompetent, which is why the APTBS thing was so baffling. What upsets me more than bad soundmen is decent soundmen doing poor jobs for no readily apparent reason. The consensus is actually that the sound was kind of bad. I talked to people who were at varying spots in the venue. As well, the mixing station at the venue in question is located in a direct, clear line from the stage. I want to say it's about fifteen to twenty metres from the stage but that is basically just a guesstimate. Normally I'm willing to give soundmen a lot more credit but at that particular venue they typically can't fall back on blaming the venue's piss-poor design, because it's actually a pretty great design.

As well, he is more used to working with metal bands more than anything else, so the tones coming into the board are usually hot to start with for him.

I have some understanding for the dude, but as a performer and concertgoer I give a shit about the soundman. When he does a good job I have a habit of congratulating him; when he doesn't, I have a habit of becoming irritated.

p.s. soundmen can be ladies too
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: David_Dovey on 25 Feb 2008, 04:22
Well yeah, sometimes people just ass up. Dang tragedy. I think Battles would've won a lot more fans at the Big Day Out in my town if they had decent sound.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Aceandcups on 04 Mar 2008, 19:03
Just a quick note on the sound engineers job in shitty environments:

I've been to places where the venues were basically bowling alleys, abandoned warehouses and rec centers. I remember at one show, in Echo Park, CA the band Deer Hunter had about 3/4 of a set ruined, because the sound booth couldn't get vocals right. So for the entire set people in the audience were screaming "WE CAN'T HERE YOU!" and the band didn't know what to do. Finally, two songs before the show was over BOOM voice comes back and the audience gets a reason to attack the sound booth.

And those other times, where the setting was shit, I've heard bands perfectly - they compensated for everything they could think of. So, it would be cheap to blame a venue when a sound person can't keep up with what's going on.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: David_Dovey on 04 Mar 2008, 19:48
Well, as my post directly above yours states, it's true, sometimes people just fuck up, and the only reason is because they're incompetent. But I figured it was worth mentioning the things I did, because a lot of people want to automatically blame the sound engineer, no matter what.

I wasn't saying that it's always the venue or environment, but I thought it'd be interesting and useful for people to maybe think twice about the circumstances of the shitty sound before jumping all over the  engineer.

By the way; You may want to get rid of the pic in your signature, they're generally frowned upon here.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Aceandcups on 05 Mar 2008, 18:47
Ah the sig thing. Yes, I've been bombarded with messages. Done and Done.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Elizzybeth on 05 Mar 2008, 21:50
I remember at one show, in Echo Park, CA the band Deer Hunter had about 3/4 of a set ruined, because the sound booth couldn't get vocals right.

Was that at The Echo?  I heard a show there last year that I thought was actually fairly well mixed.  Hopefully the Deerhunter show was just a bad night?

Regardless, I've overall been fairly impressed by the music blog.  I'm less well informed musically, and I've been introduced to a couple of things I've really liked.  Thanks, guys!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Aceandcups on 06 Mar 2008, 14:45
Yeah, it was the Echo. I've been to the place a dozen times and that was probably the only show that I felt like a fight would break out. One place that is do or die in Los Angeles about sound is The Smell. You're literally four two feet from some guy on guitar with a drum kit - amps and guitars are always hissing and feedback is bad.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: IronOxide on 08 Mar 2008, 13:19
About sound guys doing a poor job at a venue. I know it's a tough job, but why bass is generally the thing painfully exaggerated is confusing. Unless they are grossly overcompensating for what they are hearing, the bass should be the most prominent thing for the engineer to hear if they are in a bad place in the room, as low tones have much better penetration than higher tones. Think of what you hear out of a car door, you aren't going to hear the lyrics, you'll hear the THUMP-GATHUMP of the drums, and possibly bass. Which is exactly the problem when the sound in a venue is bad (or, at least, it is the problem that I have heard when the sound is bad), so I wouldn't blame it on placement, unless they overcompensate like whoa.
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: pilsner on 12 Mar 2008, 10:05
I think I know what the problem was . . .

(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s168/pilsner888/suckbutton.jpg)
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 16 Mar 2008, 19:07
Well I haven't really given Third a proper listen, I downloaded it onto a lap top which has since deceased and only listened to it once after a long day at work. I was dissappointed, but I ussually am when I give a new record I've been highly anticipating a first listen. You're article certainly convinced me to give it another listen, and perhaps in a more fitting environment.

From my first impressions however, is it really that different? I'm no expert on Portishead but without giving much attention to the subtleties of the album it seems to use the same dynamics as on their last two albums. Same build of tension, same quasi-gothic lyrics delivered by that beautiful voice... I don't know I guess I was just expecting more. My question though Tommy, do you think you would have found it difficult to admit, if it was in fact so, that it was a bad record? Are you being objective about it?
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Yossarian on 19 Mar 2008, 13:59
I've listened through Third a couple of times now and it truly is a different beast, if compared to Dummy or Portishead. Tommy's description here and on the blog matches pretty much my own impression, so there is not much to add from my side.

Except for one thing maybe: is it just me or are there a lot of sonic allusions to The Doors and Apocalypse Now? Beginning with track #5 Plastic and continuing through the rest of the album I have ongoing flashbacks to that effect. Be it the helicopter sounds or - more generally - some of the percussion and guitar work. And why did it take until now, for me to realize, that the name of track #10 is Magic Doors?!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: thisbugsme on 20 Mar 2008, 18:01
This is a nice find of me, a great alternative music blog with daily posts
www.m-itunes.blogspot.com
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: cheesepie on 27 Mar 2008, 13:56
My friends have a radio show and a music blog! Mostly electro type music! It's a good site check it out: http://www.thedockingstation.ca/
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 27 Mar 2008, 15:26
Thanks for the heads up guys, but this thread is intended as a discussion of the Q.C.-specific music blog (http://www.questionablecontent.net/rlblog/index.php), not as a way to direct peoples attentions to music blogs in general. Feel free to start another thread for that purpose, though: I'm sure we'd all like to find some new sites!
Title: Re: Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: MusicScribbles on 30 Mar 2008, 13:27
Except for one thing maybe: is it just me or are there a lot of sonic allusions to The Doors and Apocalypse Now? Beginning with track #5 Plastic and continuing through the rest of the album I have ongoing flashbacks to that effect. Be it the helicopter sounds or - more generally - some of the percussion and guitar work. And why did it take until now, for me to realize, that the name of track #10 is Magic Doors?!

Actually, I've been getting that a bit too. Especially with the silences in some of the songs, even though the tracks are anything but barren in layering, there is this almost building atmospheric restraint, if that's the right way to describe it.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 30 Mar 2008, 20:08
For the record, I have a tonne of work at the moment and I was away from the internet for almost a week at Easter time.

I do plan to write a short piece explaining exactly why John Darnielle is one of the best singers currently going around in the rock/pop field, though.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: amok on 30 Mar 2008, 20:16
Just a quick post to say thanks to tommy for introducing me to 'Sub Plot.' One of those albums that not only piqued my curiosity the first time around, but promises to reveal something new on every subsequent listen. Pure class. Thanks, pal.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: imagist42 on 17 Apr 2008, 11:51
I know this is a reference to something like four months back but I'd like to apologize for getting on Jeff's case about having Apparat over LCD Soundsystem on his best of 2007 list. Having just heard Walls, I would still have put Sound of Silver on top but now I can understand why he did not. What a great album.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Daft pun on 17 Apr 2008, 13:06
As far as I remember that entire album got boned by stupid tracks like "Holdon" and "Hailing form the edge". He's way better when he works with others (Orchestra of Bubbles anyone?) or does remixes.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: morca007 on 17 Apr 2008, 14:06
I just searched for Dia Artio on the googles, and the blog was the first result.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 19 Apr 2008, 08:12
As far as I remember that entire album got boned by stupid tracks like "Holdon" and "Hailing form the edge". He's way better when he works with others (Orchestra of Bubbles anyone?) or does remixes.


WHAAAAAT

both of those songs are rad.

that entire album is without flaw.

FIIIIIIGHT YOUUUUUUUUUU
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 19 Apr 2008, 08:14
ps someday I will actually have time to write about music again

pps: I really like the new Notwist but I predict a Pitchfork rating of 6.8 or lower.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Daft pun on 19 Apr 2008, 12:36
Yeah, well... BRING IT ON MAN



ps 5555 posts... Interstella 5555... coincidence? I think not!
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Caspian on 20 Apr 2008, 21:29
My somewhat unimportant opinion:

Having just read through this music blog, it seems to be quite well written, although to be honest the only things I really read were the soundman article and the no more music article- the last one in particular was great and something that I agree with completely.

Overall though it was quite hard to get too excited by it, just because most of the bands on the blog were bands that I couldn't really care less about. I guess I could liken my  experience with the music blog to reading an extremely in-depth, wonderfully written article about a sandwich toaster, or the political situation in, say, Azerbijan.

Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Caspian on 20 Apr 2008, 21:35
oh! I should add that the Alcest review is freakin' excellent.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 19 May 2008, 21:42
oh hey I finally fuckin' wrote something new
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 20 May 2008, 00:46
Beat you to it!
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: RedLion on 20 May 2008, 09:50
Cool Opeth Review--Sounds like a great album!

Although, I've always preferred their quieter, more melodic moments to their all-out sonic assaults, and I think the keyboardist adds that little something to the mix that was missing before. Those two things (the melodic, acoustic/bluesly passages, and the keys) are really what sets them apart from other Proggy/death/metal bands. I've yet to hear Watershed, but Ghost Reveries was my favorite album by them so far, followed closely by Deliverance, Damnation, and Blackwater Park.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Leafy on 20 May 2008, 17:42
I'm only on "Heir Apparent" of Watershed, but I gotta say, I'm really loving it so far. I regret letting indie rock taking over my life now - back into metal I dive!
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: sean on 20 May 2008, 17:59
Man, I was not able to finish the new Opeth album. I thought it was so bad that I turned it off at like, the fourth song.

I really do not like prog-metal. I guess it was inevitable Opeth was gonna turn into this though...
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 20 May 2008, 18:09
I am really quite sad the entire album isn't stuff like Heir Apparent.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Leafy on 20 May 2008, 18:17
Hessian Peel is honestly the only thing I've detested so far. Besides that, I've pretty much loved every bit of it.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Ishotdanieljohnston on 20 May 2008, 19:09
Hey how bout that Will Oldham review?
I thought it was pretty good, yet to get hold of a copy of the album but it sounds good. It seems to me that he never tries to outdo any of his previous efforts, but just to make the music that seems most pertinent to him at that moment. And I'm not sure he could out do I see darkness or The Letting Go. Looking forward to it.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: oblivious on 20 May 2008, 20:31
I downloaded the new Opeth album today.  I hadn't heard them before, and I had to laugh.  I just can't take seriously any band that uses the monster truck voice, you know the one from the TV ads:  "Tonight at the super dome, it's Gravedigger versus Bigfoot".  I agree, the keyboards are a bit overdone, but overall the music is decent.  But the monster truck voice has to go!  I'm reminded of Godsmack or Monster Magnet, both proponents of the monster truck voice, and not my faves just because of that. :)

Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: oblivious on 20 May 2008, 20:32
I downloaded the new Opeth album today.  I hadn't heard them before, and I had to laugh.  I just can't take seriously any band that uses the monster truck voice, you know the one from the TV ads:  "Tonight at the super dome, it's Gravedigger versus Bigfoot".  I agree, the keyboards are a bit overdone, but overall the music is decent.  But the monster truck voice has to go!  I'm reminded of Godsmack or Monster Magnet, both proponents of the monster truck voice, and not my faves just because of that. :)


Heh! Yeah, first post!
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: RedLion on 20 May 2008, 21:12
I'm not a big fan of Cookie-Monster vocals either. Opeth is the one band I listen to that uses them.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 21 May 2008, 17:31
Hey tommy, seeing as how we both like Will Oldham so much I was thinking maybe we should have a conversation about him somewhere and transcribe it to the blog. Just for something a bit different. Interested?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 22 May 2008, 06:17
Okay then! P.M. me when you get back and we'll sort it out.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 03 Jun 2008, 17:12
Wow I learned about a lot of music thanks to this blog. I'll just stick to the recent entry about Opeth's latest album.

Certainly agree about the overuse of keyboards. It's like a dark, synthesized blotch on otherwise perfectly brutal music.

woohoo first post

P.S.: Is it me or does the guitarwork in Make Believe's "People Laughing" sound almost like people laughing?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 03 Jun 2008, 20:35
I'm writing a piece on a local venue that closed, and also on the self-titled album by the band Women. Look forward to those soon.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 03 Jun 2008, 22:05
I'm thinking of writing a review of Robert Forster's new album, the Evangelist. But, you know, I've made a lot of promises before, so don't hold your breath.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 16 Jun 2008, 19:55
Tommy, could you someday just sell your memory of that event to me like in Total Recall?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Sovereign on 18 Jun 2008, 23:11
As I type this post I am nearly falling off my chair, due to the zopiclone I took a while ago. Now to get on topic, I simply want to state that Opeth is a terrible, terrible band; if one wants to listen to some truly mesmerising metal they ought to pick up a copy of Gorgut's Obscura (they are not some silly, generic death metal band -- of this I can assure you). Their jazzy, dissonant churnings of drum and guitar has had me hooked since the first time I listened to "Faceless Ones."
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 19 Jun 2008, 19:46
It's not a metal music blog, dude.  It's a music blog, period.  Jeph's the only person on the blog that I'm aware enjoys metal enough to consider some of it in his top 10 for the year.  Do not expect any of the writers to go listen to Gorguts just because you say they're better, and especially do not expect them to enjoy Gorguts.  (I've heard it before; it's alright music, but definitely will not appeal to any of you, from what I know of your listening habits)

This is a thread for discussing what's been written, not a request thread.  If you want your opinion validated, try to post in the most recent metal thread instead of starting a new one, because that happens too often.

Also, even though this is a music forum and we talk about a lot of less-than-well-known bands, we do not like snobbery very much.  If you want to get along with people, try to respect their opinions.  I'm not trying to come down on you or anything, but your first post is a rather harsh one.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: RedLion on 19 Jun 2008, 22:36
As I type this post I am nearly falling off my chair, due to the zopiclone I took a while ago. Now to get on topic, I simply want to state that Opeth is a terrible, terrible band;

To who. You? I love Opeth, and I generally hate anything resembling death metal in any form.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 27 Jun 2008, 17:12
Melt Banana is the punk that I've been wanting to hear my whole life and just didn't know it yet.
On Parallel Play, my favorite song is "Cheap Champaign." The chorus hooked me in and hasn't let go.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Jun 2008, 23:54
I think that one is Jay's best entry on this record for sure, but Andrew's songs are the clear winners.

I DON'T WANT NO PO-LICE
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 03 Jul 2008, 06:26
I just put up a few thoughts on the new album by Robert Forster.

And if you don't know who Robert Forster is, shame on you!
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jimbunny on 09 Jul 2008, 01:39
Shame is on me!

But not for long, I guess...
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 09 Jul 2008, 22:46
I've posted a review (http://www.questionablecontent.net/rlblog/2008/07/women-st.html) of the self-titled record by WOMEN. Not sure if they actually prefer it as "Women" or "WOMEN," but I prefer the latter. I apologize if you find this annoying.

This record will probably be at or near the top of a number of critics' lists at the end of this year. You will only do yourself a favour in checking them out.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 10 Jul 2008, 00:41
Not sure if they actually prefer it as "Women" or "WOMEN," but I prefer the latter.

Except in the review's heading, I note! I guess the "C" in "Johnny C" doesn't stand for "consistency", then?

The public demands answers for this scandalous lapse in concentration!
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 14 Jul 2008, 21:07
The "C" is for "SHUT UP HARRY"
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 14 Jul 2008, 21:47
Five days and that's the best you could come up with?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 15 Jul 2008, 23:19
I was on vacation, outside, listening to music at a folk festival. You could say I was doing research, or possibly havin' a life.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 16 Jul 2008, 00:31
You got stoned and it took you five days to find your way back home, if it's anything like the folk festivals I've attended.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 16 Jul 2008, 14:32
No, we were in the family campground.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 20 Jul 2008, 04:27
Never stopped anyone at the National Folk Festival in Canberra.

Mind you, it is in Canberra (http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=6469).
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 21 Jul 2008, 00:09
See, at the Winnipeg Folk Fest, there is a party campground and a family campground.

ANYWAYS HAS ANYONE LISTENED TO THAT WOMEN RECORD IT'S REALLY GOOD
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 21 Jul 2008, 09:31
YES, YES IT WAS.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 27 Jul 2008, 03:57
Yes, listening to WOMEN right now. "Black Rice" is great, but "Shaking Hands" is personally my favorite track on the album. This is not to say only certain songs are worth a listen--the entirety of the album is full of the win. I'm going to be listening to this one for a while. So thanks for the blog entry JC  :-)
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 11 Aug 2008, 20:11
Oh shit new post! This is one I said I was planning on doing many months ago. Isn't it nice to know I sometimes follow through on my promises?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: tuna ketchup x on 21 Aug 2008, 06:16
I can't seem to find the WOMEN album anywhere, not even the indie store. Maybe I will have to order it, or download.

Right on about John Darnielle. One of the few vocalists out there that uses his voice as an instrument, and uses it well. Maybe I'm being a bit forward, but I think he just might turn out to be the Bob Dylan of our generation.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 21 Aug 2008, 08:47
It might be in the Mediafire thread, I saw it one or two pages back.  If you insist on buying it, you're probably going to have to look at the band website.  Assuming they have one.


Anyways, it is an excellent album.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 21 Aug 2008, 18:20
WOMEN have recently signed to Jagjaguwar and their record will drop in the United States on October 7th. At the moment it's not available outside of Canada. Sorry about that.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: michaelicious on 21 Aug 2008, 18:22
Good snag, jagjag.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 22 Aug 2008, 06:20
Well that explains why you can't find them on iTunes anymore  :|

Anyways I have to agree about John Darnielle, his singing is really incredible. Also, "This Year" has become my anthem song.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: GMM on 24 Aug 2008, 13:05
Well that explains why you can't find them on iTunes anymore  :|

Anyways I have to agree about Josh Darnielle, his singing is really incredible. Also, "This Year" has become my anthem song.

John, surely?

This Year is amazing. I am very much looking forward to seeing the Mountain Goats at End of the Road Festival.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 25 Aug 2008, 06:05
John, surely?

This Year is amazing. I am very much looking forward to seeing the Mountain Goats at End of the Road Festival.

Well crap, leave it to me to misspell the name of a great singer. And I envy you immensely.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 25 Sep 2008, 20:18
Our columnists seem to have gotten carried away with their siesta.  HOW LONG DOES AN AFTERNOON SNACK TAKE?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Sep 2008, 20:32
YOU KNOW NOTHING OF MY POWER
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Dimmukane on 25 Sep 2008, 20:41
That must've been a damn big sandwich, then.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 26 Sep 2008, 01:11
a sandwich so big i myself could not lift it

Also I've been busy with getting back to classes. I may just put up my Nickelback essay depending on the mark I receive.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 26 Sep 2008, 01:24
Johnny, tommy, your excuses are so weak.

I have not been able to write anything for the music blog because I've been hiking in the Arctic.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Johnny C on 26 Sep 2008, 20:25
i live in canada, walking to my car is a hike in the arctic
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 26 Sep 2008, 23:09
Yeah exactly, you live there. I had to sit on an aeroplane for 20 hours, then get on another aeroplane for a further one-and-a-half hours, then sit in a bus for about five hours.

Basically I had to go to all that effort just to find one tiny corner of the world where there weren't any other Australians.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 02 Oct 2008, 07:57
LISTEN TO THE WATERBOYS, YOU BASTARDS.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 06 Oct 2008, 14:31
I like A Pagan Place (this is an understatement), giving This Is the Sea a listen.

The "Church Not Made With Hands" opening surprised me. I was going into listening to The Waterboys with no clue of what I would hear, and was at first turned off. But damn if it didn't grow on me.

I was going to say "The Big Music" was epic, but where would that place "Red Army Blues"?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 06 Oct 2008, 18:31
Actually I'm just listening to This is the Sea now for the first time in ages. Somehow I'd completely forgotten that it had "Old England" on it, which is just a superb song by any measure - though a better version of it appears on the recording of the Glastonbury set released on the Live Adventures of the Waterboys compilation referred to in the blog post. Which incidentally is really, really worth getting if you find that you're liking the Waterboys.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Hljómalind on 12 Oct 2008, 08:41
The Waterboys played a wonderful set at Glasto on the Sunday afternoon last year, 21 years after their 1986 performance. It was raining like piss but no one cared, and they got the whole crowd to do a twirly dance.

It was good to see them get a mention in the QC blog, then - I was quite surprised, really - and I agree with most of the reviewer's comments. "Love Will Shoot You Down" is a standout track off their latest album (which, at Glastonbury, they dedicated to Tony Blair).
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Trynant on 20 Nov 2008, 17:01
I'd just like to bring mention back to an old article from the blog on Some Loud Thunder by Clap Your Hands Say Yeah. I wasn't around QC at the time. Strangely enough it's the only album I've bought mentioned in the blog that I didn't get because of the blog. And it was my entry point into listening to the band. I've started listening to it again and realized only recently that "Satan Said Dance" has to be my favorite song on that entire album (which replaces "Five Easy Pieces" by the way). And this is not because of some movie based on a Palahniuk novel using the song in their trailer. For that matter, it's almost every other song in Some Loud Thunder is a brilliant piece of work, followed by track that clashes entirely with the one before it. That's the only thing I could critique the album for--it's more of a compilation of songs rather than one focused work. But damn if those aren't some wonderful, wonderful songs.

I have to disagree about their self-titled debut being the better album. Well, maybe as a whole Clap You Hands Say Yeah was more cohesive and maintained experience, but Some Loud Thunder brings a handful of diamonds in the rough that outshine its predecessor.

Maybe it's because I've listened to Some Loud Thunder first that I like it more. Maybe I should listen to the s/t more.

Still have yet to get the Live Adventures of the Waterboys  :-(
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: thedudeoflife on 16 Jan 2009, 22:08
Hey i'm wondering if there are any other bands like   Orba Squara   and if so feel free to leave a long and drawn out list.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 31 Jan 2009, 04:53
I don't even know what the deal is with the music blog any more, but some things can't go unmarked.

http://www.questionablecontent.net/rlblog/2009/01/thanks-mr-berman_31.html (http://www.questionablecontent.net/rlblog/2009/01/thanks-mr-berman_31.html)
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 18 Feb 2009, 02:36
basically it was part of the "clutter" i am trying to clean up on my site.

that gives short shrift to the contributions of you guys though; it is some really good stuff.

there ought to be a way to make the blog a more communal QC Music Board thing and publicize that. I am open to suggestions.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 18 Feb 2009, 22:40
What? Why didn't anyone ever send me free records? Hmph!

(Also I am for serious putting my feet up this time and letting somebody else upload something to the blog next.)
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: jeph on 26 Feb 2009, 02:09
It would be cool to have a QC music board Wiki. Something anybody on the board could add to/edit. I feel like that would cover a much broader spectrum and encourage group participation.

However I have no time to set up/administrate such a thing, so it is up to you guys if you want to give it a try. If it turned out as good as the overall tenor of this board I would certainly link it. on the site.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Sox on 01 Apr 2009, 03:14
Phwodges, it's good to hear about you and the music blog! I look forward to seeing you contribute, the "Why Pitchfork Sucks" article you're working on is dead on the mark, I don't really think you need to edit it. When's Jeph adding you to the contributor list?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: PHeller on 08 Apr 2009, 17:32
Jeph,

Nice call on Royksopp. I don't normally dig electronica, but that stuff has a good mix elements I like.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Avec on 12 Apr 2009, 14:00
Is this the right place to do this? Yeah, I think it is. So I'll just come out and say it, why is Arcade Fire praised?
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Joseph on 12 Apr 2009, 17:00
Plus someone will mention how they are really great live.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Inlander on 13 Apr 2009, 01:22
Yeah, if you want to discuss this you ought to start a new thread for it. No-one will jump down your throat for it. Well, they might, but some people always do so just ignore them. As far as I'm aware the Arcade Fire have never been discussed in the music blog (although I mentioned them once in passing in an article about British Sea Power), so this really isn't the right thread for a discussion about them.
Title: Re: QC Music Blog discussion thread
Post by: Spluff on 15 Apr 2009, 05:19
I saw Dirty Three on rage the other week. It turns out you were right, they are very good! The song was 'hope'.