Jeph Jacques's comics discussion forums

Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Nurjan on 20 Apr 2011, 20:31

Title: QC techno reference
Post by: Nurjan on 20 Apr 2011, 20:31
Hey, I've been trying to recall a reference Jeph made to an artist ages ago, I haven't been able to find the comic again, but it referenced a 30 minute ping-pong percussion and trumpet electronica bit.  Anyone know/remember what I'm talking about?

Thx
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: pwhodges on 20 Apr 2011, 22:48
Ricardo Villalobos - Fizheuer Zieheuer (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=802)
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: tommydski on 20 Apr 2011, 23:47
It was 'No Limit' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFd5Cci_pE4) by 2 Unlimited.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: scarred on 21 Apr 2011, 00:02
man I do not miss techno
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KvP on 21 Apr 2011, 00:08
man I do not miss techno
Never went away

I mean we all know that music can't sustain itself sans the attention of Portland / Brooklyn people (RIP folk music), but still.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: StaedlerMars on 21 Apr 2011, 02:19
Nah man, folk music is alive and kicking (up here in Scotland anyway).
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: Ctharlhie94 on 21 Apr 2011, 04:16
In the UK there's been a folk revival movement, medieval folk but with modern pop sensibilities, Mumford and Sons and Laura Marling have achieved some commercial success and that's just the tip of the iceberg really.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: tommydski on 21 Apr 2011, 05:14
Mumford and Sons

I have never heard this band but I already have the most intensely focused hatred of them based on their name and respective billing on festival posters.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: Nurjan on 21 Apr 2011, 05:28
Ricardo Villalobos - Fizheuer Zieheuer (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=802)

Thats the one, thanks a ton, it was driving me crazy
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KharBevNor on 21 Apr 2011, 05:39
I have never heard this band but I already have the most intensely focused hatred of them based on their name and respective billing on festival posters.

I've had the misfortune of hearing them two, perhaps three times. They had adverts for their latest album on TV. I think it's generally a good rule that if a band has TV spots they aren't worth the effort of even putting yourself knowingly in situations where you might hear them.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: StaedlerMars on 21 Apr 2011, 05:53
Mumford and Sons

I have never heard this band but I already have the most intensely focused hatred of them based on their name and respective billing on festival posters.

These guys are not what you should be listening to - they are pretty mediocre, but are headlining festivals because of a couple of Radio 1 plays. The fact that they attracted a larger crowd than The National when I saw them was absolutely shocking to me.

I'm talking more along the lines of Meursault (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paoe64qnj5c), Withered Hand (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G-bJSOrFFY4), Yusuf Azak (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGRQyynvS70), and basically most things on Song, by Toad. I may be a bit biased on their popularity cause they're all pretty much from Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: nufan on 21 Apr 2011, 08:08
Mumford and Sons

I have never heard this band but I already have the most intensely focused hatred of them based on their name and respective billing on festival posters.

I saw them with Ray Davies on Jools Holland and my hatred for them went from like 40% (mostly ambivalent, mild tutting) to 90% (foaming at the mouth, speaking in capitalized consonants). Fuck 'em.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: BlahBlah on 21 Apr 2011, 08:21
Mumford and Sons

I have never heard this band but I already have the most intensely focused hatred of them based on their name and respective billing on festival posters.

I you have been in exodus at all recently you will definitely have heard them.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KvP on 21 Apr 2011, 09:53
Nah man, folk music is alive and kicking (up here in Scotland anyway).
Oh yeah?

Where's Devendra Banhart
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: ThePianoMan on 21 Apr 2011, 12:49
Mumford is ridiculously popular around northern Virginia. Seems like everyone around me listens to them. I find them spectacularly inoffensive, like Sufjan Stevens minus all the bizarre quirks that made him fun occasionally. Don't think I've heard more than one of their songs.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: Tom on 21 Apr 2011, 13:16
Mumford is really boring.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: David_Dovey on 21 Apr 2011, 14:01
Mumford is ridiculously popular around northern Virginia.

What the fuck. YOU'RE IN ACTUAL APPALACHIA WHY ARE YOU LISTENING TO MUMFORD AND SUNS
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: De_El on 21 Apr 2011, 16:43
@KVP Natalie Portman denatured his creative acids.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: scarred on 21 Apr 2011, 16:54
wait, so what are Fleet Foxes if not folk?
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KharBevNor on 21 Apr 2011, 18:33
I dunno anything about fleet foxes, but the acid test of whether a particular artist is a folk artist is generally whether they have played traditional songs, or variations on traditional songs, at any point in their career. The 'folk' tag after all refers to a specific sort of cultural production, transmission and consumption, a folk tradition that extends back before recorded music, and if you are not engaging in any way with this tradition it is fairly difficult to see why you should be called a folk artist. There are marginal cases where a bands instrumentation and style of song-writing is highly constrained by traditional forms, especially if the band is actively engaged in the folk music scene (although in such cases there is often a more specific genre not tied exactly to the folk mode, like 'celtic' or 'bluegrass'). A hell of a lot of people just seem to use 'folk' as a synonym for 'acoustic'.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: StaedlerMars on 22 Apr 2011, 00:17
Fine, anti-folk then. Although, personally I think it can be argued that since the 60s folk music hasn't been as much about singing traditional songs as about singing stories.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KharBevNor on 22 Apr 2011, 09:05
No it couldn't.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: StaedlerMars on 22 Apr 2011, 10:46
Definitions of genres change. It's just something that happens.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KvP on 22 Apr 2011, 12:27
Do what I do and memorize the ever-useful mnemonic AUAWPPPP - "Always Use "Americana" When in the Presence of Pissy Pants Pedants".
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: Akima on 23 Apr 2011, 15:35
man I do not miss techno
Are we using "Techno" as a generic term for all electronic music here, or the specific Detroit-y sound? Either way it's never really gone away.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KharBevNor on 23 Apr 2011, 23:30
If I wanted to be really pedantic I could make a case that recorded music can't be folk music. Folk music implies that, to some degree, the artist draws on a greater storehouse of tunes, lyrics, subjects, chord progressions etc. that have been developed sometimes for centuries before being written down, and passed from performer to performer via the act of performance, and which, ideally, the artist should treat with the curious mixture of irreverence and respect such a weight of human achievment deserves. Note that this definition of folk music extends across all cultures. If someone picks up an acoustic guitar or an accordion or a fiddle or whatever and writes a song from scratch that song really doesn't strictly have anything to do with folk music, no matter if it sounds a bit like folk music or the singer has a folksy twang or whatever.

Saying "definiions of genre change", as if that somehow dismisses the need for discussion and negates any possibility of the original and useful definition of the word in question being argued for and maintained is a classic thought-terminating cliché. You must at least provide a new definition of the word 'folk' that isn't a meaningless, thoughtless marketing term. 
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KvP on 23 Apr 2011, 23:35
AUAWPPPP!
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KharBevNor on 23 Apr 2011, 23:37
If we're playing it like that, Industrial now means Powerman 5000, house is Daft Punk and dubstep is Skrillex.

If you dissemble you're a pissy pants pedant.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: KvP on 23 Apr 2011, 23:59
No I'm agreeing with you, people shouldn't use "folk" to describe Akron/Family. And yeah, sign me up for the pedant club. I'm nothing if not a genre-jockey.
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: tommydski on 24 Apr 2011, 10:48
I don't think anyone wants to be reminded of my crusade to defend the word "Emo".
Title: Re: QC techno reference
Post by: TheFuriousWombat on 24 Apr 2011, 13:06
If I wanted to be really pedantic I could make a case that recorded music can't be folk music. Folk music implies that, to some degree, the artist draws on a greater storehouse of tunes, lyrics, subjects, chord progressions etc. that have been developed sometimes for centuries before being written down, and passed from performer to performer via the act of performance, and which, ideally, the artist should treat with the curious mixture of irreverence and respect such a weight of human achievment deserves. Note that this definition of folk music extends across all cultures. If someone picks up an acoustic guitar or an accordion or a fiddle or whatever and writes a song from scratch that song really doesn't strictly have anything to do with folk music, no matter if it sounds a bit like folk music or the singer has a folksy twang or whatever.

Saying "definiions of genre change", as if that somehow dismisses the need for discussion and negates any possibility of the original and useful definition of the word in question being argued for and maintained is a classic thought-terminating cliché. You must at least provide a new definition of the word 'folk' that isn't a meaningless, thoughtless marketing term.  

ok so where do you draw the line then? What you're saying is that there's a fixed, finite pool of folk songs and templates and everything that came later, even if it adheres exactly to the sound or style of songs in that pool, are actually imposters or not genuine or something like that. My question is, who defines that finite pool of "traditional" songs that supposedly are the only real folk songs in your (in my opinion) misguided or overly holistic definition? When did songs stop becoming folk and start becoming the shallow impersonations you seem to view them as? Is "real" folk music even possible today, as a consumable entity, or do you think folk cannot possibly be commodified lest it lose something essential? Could you give some concrete examples of who you would privilege with making "real" folk music and then an aesthetically similar counter example that doesn't count and explain why the former is the only one deserving of the title? That isn't rhetorical, I'm genuinely curious because it's my impression that you're wrong and I'd like to hear a more concrete argument.