THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started 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
-
Ricardo Villalobos - Fizheuer Zieheuer (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=802)
-
man I do not miss techno
-
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.
-
Nah man, folk music is alive and kicking (up here in Scotland anyway).
-
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.
-
Ricardo Villalobos - Fizheuer Zieheuer (http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=802)
Thats the one, thanks a ton, it was driving me crazy
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Nah man, folk music is alive and kicking (up here in Scotland anyway).
Oh yeah?
Where's Devendra Banhart
-
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.
-
Mumford is really boring.
-
Mumford is ridiculously popular around northern Virginia.
What the fuck. YOU'RE IN ACTUAL APPALACHIA WHY ARE YOU LISTENING TO MUMFORD AND SUNS
-
@KVP Natalie Portman denatured his creative acids.
-
wait, so what are Fleet Foxes if not folk?
-
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'.
-
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.
-
No it couldn't.
-
Definitions of genres change. It's just something that happens.
-
Do what I do and memorize the ever-useful mnemonic AUAWPPPP - "Always Use "Americana" When in the Presence of Pissy Pants Pedants".
-
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.
-
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.
-
AUAWPPPP!
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.