Post by: Willis on 16 Apr 2005, 18:09
My vote goes to the Mars Volta. What's with the neo-prog? Do you think people will actually like this crap? And what's with the song names? Can you actually come up with titles with words that 1) people know, and 2) make sense. Just because you have afros does not give you entitlement to make this crappy music and think so highly of yourselves.
And my 2nd vote (its my thread, I can do that) is Sigur Ros. Inventing your own language, having nameless songs, and naming an album "( )" however cool and original combine to be a way lot more sucky then you think you are.
~~Willis
Post by: Inlander on 16 Apr 2005, 18:13
Post by: 24_hour_revenge_therapy on 16 Apr 2005, 18:16
hoods. mikey hoods is the most arrogant dick on the face of the planet. no, mikey, you didn't invent hardcore. get off your pedestal.
Post by: Trollstormur on 16 Apr 2005, 18:23
Post by: KharBevNor on 16 Apr 2005, 18:48
Dillinger Escape Plan, Blood Brothers, The Bled, The Number 12 Looks Like You etc. : Silly song titles, often crappy overly-busy music (I like BB and the Bled though).
Pretentiousness I like (Be warned, extreme metal is FULL of pretension):
Therion: To actually fully understand Therion's lyrics you have to be a member of the Dragon Rouge, a mysterious and cryptic German magic cult to which the members belong. Plus, their liner notes are gold.
Arcturus: Dedicated an album to 'the perilous quest of the faustian spirit'. 'nuff said.
Ulver: Change their sound dramatically every album. Did concept albums about Werewolves and William Blake. Possible crypto-communists. What more do you want?
Bal-Sagoth: One song (On the album 'Starfire Burning Upon the Ice Veiled Throne of Ultima Thule') is called 'And Lo, When The Imperium Marches Against Gul-Kothoth, Then Dark Sorceries Shall Enshroud The Citadel Of The Obsidian Crown'. The case rests m'lud.
Nile: One paragraph of lyrics. 3 pages of liner notes. They also write songs in ancient Egyptian.
Behemoth: Endless liner notes. Dense technical music. Incessant references to obscure Thelemic principles. Set an Alastair Crowley poem to music. spell of with a v all the time.
Man, I'm getting tired, but I could go on for quite a bit.
Post by: 24_hour_revenge_therapy on 16 Apr 2005, 18:51
but, i should point out, i love DEP. love them soooooo much.
ah well. nobody is perfect.
Post by: Inlander on 16 Apr 2005, 18:58
(Don't ask me which one goes where, though: I think I've bamboozled myself with my own subtle reasoning.)
Post by: 24_hour_revenge_therapy on 16 Apr 2005, 19:00
Post by: ForteBass on 16 Apr 2005, 19:03
Quote from: Inlander
Any band that's ever referenced Tolkien - anyhow, anywhere.
So you dislike Blind Guardian too?
Post by: Inlander on 16 Apr 2005, 19:09
But if they in any way make reference to Tolkien, then I'd say there's an extremely good chance the answer will be a resounding "Yes".
Post by: ForteBass on 16 Apr 2005, 19:11
Post by: KharBevNor on 16 Apr 2005, 19:14
MY MIND CAN'T TAKE IT.
Post by: Inlander on 16 Apr 2005, 19:17
Quote from: KharBevNor
Wuthering Heights
I so hope you're referring to the Kate Bush song there - and yet, in my heart of hearts, I know you're not.
Ah, sweet Ms. Bush, where have you and your slightly odd dancing gone?
Post by: ForteBass on 16 Apr 2005, 19:17
Post by: Mnementh on 16 Apr 2005, 19:20
Quote from: Inlander
Ah, sweet Ms. Bush, where have you and your slightly odd dancing gone?
I must admit, I like Hayley Westenra's version better. But then, I like Hayley Westenra, in a naughty way.
The Moody Blues get my vote for prentious band ever for how serious they took themselves when singing "Nights In White Satin"
LARP LARP LARP
KharBevNor: I've liked Nightwish for years, but every album before Once is pretty fucking cheesy. The same goes for most metal bands, especially the Scandanavian ones (that they are cheesy as all hell, not that I like them.).
Post by: Inlander on 16 Apr 2005, 19:24
Quote from: Mnementh
The Moody Blues get my vote for prentious band ever
Don't let Smiley catch you saying that!
Post by: KharBevNor on 16 Apr 2005, 19:31
Quote from: Mnementh
KharBevNor: I've liked Nightwish for years, but every album before Once is pretty fucking cheesy. The same goes for most metal bands, especially the Scandanavian ones (that they are cheesy as all hell, not that I like them.).
Cheesey metal is awesome! I often forget how cheesey/folksy most of my musical taste is. It's one of the reasons why 'Elvenpath' is one of my favourite Nightwish songs...I can't even bear to quote the lyrics actually. Go look it up. It's carried off though by the samples of Tolkien reading passages of LotR and Tarja's impossibly thick Finnish accent on the first album. (she pronounces Swords 'Swades' with a vocalised w, and hearing her say 'Goblins and Pixies' is an audial treat and a half).
By Wuthering Heights I meant the Danish Speed-Folk Metal band. They are awesome and they sing about Elves and Hobbits and the mysteries of Nature.
I won't see a word said against Geek Metal. Or LARP. Anyone found disparaging either will be sodomised with a foam sword.
Post by: Mnementh on 16 Apr 2005, 19:34
That last one is a Myth II reference. Yeah, it's a wicked cheesy song, but the first I ever heard by them and I wound up getting all their albums.
Post by: KharBevNor on 16 Apr 2005, 19:38
Post by: Skibas_clavicle on 16 Apr 2005, 20:41
Quote from: Willis
I got this idea from the Sparta thread below, and because I love the word.
My vote goes to the Mars Volta. What's with the neo-prog? Do you think people will actually like this crap? And what's with the song names? Can you actually come up with titles with words that 1) people know, and 2) make sense. Just because you have afros does not give you entitlement to make this crappy music and think so highly of yourselves.
And my 2nd vote (its my thread, I can do that) is Sigur Ros. Inventing your own language, having nameless songs, and naming an album "( )" however cool and original combine to be a way lot more sucky then you think you are.
~~Willis
Ouch. I really like both of those bands. There are a lot. I personally think The Strokes were one of those bands. They're not hot shit! I think the people are more pretentious that listen to "pretentious bands" than anything else.
Post by: Johnny C on 17 Apr 2005, 00:31
"I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S NOT GY!BE"
award.
Post by: jeph on 17 Apr 2005, 00:45
DEAR EFRIM: LIGHTEN THE FUCK UP AND WRITE SOME GOOD MUSIC PLZ
(pff, like efrim uses the internet. it's a tool of multinational corporations!)
Post by: kikanjuuneko on 17 Apr 2005, 01:07
PS. At least the Blood Brothers' song titles are usually related to the music, though. That prevents them from being silly in a way, at least if you ask me.
Post by: normz on 17 Apr 2005, 01:46
Post by: emor on 17 Apr 2005, 01:55
franz ferdinand.
interpol.
any band other band with obnoxious "we're cool and serious and hip" photography. lordy I hate that.
also:
almost every new-wave metal band I have ever seen pictures of or have heard.
any band or individual that calls itself "IDM."
any band that is even described by a third party as a "thinking man's [etc.]" or "intelligent [etc.]."
definately post-rock.
and the winner:
dear fucking god, william basinski.
Post by: MilkmanDan on 17 Apr 2005, 02:31
Just look at that name, and now gaze on their first album title: 'Hurrah, another year, surely this one will be better than the last; The inexorable march of progress will lead us all to happiness'
You can write that in size 8 font and you're still gonna fill the entire album cover. That's just silly.
Alot of people think Aphex Twin is pretentious, but I just think he's a bit insane.
Also, U2 are so pretentious it hurts. Seriously, what the fuck is with 'The Edge'?
Post by: Robbo on 17 Apr 2005, 03:46
And if Arcturus falls in here, so does Spiral Architect. Because they're they're another band of Black Metal guys all showing off how good they actually are.
And I'm shock they're the first true Prog mentioned. Though they're closer to Free Jazz Metal than anything else at times.
And Lovecratian bands like Ungl'Unl'Rrlh'Chchch should rank up there as well.
Post by: Cpt.Fantastic on 17 Apr 2005, 04:21
Post by: Praeserpium Machinarum on 17 Apr 2005, 04:56
I like them and all but they are pretentious, and I don't think Tool is pretentious, a pretentious band couldn't have made ein Eiche fur Satan(or what it's called), but yay...and I agree with Mars Volta, I love them, but heck they are about as pretentious as you can get..
Post by: yipjumpmusic on 17 Apr 2005, 05:07
Post by: Inlander on 17 Apr 2005, 05:18
Post by: KharBevNor on 17 Apr 2005, 07:18
Quote from: kikanjuuneko
Khar: OH, THE IRONY.
\o/ noo, the irony of an open mind that reviews each band it hears on a case by case basis!
some more:
Ephel Duath: Did a concept album on 'The Painters Palette' Chose silly artsy colours like Pearl Grey and Amaranth.
Every Symphonic/Gothic Black Metal band ever: Dimmu Borgir, Illnath, Hecate Enthroned, Satyricon, Cradle of Filth, Theatres Des Vampires, Emperor, Limbonic Art...ESPECIALLY Gloomy Grim...I love you all. But you are very pretentious. (This may be one of the things I love)
Speaking of which, every Post-Black Metal and ever: ...And Oceans, Blut Aus Nord, Anaal Nathrakh, Arcturus, Borknagar...yeah, well. The less said about you guys the better :p
Post by: Schmung on 17 Apr 2005, 07:26
Quote from: yipjumpmusic
No mention of oasis?
Oasis aren't pretentious, they're just arrogant cunts, there's a difference.
Post by: ASturge on 17 Apr 2005, 07:33
Pretencious fucks
Post by: Inlander on 17 Apr 2005, 07:41
Quote from: Schmung
Quote from: yipjumpmusicNo mention of oasis?
Oasis aren't pretentious, they're just arrogant cunts, there's a difference.
Sure, but they do have pretensions towards being the best rock 'n' roll band the world has ever seen. And apparently to being the biggest bunch of fuckwits the world has ever seen. Just because their pretensions aren't very lofty, doesn't mean they don't exist!
Post by: Sturge on 17 Apr 2005, 09:00
Post by: KharBevNor on 17 Apr 2005, 09:20
1) He writes stupiferously artsy and philosophical lyrics.
2) He LOVES conceptual storylines.
3) Pan.Thy.Monium
As a saving grace, he's amazingly self-effacing. When asked in interviews about his greatest works, such as Crimson (A widely acknowledged classic of the genre) he will brush it off by saying that the band could have done better, or the snare production makes that album unlistenable for him or something.
Post by: Jude on 17 Apr 2005, 09:53
Quote from: Inlander
Any band that's ever referenced Tolkien - anyhow, anywhere.
Aw come on, what about Spunge? 'We may not be up there with J.R.R. Tolkien, but at least you don't need a PHD to understand what I mean'. Surely that doesn't count?
Post by: Mnementh on 17 Apr 2005, 09:58
Quote from: Robbo
Though they're closer to Free Jazz Metal than anything else at times.
Any band that makes up nonsense genres to describe itself.
Post by: Robbo on 17 Apr 2005, 10:01
Post by: Kai on 17 Apr 2005, 10:16
Post by: Robbo on 17 Apr 2005, 11:35
Post by: Tinjessla on 17 Apr 2005, 11:51
They take themselves far too seriously, considering they have (albeit sexy) giant hair and dance manically on stage. I tried to read that book they wrote when someone posted a link to it and...gaa!
Post by: Trollstormur on 17 Apr 2005, 12:57
Quote from: ForteBass
Well, Skippy, the fact is Blind Guardian is the most god awful, over rated pile of tripe to ever grace the planet. It's essentially music for kids who go larping, and I will not abide by such horrid taste.
Battlelore is much worse. They have motherfucking character sheets instead of bios in their album liner notes!
Post by: Robbo on 17 Apr 2005, 12:58
Post by: KharBevNor on 17 Apr 2005, 12:59
That is so COOL!
*buys Battlelore albums*
Post by: mechorg on 17 Apr 2005, 17:02
Not the duo itself, just Jack. I saw an interview with him once a couple years ago and if i was in the audience I would have thrown a pancake at him.
And a 3rd (or 5th or umpteenth) on Mars Volta.
I like the whole Sigur Ros "create-a-language" comment.
Post by: Kai on 17 Apr 2005, 17:19
Post by: Psiogen on 17 Apr 2005, 17:36
Is it really fair to blame Radiohead for other people calling their albums "concept albums"? (Or "the best album ever" for that matter.) It's not like they say "concept album" in huge letters on the sleeve. Though I suppose doing that would make you less pretentious.
Post by: Hoborg on 17 Apr 2005, 18:51
Post by: Johnny C on 17 Apr 2005, 21:00
Quote from: ASturge
The Killers
Explanation pleez.
Post by: BehringerBoy on 18 Apr 2005, 06:03
Post by: Spike on 18 Apr 2005, 06:09
Oh and yes, I too hate Rush with a burning passion. I don't know why. I heard them, and I just knew.
Post by: Spencer on 18 Apr 2005, 08:22
Most art-rock/art-core will be pretentious as hell, but often times it ends up being really good, in that aquired taste kinda way (Blood Brothers being my own, personal example).
Jam Bands like phish and the dead are the type of pretentious I just cant get into.
Prog-Rock has to be pretentious. I think thats one of the rules. But boy, I love me some Genesis, Mars Volta, and Sunny Day Real Estate/Fire Theft
Just about all "emo" is pretentious. I mean really, who gives a fuck about your feelings? (Millions of teenagers (and me) all across america!)
Costumes - Wearing costumes makes you both pretentious and ridiculous. I'M LOOKING RIGHT AT YOU, THE LOCUST/AQUABATS!
Oh, my
I would say The Mars Volta is my favorite pretentious band.
Post by: Kai on 18 Apr 2005, 15:00
Quote from: Spencer
Costumes - Wearing costumes makes you both pretentious and ridiculous.
Yay! The Residents are the most Pretentious and Ridiculous band on Earth by this logic!
Post by: Robbo on 18 Apr 2005, 15:11
Post by: Signum_Tenebrae on 18 Apr 2005, 15:35
Quote from: Trollstormur
Quote from: ForteBassWell, Skippy, the fact is Blind Guardian is the most god awful, over rated pile of tripe to ever grace the planet. It's essentially music for kids who go larping, and I will not abide by such horrid taste.
Battlelore is much worse. They have motherfucking character sheets instead of bios in their album liner notes!
HAHAHA, that's hilarious!!
Pretentious shit:
- Most prog/math stuff. . Doesn't mean I don't like all of it, though.
- Any grindcore that tries to be anything other than offensive, stupid, or nasty.
- Guitar god wankery bullshit. I hate you Yngwie malmsteen and I hope you die.
Post by: Robbo on 18 Apr 2005, 15:38
Like on the G3 Rocking In The Free World DVD....guess who has to solo first, all the sodding time.
Post by: KharBevNor on 18 Apr 2005, 15:39
Quote from: Robbo
What about GWAR then?
What about fucking Lordi?
Both GWAR and Lordi escape this thpough by being essentially party music, which just really can't be taken pretentiously.
Post by: Me And The Moon Car on 18 Apr 2005, 15:59
Post by: jus on 18 Apr 2005, 16:25
Quote from: Kai
As I said in the "What are you listening to" thread, Radiohead are a bunch of pretentious fucks. "Look at us, we can make a concept album with no concept! Praise us as the best band of all time!"
I disagree, it seems like most succesful experimental bands get crucified on the internet for being pretentious. Certainly, their music seems tailor made for popular critical acclaim, but I find a lot of it to be quite sincere as well as ambitious (although I don't have all their CDs).
As far as the way they actually conduct themselves in public, all I've heard them do is scoff at the notion that they are amongst some elite pantheon of rock stars. So while they might feel they are the shit in private, I doubt there are very many that wouldn't share that sentiment... and little else can expected of them in the public eye.
Post by: Hoborg on 18 Apr 2005, 17:04
Post by: Johnny C on 18 Apr 2005, 17:39
Post by: mechorg on 18 Apr 2005, 17:58
I saw them at a festival last year where they were slated to play after The Pixies. Thom complained to the organizer about headlining over probably their most influencial band and asked it to be switched.
It was not changed, but during the show he still brought mention and another round of applause for The Pixies just for rocking.
I think Radiohead fans create the bands own pretentiousness.
Post by: static_cult on 18 Apr 2005, 18:00
i dunno, i think big, long solos and proggy noodling are better described as 'self-indulgent'.
the most pretentious band ever probably wouldn't even make music, they'd just go to the club, show up on stage, and smoke cigarettes for a half hour and then leave. and everybody would call it art.
Post by: mechorg on 18 Apr 2005, 18:04
Quote from: static_cult
the most pretentious band ever probably wouldn't even make music, they'd just go to the club, show up on stage, and smoke cigarettes for a half hour and then leave. and everybody would call it art.
haha! that reminds me of the best band that ever existed. :)
Post by: Inlander on 18 Apr 2005, 18:20
By refusin' to play and refusin' to go . . .
(For pity's sake, don't jump down my throat if I've got a word wrong - it's been years since I last heard that song.)
Post by: Mnementh on 18 Apr 2005, 18:56
Quote from: BehringerBoy
I just think its funny noone mentioned the band that gets screwed by every webcomic ever made, Good Charlotte.
Hey, Good Charlotte has one thing going for them. They aren't My Chemical Romance.
Post by: Kai on 18 Apr 2005, 19:01
Post by: Johnny C on 18 Apr 2005, 21:59
Quote from: Mnementh
Hey, Good Charlotte has one thing going for them. They aren't My Chemical Romance.
![]("http://owmybrain.50g.com/art/jerko.gif")
Seriously, I like MCR. Why the hate?
Post by: muffy on 19 Apr 2005, 03:31
Quote from: static_cult
the most pretentious band ever probably wouldn't even make music, they'd just go to the club, show up on stage, and smoke cigarettes for a half hour and then leave. and everybody would call it art.
So you've seen Meanwhile Back In Communist Russia too, then?
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 06:09
Quote from: static_cult
tool has the most pretentious fans...
Yes that sounds like most of my mates ........ 'like lets discuss the true inner meaning of the words spiral out because nothing can be taken on face value and everything has to have some weird freaky occult meaning behind it' Me: uhhh yeah fucking i'm going to get another corona and you guys better not be talking about porn again when i get back
Post by: Spencer on 19 Apr 2005, 07:48
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Apr 2005, 07:55
Quote from: Johnny C
Seriously, I like MCR. Why the hate?
Boring, vapid pop-rock bands tend to get a lot of that.
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 08:43
Post by: static_cult on 19 Apr 2005, 08:49
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 08:49
Oh, and from that notion, Injected Blech have to go as well. For doing things like recording their albums backwards.
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 08:54
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 08:58
Eg YYZ in morse code in the opening drum beat to the Rush track of that name.
Or Dream Theater sicking in "Eat My Ass And Balls" in "In The Name of God" which is a nice little refernce to the fucked up live version of Fatal Tragedy. Almost as much of a self piss-take as Canadian Rap.
Ok, so both of those are fairly bad but anyway.
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 09:14
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 09:16
And as for why they did the "eat my ass and balls" bit at all live, I dont know. Thought if you want it, I'll stick it up for dl, just to laugh.
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 09:31
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 09:34
Only reason anyone found it is because Mike said there was something there and people went through the album with a fine comb. I think he dropped some comments about Rush that tipped people off.
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 09:41
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 09:46
Anyway, dirty lyrics version. Fatal Tragedy (it's 9.6 megs btw)
As for the breakdown:
This is the nugget.
EAT MY ASS AND BALLS EAT MY ASS AND BALLS
in Morse code from 5:51-6:07.
The pattern breaks down like this:
..-----.--.-.......--.-..-....-.-...-..... (from 5:51 - 5:59)
..-----.--.-.......--.-..-....-.-...-..... (from 5:59 - 6:07)
. = E
.- = A
- = T
-- = M
-.-- = Y
... = S
-. = N
-.. = D
-... = B
.-.. = L
EATMYASSANDBALLS written in Morse code [without] any spaces is:
..-----.--.-.......--.-..-....-.-...-.....
Taken from DTfaq.com. Full credit to the site and Nick Bogovich who they credit with finding it out.
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 09:50
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 09:56
There's always stuff in DT's songs one way or another. And in their rare/live stuff. Roll on the new album. Ahh, I own too much/not enough of their live and rare stuff. Like the live version of the second version of ACOS, rather than the final third version.
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 10:05
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 10:11
Post by: normz on 19 Apr 2005, 10:24
Post by: a pack of wolves on 19 Apr 2005, 12:31
Post by: coldcut on 19 Apr 2005, 14:25
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 14:29
Post by: muffy on 19 Apr 2005, 16:11
Quote from: coldcut
I am so surprised Ryan Adams hasn't come up yet.
SO TRUE!
So far, he's tried to ape pretty much every band/singer-songwriter etc in existence, and has done the Winona Ryder thing, an as soon as one band comes up with a gimmick, he tries to out-do them - (two albums on one day? I'll release THREE this year!)..he makes my blood boil, even more so when he writes a good song, as then I feel bad for liking it as it's a piece of piss to guess not only which band, but which exact song he was listening to just before he recorded it.
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 16:15
But anyway, damn he sucks hard.
Post by: muffy on 19 Apr 2005, 16:26
I sincerely hope it doesn't work.
Post by: Robbo on 19 Apr 2005, 16:31
And like I said, crappy cover, crappy song. That and the OC.
Post by: MrKneebone on 19 Apr 2005, 18:45
I love em, but they'd have to be up there with the most pretentious bands ever, wouldn't they?
As for Pretentious fans: I'd rank Radiohead fans around the top of the pile. Again I like the band, and there is a decent smattering of genuine fans, but so many people that I've met who claim to loooove Radiohead, often seemed like they're trying a little too hard.
Post by: jus on 19 Apr 2005, 18:55
Quote from: MrKneebone
Anyone for The Strokes?
I love em, but they'd have to be up there with the most pretentious bands ever, wouldn't they?
As for Pretentious fans: I'd rank Radiohead fans around the top of the pile. Again I like the band, and there is a decent smattering of genuine fans, but so many people that I've met who claim to loooove Radiohead, often seemed like they're trying a little too hard.
Well, I loooove Radiohead...
I can see why Radiohead could have spawned a following of wannabe intellectuals, I just haven't met them. People at my school just listen to bad music, period... I wish we had people who at least pretended to like good music :). Ah, you gotta love this town.
Post by: MrKneebone on 19 Apr 2005, 19:17
Quote from: jus
I wish we had people who at least pretended to like good music
You know what - You're totally right. I can relate. :)
Post by: besmircher on 19 Apr 2005, 21:37
This thread has made me realize that I like some pretentiousness in my music, as long as it's done by competent people. (What a pretentious thing to say, I know.)
Oh, and hi. I'm new-ish.
Post by: Robbo on 20 Apr 2005, 04:09
Post by: InterstateEight on 20 Apr 2005, 16:56
Post by: Johnny C on 20 Apr 2005, 20:01
Post by: loyalpeon on 20 Apr 2005, 20:59
Quote from: Robbo
Morrissey just made really boring singer/songwriter music and every takes like it's great. Lyrics =/= music is I club I hit Bob Dylan fans with a lot.
Sorry? ... i don't mean that in the sense that I'm outraged by what you said. Simply that I don't quite understand what you said...
Post by: besmircher on 20 Apr 2005, 22:54
Quote from: loyalpeon
Quote from: RobboMorrissey just made really boring singer/songwriter music and every takes like it's great. Lyrics =/= music is I club I hit Bob Dylan fans with a lot.
Sorry? ... i don't mean that in the sense that I'm outraged by what you said. Simply that I don't quite understand what you said...
Same here. I think they meant that everybody takes it like it's great, but that's still an unusual enough way of phrasing things that I'm not sure.
Post by: coldcut on 20 Apr 2005, 23:31
Post by: yggdrasil on 21 Apr 2005, 00:03
And I guess he is a bit pretentious, or at least arrogant... but he gets away with it by being really charming as well. Mmmm.
<hums> We hate it when our friends become successful...
Post by: Robbo on 21 Apr 2005, 03:53
Next you're gonna say he uses emotional playing.
Post by: yggdrasil on 21 Apr 2005, 04:38
Post by: Robbo on 21 Apr 2005, 04:49
But anyway, that's neither here nor there.
Post by: yggdrasil on 21 Apr 2005, 04:54
Post by: Felix_ on 24 Oct 2006, 14:16
Post by: Kai on 24 Oct 2006, 18:09
really need to bring a thread that has been dead for literally a year and a half for Mike Patton?
Post by: Thrillho on 24 Oct 2006, 18:35
I realise this thread is a year and a half old and I may well have already replied, but I fancy ranting.
I think that the hundreds of thousands of people who bur Mars Volta and Sigur Ros albums would disagree with your 'who the hell actually likes this shit?' theory.
Personally, I love some pretension in my music. I love songs that go on way longer than is tasteful, for no good reason than the band is enjoying themselves. What are they supposed to reel in their enthusiasm for their own work to please you? I don't think so. Pretty much all of my favourite artists - Pink Floyd/any of them solo, Radiohead/Thom Yorke, The Mars Volta, etc. - have pretension in their work. They do whatever the fuck they want to do. If they don't like their own music, who else will?
Personally, I take that as an example. I like music with kitchen-sink production. I know I'm pretentious with my own music. My most recent track was eleven minutes long, the last minute and a half of which is a collage of feedback, piano and distorted keyboards. I know I'm pretentious as fuck, but who gives a fuck; I'm making music for myself, not for you.
Post by: Valrus on 24 Oct 2006, 19:28
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 24 Oct 2006, 22:22
I got this idea from the Sparta thread below, and because I love the word.
My vote goes to the Mars Volta. What's with the neo-prog? Do you think people will actually like this crap? And what's with the song names? Can you actually come up with titles with words that 1) people know, and 2) make sense. Just because you have afros does not give you entitlement to make this crappy music and think so highly of yourselves.
~~Willis
Their press released listed 'self-indulgent' as one of their good qualities.
Or maybe it was just being honest
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 24 Oct 2006, 22:32
Love the guy to death. Love his wanky literary refs. But man, sometimes i just want to hear other people talk about Shane MacGowan or Leonard Cohen
Post by: SpacemanSpiff on 24 Oct 2006, 23:32
North of America. Mostly because they said so in an interview, when asked about their "cryptic" lyrics. Apparently, they are not totally cryptic and intellectual but just dumb puns and fucking with language in general with no real meaning because they're "pretentious fucks".
This also qualifies as post-irony, which is the pretentious version of irony, intended for indie kids who can't use the original concept since it sold out at the end of the 70s.
Post by: Felix_ on 25 Oct 2006, 02:55
Did we.. uh
really need to bring a thread that has been dead for literally a year and a half for Mike Patton?
Yes.
I dislike Mike Patton that much.
Post by: Misereatur on 25 Oct 2006, 03:09
Also, what's wrong with Patton? Excuse me while I get my Mr. Bungle fix.
Post by: Felix_ on 25 Oct 2006, 03:27
Tommy has a very good point.
Also, what's wrong with Patton? Excuse me while I get my Mr. Bungle fix.
I've just never liked anything he was associated with, most of it was terribly overrated, and I really don't like how pretentious he is and how he somehow believes that every music project he's associated with his some trail-blazing new sound that will completely change the world. Mike Patton fanboy/girls annoy me as well usually.
Post by: Felix_ on 25 Oct 2006, 05:08
NOT MANY PEOPLE CARE ABOUT MIKE PATTON ANYMORE! (http://youtube.com/watch?v=inQlkhZr0ec)
Thank you for that. :-D
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Oct 2006, 06:16
no artist sets out to make something pretentious. thus, the idea that something is pretentious is in the eye of the beholder.
Wait wait wait. Surely intent has some part in shaping the overall result of art, but that is not the only criteria on which it should be judged. Maybe Frida Kahlo did not intend her art (http://www.fridakahlofans.com/paintingsyear01.html) to come across as flat, but it certainly looks that way to me. I think it's important to understand that by saying that I in no way devalue her art. I am just describing an element of it which is immediately apparent.
Basically pretentiousness (EDIT) in the arts (EDIT) is two things. A short case study might then shed some light on it, and in this case we'll take Samuel Beckett.
One, pretentiousness can be seen as the idea of indulging oneself in art, committing gluttony with creation. An adaptation of Beckett's Endgame was staged in 1984 and came under attack (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A0CE5DD1038F933A15751C1A962948260) from the artist himself, who declared that the lavish, post-nuclear subway design and casting choices were a misreading of his play. Sadly, Google and Wikipedia are rather vague on the subject, but I've seen some pictures and the set design was massive, epic, and utterly pointless in such a minimalist play. For such unneccessary ostentation, I'm willing to call designer JoAnne Akalaitis PRETENTIOUS.
Second, however, pretentiousness can be seen as taking oneself and one's art far more seriously than necessary. The actions of Beckett's estate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Beckett#Legacy) speaks for itself, and his semi-notorious constant defense of his plays as written illustrates that he just couldn't stand other people taking what he wrote and presenting it as an artistic endeavour they had any part in. Unfortunately, in doing this he ignored one of the prime components of theatre, i.e. other people. Samuel Beckett gets the PRETENTIOUS crown for believing that his name transubstantiates his works into an untouchable realm.
I'm not saying that the production of Endgame was bad, nor am I stating that Beckett was a bad author. They're just both quite pretentious. Have I elucidated this point clearly enough?
Post by: Johnny C on 25 Oct 2006, 07:38
For obvious (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretension) reasons (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pretentious) I contend that notion.
As well, I believe considering the research I did that I'd be entitled to a reason for that out-of-hand dismissal. The evidence has been presented, and pretending "I don't believe that" is a factual rebuttal to said evidence is akin to pretending that time-traveling magic is a factual rebuttal to "How on Earth would Santa have time to visit all those houses?"
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 25 Oct 2006, 16:56
I'm a descriptiivst. If alot of people use a word, its a word. Thats how language works. Even if a few people use a word, its still a word. I can say 'neo-folk' or 'freak-folk' and there are people on this board who know what I mean... so those are words, even if they're bastard words.
Thats how English (and other languages) evolve- new words are coined, borrowed, stolen, changed. Hell, standardized spelling is a pretty recent thing
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 25 Oct 2006, 17:15
Even if you disagree with what the word means/should mean, the fact that people use it means its an object that can be debated.
You could argue that by using the word you are creating the concept attached to the word. This could be a valid argument. I need to dig out my old political language notes. Still, when we argue about 'emo' people have some idea of what we're arguing about - even if the meanings people attach to them are different. We can claim 'emo' is an essentially contested concept, like 'freedom' or 'torture', but we at least have something to argue around.
Post by: Valrus on 25 Oct 2006, 18:03
it's not the word, it's the connotations of the word that are bogus.
So which connotations? I guess it seems to me that my main beef is that people tend to use "pretentious" as if it were synonymous with "extravagant, and sucks," which is not the case.
I, like most people in this thread, would argue that The Mars Volta are extremely pretentious, just going by the definition of the word:
Quote from: the dictionary
attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed
where I guess the operative term is "importance." The Mars Volta seem to write music as if every single (often nonsensical, at least to the listener) lyric, flashy guitar solo, and minute of studio idling is just laden with significance and terrible meaning, but frankly it's hard to agree that their albums are that weighty. They write fifteen minute songs, but they often don't seem to have fifteen minutes worth of important stuff to say in them.
But I like The Mars Volta anyway, and I would argue that their pretention, while it certainly exists, does not negate the band's merits: a talent for writing ridiculously abstruse lyrics that still convey a strong sense of unease, undeniably proficient musicianship, a good use of dynamic swells and ebbs, and others.
So my question is, Tommy, is that an adequate use of "pretentious" for you? I don't mean to seem like I'm turning on you after my original post. I do agree with your comment that "pretentious," as used to describe music, seems to be primarily a weapon used by (as you said) anti-intellectuals who seem to believe that if musicians want to be taken seriously or have their music actually thought about, they're just overreaching and their music can be safely disregarded. That people who dislike The Fiery Furnaces call their music "pretentious" is ample evidence of that for me.
But The Mars Volta obviously put some thought into their music; I don't see how you could just toss off songs like the ones they write, however disorganized they may be. And so even though they may not be quite as profound as they seem to think, there is still meaning in what they do, and to dismiss that offhandedly by calling them "pretentious" is kind of intellectually lazy.
Not that I'm accusing anyone in this thread of doing this; I haven't read it that closely. I guess my main argument is two things: first, that pretention is a legitimate word with a real meaning and it can be used without perverting its denotative definition. Artists can pretend that they're more important or talented or cultured than they really are; their own opinion cannot be used as a yardstick to measure any of these things, however serious they may be. Second, that "pretention," when leveled as a criticism against art, does not automatically erase any merit the art has. Johnny C's descriptions work for me here. In the end, he said that neither of his examples were bad as art, but he nonetheless gave lucid descriptions of why they could be regarded as pretentious, which might detract from their effect.
Post by: SpacemanSpiff on 25 Oct 2006, 18:52
i wasn't being sarcastic.Oh, I understood that. I wasn't being sarcastic either, I just added North of America because their statement in the interview was aimed mostly at not having to explain their lyrics and poking fun at the whole pretentious-debate.
no artist sets out to make something pretentious. thus, the idea that something is pretentious is in the eye of the beholder. i dislike a lot of music but i don't feel the need to make up words to try to devalue it. if i created a concept which i call 'flargle' and decided it meant "created literally to annoy tommydski", would i be justified in saying coldplay are flargle? no i wouldn't because the band didn't set out to be flargle, i just decided they were from my own nefarious purposes. i'd say the were shit instead.
And I just typed a long paragraph about pretentiousness being in the eye of the beholder. Then I decided to read the last couple of posts as well. Turns out you already wrote that. Great.
Post by: Near Lurker on 25 Oct 2006, 19:27
Post by: Maky on 26 Oct 2006, 00:28
Also, they assume themselves to be outside of popular culture, the populace being interested only in that which does not innovate, and take pride in obscurity and shame from success.
This rings a bell. I'm a huge Opeth fan, and I can say that they are SO pretentious about their work (21 minute songs, 1693106 different riffs and tunes in the same track, extremely dense and metaphorical lyrics, intricated concepts, etc). But Hell, they can afford it. I remember watching an interview with Mikael ?kerfeldt (Opeth's singer and lead guitar player), and saying that for their first album they brought a lute in to play in a track. In his own words: "We played a lot of chess. I read poetry... I don't know what we were aiming at really..." He aknowledges himself that they were pretentious and that they still are. And they use that pretention in a way that lets them record a better album every time.
Pretentious in a way that doesn't work... DragonForce. Urgh. Puke. Regurgitation at its best. Honestly, their guitar players are insanely fast but _that's just it_. It's the 17 minutes solos where you don't even know what the hell they are playing, the stupid lyrics that try frantically to be epic, the singer who wants to reach stratospheric notes and just makes you cringe. They're just... manure.
Post by: Outshined on 26 Oct 2006, 00:35
I do agree with your comment that "pretentious," as used to describe music, seems to be primarily a weapon used by (as you said) anti-intellectuals who seem to believe that if musicians want to be taken seriously or have their music actually thought about, they're just overreaching and their music can be safely disregarded.
I think Valrus has made a point about the recently evolved connotations of "pretentiousness" that I so dislike. "Pretension" has recently become a trendy way to casually dismiss musical efforts without any real thought, a perversion of the original intent of the word. It is as if any modern artist who wishes to say something sincere or intentellectually ambitious is automatically "taking things too seriously". How serious, then, should our musicians take their own work? Will we be satisfied when musicians play songs they are completely apathetic to, when emotion and passion is completely divorced from the act of making art?
That said, I really enjoyed the latest Mars Volta album. Are they extremely pretentious in the legitimate "inflated self importance" definition? Absolutely. I can't help but laugh at their claims of "creating an entirely new genre of prog rock" (or something grandiose to that effect). But, for me, that is outweighed by the enthusiam and passion with which they play and write their songs. The lyrics are actually quite rewarding to me, in that their abstraction allows for leeway in interpretation. I interpret Meccamptutechture, for example, as an impassioned statement against reliquaries and idolatry.
"Please dismantle these phantom limbs" ... "This is the evidence of human as ornament" ... "It lacks a human pulse" I think they are getting at the worship of saint's amputated limbs, often kept in arm-shaped reliquary art objects. They imply that people are merely attracted to the ornamental, worshipping the rich material value of the gold-and-gem enscrusted objects at the expense of realizing that these were once real people, made of flesh and blood, that sacrificed themselves for the benefit of their faith.
Post by: timehat on 26 Oct 2006, 00:52
Post by: Hat on 26 Oct 2006, 01:16
second of all, i have some individual notions regarding the world. for example, i don't think just because a word is in the dictionary it deserves to be a word. common or popular usage does not make something correct. if a bunch of fuckwits use a word enough, it will eventually be accepted. that doesn't change the fact that it was born of fuckwittery. your argument that it 'must be a word because i can find lots of people using it' is akin to saying there must be a god because lots of people believe there is. that simply isn't the case.
You have to admit though, the word "Fuckwittery" really needs to be used enough to be considered a stable part of the modern language.
I was going to use the word "Lexicon", but I didn't want anyone to think I was pretentious
Post by: soak on 26 Oct 2006, 03:13
Post by: Johnny C on 26 Oct 2006, 03:20
i don't think there's such a thing.
i think it's a word invented by anti-intellectualists.
This is the quote which I directed the majority of the debating at. I agree that pretentiousness is a subjective thing but saying that something is subjective doesn't mean it's irrelevant, tommy. Regarding your example of the cute girl, I wouldn't argue that, because I don't think someone is cute, the word "cute" shouldn't exist, especially if it has a definition that a lot of people can agree on.
The "flargle" example is a bit of a jog in logic, because I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a lot of people would say that "something Tommy thinks is ridiculous" is best expressed as "something Tommy thinks is ridiculous." I'd also go so far as to say that a lot of people may also think it's ridiculous, and therefore express their feelings on the subject as "it's ridiculous." There is no necessity to have another word to describe this. With pretensiousness, however, the over-inflated self-importance is common enough to have a word to describe it.
I think a lot of artists take their work seriously, Outshined, myself among them. The opposite of pretentiousness, I would argue, isn't total apathy - the opposite would be an understanding of where one's importance really is. Besides, if "pretentious" is used as an absolute dismissal of work then it's being done by somebody who has no idea how to properly listen to music. I don't dismiss the last two Mars Volta records because they're pretentious, I dismiss them because I find the music on them to be tuneless and driveless, the opposites of which are what endeared me to their first album, and I'd love to elaborate on that but frankly hearing snippets of each new has given me enough indication that there are a lot of albums I would rather listen to the whole way through.
Coheed and Cambria's latest output appears to be making ostentatious, riffing music for the sake of music, and having sat through the band's live DVD and its unintentionally hilarious interview with the two guitarists (in which they discuss a "technique" that one presumes is guitar based by using suspect hand motions) I can confirm that they take themselves and their music far too seriously, basing their judgement of it on how precise their riffs and runs are, losing sight of whether or not the music they're making is any good. That's me, elaborating on soak's evaluation of them.
Post by: Outshined on 26 Oct 2006, 03:42
I think a lot of artists take their work seriously, Outshined, myself among them. The opposite of pretentiousness, I would argue, isn't total apathy - the opposite would be an understanding of where one's importance really is. Besides, if "pretentious" is used as an absolute dismissal of work then it's being done by somebody who has no idea how to properly listen to music. I don't dismiss the last two Mars Volta records because they're pretentious, I dismiss them because I find the music on them to be tuneless and driveless, the opposites of which are what endeared me to their first album, and I'd love to elaborate on that but frankly hearing snippets of each new has given me enough indication that there are a lot of albums I would rather listen to the whole way through.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that calling everything "pretentious" has a harmful effect on musical creation and critique. It doesn't cause the desired effect of giving people are realistic or humble opinion of their importance, but rather causes a reaction against it. Some groups take advantage of the backlash against pretension, seeking to be fashionable in the "too cool to have anything meaningful to communicate" sort of way.
The best example I can come up with is in modern art: it is considered incredibly pretentious in some circles to paint/draw highly realistic human figures. Because of this bias against pretentious realism, a backlash movement has reacted too far in the other direction: abstract works that make little to no imposition on the viewer, created in series as if you were manufacturing the objects instead of crafting them, with little sentiment or soul injected in the process at all.
Am I making any sense here?
Ah, and for the record, I found the latest album to be a lot more like De-Loused than Frances was. Actually scratch that. It occupies a pretty good middle ground between the two. Give a full track or two a chance and see if it's more in the vein of what you prefer.
Post by: Johnny C on 26 Oct 2006, 04:53
saying that something is subjective doesn't mean it's irrelevant
Sadly, tommy, you've apparently missed mine. However, the girl was likely not very cute at all. I'll concede that. Darryl, you have awful taste in women. Sorry.
I think, Outshined, you're arguing against an overuse of the term "pretentious," which I do agree with. However, I note you and Valrus both enjoy later Mars Volta works. Valrus, you said this:
Quote
The Mars Volta seem to write music as if every single (often nonsensical, at least to the listener) lyric, flashy guitar solo, and minute of studio idling is just laden with significance and terrible meaning, but frankly it's hard to agree that their albums are that weighty. They write fifteen minute songs, but they often don't seem to have fifteen minutes worth of important stuff to say in them.
But I like The Mars Volta anyway, and I would argue that their pretention, while it certainly exists, does not negate the band's merits: a talent for writing ridiculously abstruse lyrics that still convey a strong sense of unease, undeniably proficient musicianship, a good use of dynamic swells and ebbs, and others.
And here is my rebuttal, courtesy of John Coltrane (this quote can be found in the liner notes for Ole):
Quote
...if I'm going to take an hour to say something I can say in ten minutes, maybe I'd better say it in ten minutes!
Post by: Valrus on 26 Oct 2006, 06:20
So here's my one-line rebuttal of your one-line rebuttal: If music is about economy of expression, everyone should just write prose instead.
Post by: David_Dovey on 26 Oct 2006, 11:59
but, but, Inlander, how can you dislike Wuthering Heights, Led Zeppelin, Isengard, Ephel Duath, Gandalf, both Lothloriens, Aurora Borealis, Cirith Ungol, Cirith Gorgor, Sauron, Blind Gaurdian, Nightwish, Orange Goblin, Lucifers Heritage, Elvenking and all three Nazguls?
MY MIND CAN'T TAKE IT.
Let's not forget Gorgoroth and Amon Amarth!
Incidentally, I'm a big fan of progressive and technical music and thus I love most of what a lot of people would call self-indulgent or pretentious. Whatever. This is a rant I posted in a thread about "Elitism" in another forum I frequent, OzProg.com:
I absolutely HATE HATE HATE how people consider technicality in music "self-indulgent." I don't get it. In my opinion someone who only ever writes three-chord verse-chorus songs which are completely derivative and uninspiring is WAY more self-indulgent than your average prog musician. This is a musician who isn't even attempting to do anything original with music, who is just cranking out the same shit that we've all heard before, and is expecting to (and more than likely, will) make a bunch of money out of it. I'm pretty sure that's REALLY self-indulgent. This as opposed to someone who works hard, practices like mad, and works very hard to make something new and inspiring, something that is trying to redefine the boundaries of music... Yeah, but they're just "wankers."
I have nothing against a capable and skilled musician playing "simple" music, because usually it has some mark of depth to it, but it really makes me angry and depressed when I hear music that is simple NOT because it is a deliberate choice by an artist, but because that person can't do anything more detailed. When I see a band like the Vines or the White Stripes selling millions of records with music and musicians that are completely simplistic and uninspired, while some true geniuses of music and art can't even afford to be professional musicians.
N.B; This doesn't mean that I think that all technical music is superior to simple music, but I hate the assumption that a sound musical theory somehow makes it impossible to achieve a great level of emotion in music. Listen to some goddamned Porcupine Tree or Devin Townsend and tell me there's no emotion in prog.
Post by: Johnny C on 27 Oct 2006, 01:28
This as opposed to someone who works hard, practices like mad, and works very hard to make something new and inspiring, something that is trying to redefine the boundaries of music... Yeah, but they're just "wankers."
I read a quote from someone that said prog is a denial of the fact that a kid with a cheap acoustic guitar with two strings missing can walk into a room at any time and play a catchier song than prog bands ever could, musical training be damned.
I've got classical piano training but I've never bothered to apply any of it to guitar because I just want to make simple pop songs. Are you going to deny any potential emotional impact of my music just because I never learned how to do an Aeolian riff in 7/4 time over top of a 5/4 beat? The reason that your "true geniuses" of music and art can't afford to be professional musicians is because ninety percent of the time the people that take the technical attitude forget that a significant part of making music lies in actually writing a song instead of just slapping together theory. Bach's fugues may have been rigidly rooted in theory, but he made goddamn compelling melodies in them.
And in direct response to your quote, I think Pixies, with relatively simple music, stretched the boundaries of music far further than Yes. Nirvana stretched those boundaries further than Asia. Interpol has reshaped popular music in this last little while far more than Genesis did.
I guess what I'm saying here is that in songwriting the songwriting should take precedence, and the technical ability should come under scrutiny far afterwards, if at all.
Post by: ALoveSupreme on 27 Oct 2006, 04:18
sue me for enjoying a fart joke.
Post by: jeph on 27 Oct 2006, 05:42
That being said, just because you can play the fuck out of your instrument doesn't guarantee you're gonna be a shitty songwriter, either. I cite the guys in Mastodon as evidence of this, but of course YMMV.
I think what I am trying to say is there are a lot more shitty guitarists writing shitty songs than there are good guitarists writing shitty songs.
Pretension is INCREDIBLY important to writing good music. Sgt. Pepper would never have happened without it.
I'd toss my hat in for the Mars Volta as being unbearably pretentious, but I've never actually bothered to listen to any of their stuff. I did see At The Drive-In back when they were together (and before they got all POPULAR OMG INDIECRED BLUGHULGHLGHLUGH) and they were unbearably annoying.
Screaming bad Willaim S. Burroughs lyrics and jumping off the drum kit EVERY SONG reeks of talentless pretension to me.
Post by: Ernest on 27 Oct 2006, 07:18
I don't really know how pretentious they are, I just wanted to say that.
Post by: Ernest on 27 Oct 2006, 07:43
But, ya know, Devo sucks.
Post by: Thrillho on 27 Oct 2006, 17:13
Given your reputation on this board, I don't feel any less of a man by your insult. :roll:
But, ya know, Devo sucks.?
His reputation as one of the most well-liked people on here?
Post by: Ernest on 27 Oct 2006, 18:37
I still hate Devo. It's probably more due to the fact that one of my friends likes to dance around his room like a Munchkin from the Wizard of Oz whenever he is listening to them. You know, negative conditioning. . .
Post by: Ernest on 27 Oct 2006, 23:38
Post by: Johnny C on 28 Oct 2006, 10:41
Post by: David_Dovey on 28 Oct 2006, 13:19
This as opposed to someone who works hard, practices like mad, and works very hard to make something new and inspiring, something that is trying to redefine the boundaries of music... Yeah, but they're just "wankers."
I read a quote from someone that said prog is a denial of the fact that a kid with a cheap acoustic guitar with two strings missing can walk into a room at any time and play a catchier song than prog bands ever could, musical training be damned.
I've got classical piano training but I've never bothered to apply any of it to guitar because I just want to make simple pop songs. Are you going to deny any potential emotional impact of my music just because I never learned how to do an Aeolian riff in 7/4 time over top of a 5/4 beat? The reason that your "true geniuses" of music and art can't afford to be professional musicians is because ninety percent of the time the people that take the technical attitude forget that a significant part of making music lies in actually writing a song instead of just slapping together theory. Bach's fugues may have been rigidly rooted in theory, but he made goddamn compelling melodies in them.
And in direct response to your quote, I think Pixies, with relatively simple music, stretched the boundaries of music far further than Yes. Nirvana stretched those boundaries further than Asia. Interpol has reshaped popular music in this last little while far more than Genesis did.
I guess what I'm saying here is that in songwriting the songwriting should take precedence, and the technical ability should come under scrutiny far afterwards, if at all.
I think you misinterpreted the point I made. Fair enough, it probably wasn't as fleshed out as it should have been. Essentially, jeph wrapped it up with his line "There are more shitty guitarists writing shitty songs than there are good guitarists writing shitty songs."
I'm not saying that simplicity is a bad thing or that intricate music is automatically better than simple music. In fact that kind of outlook really turns me off. But what I am saying is that someone with a sound understanding of musical theory is gonna be able to take three chords and do something much more poignant with it than someone who only knows those three chords. That's just the way it is. Once again I'd point you towards a band like Porcupine Tree, or to alternately prove my point, a band like The Vines. The Vines represent everything that pisses me off about music these days. It's clear that this band makes simple music not because that is a conscious choice, but because that is the limit of their abilities. Any listen to the live performances shows that they struggle to pull off their own material -no matter how simple- on stage. The tripe they produce is so uninspiring, so contrived.
That line about the kid with the cheap acoustic guitar is bullshit by the way. If you give someone who has been writing songs for ten years, and someone who has been playing for three months, a melody or a part of a song, and tell them to write a full song based around that, who is gonna make the more emotionally satisfying tune? I'm going with the experienced songwriter.
As far as stretching boundaries, I don't really see how writing strictly linear music that follows the same pattern time and time again can be considered to be pushing boundaries. You're confusing popularity with achievement. Incidentally, if you listen to "Close To The Edge" by Yes, or "Selling England By The Pound" by Genesis, if you could lay down your preconceptions for two seconds, you'd find that above and beyond the technicality or intricacy of the tune, some of the most beautiful melodies and lyrics ever written courtesy of Jon Anderson and Peter Gabriel.
And as for Nirvana, well the only boundary they pushed is they created a world in which musical talent no longer became a pre-requisite for being a musician. All you need is an image and a touch of luck. To even consider Nirvana the best band of their scene would be absolute fallacy, let alone the plaudits they often receive. Interpol are just a rehash of much better bands that came before them like Joy Division.
You mention having classical training, yet not applying it to writing simple pop songs. I don't quite understand how it's possible to turn off your training? I'm pretty sure, that whether you're self-consciously applying it or not, you're still a trained musician who is actually thinking about what they're doing. Once again, I'd like to stress that simplicity in music is NOT what I am railing against. I draw a distinction between simplicity of songwriting, in which a songwriter writes a simple song because that is what is aesthetically pleasing, and simplicity in musicinaship, in which a songwriter writes a simple song because that is all they can do.
I'm also not defending the REAL "wankers," the types of people who do write music for the sole purpose of showing off instrumental chops. That stuff leaves me as cold and empty as the next person.
Post by: timehat on 31 Oct 2006, 01:24
This as opposed to someone who works hard, practices like mad, and works very hard to make something new and inspiring, something that is trying to redefine the boundaries of music... Yeah, but they're just "wankers."
And in direct response to your quote, I think Pixies, with relatively simple music, stretched the boundaries of music far further than Yes. Nirvana stretched those boundaries further than Asia. Interpol has reshaped popular music in this last little while far more than Genesis did.
I guess what I'm saying here is that in songwriting the songwriting should take precedence, and the technical ability should come under scrutiny far afterwards, if at all.
I agree with the second part of what you are saying, but your examples in the first part are deep bullshit.
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Oct 2006, 02:38
Post by: timehat on 31 Oct 2006, 02:49
Oh man, I have a job interview in half an hour but as soon as I get back I've got some words for you guys.Wait, I sorta take it back. Asia sucks. Otherwise yeah.
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Oct 2006, 06:34
I'm also not defending the? REAL "wankers," the types of people who do write music for the sole purpose of showing off instrumental chops. That stuff leaves me as cold and empty as the next person.
Essentially this is what you needed to say in the first place!
However, I move my attentions to the rest of your post. I don't think poignacy has anything to do with how technical your playing is. The quote about the kid with the cheap acoustic guitar is bullshit? I disagree. What that means is, the songwriting comes first. Always. Period. That gets lost by so many people who flaunt their knowledge of music theory. And yeah, the theory comes out in the songwriting, in that I know I'm playing in the key of A, for example. But I hardly ever end my songs on a classic cadence, if you know what I mean. The "writing strictly linear music" - well, I suppose that all comes down to preference. And I don't see a point in drawing a line between "simple because it's all they can do" and "simple because they would rather do it." There's a great story in Please Kill Me (http://www.amazon.com/Please-Kill-Me-Uncensored-History/dp/0140266909) (I will push it til you all read it) in which Dee Dee Ramone auditions for Television and has no idea where a C is, so Richard Hell is telling him, "No, no, man, C." And Dee Dee just moves up one fret and looks up at Hell like a puzzled puppy dog.
Please don't try to argue the effectiveness of the Ramones' music. It's simple because that's what they knew how to do, but it's good music because it's so simple and so don't-give-a-fuck.
Quote
And as for Nirvana, well the only boundary they pushed is they created a world in which musical talent no longer became a pre-requisite for being a musician
They created a world in which people realized, "Hey, hair metal is actually quite shit. Why did I even buy this Warrant album, anyways?" That's good enough for me; however, that they put two great albums under their collective belt is even better.
The "no-talent" thing is an absolute red herring. I hate to break it to you, but bands with no talent existed well before the nineties and will continue to exist. And why should musical training be a prerequisite for being a musician? Do I have to attend seminars on the English language before I write a story (I haven't)? Do I have to draw nudes for an hour a day for four years before I attempt to make art (I haven't - I took AP Art and instantly started concentrating on developing a portfolio)? What makes music any different?
I appreciate that you aren't arguing on behalf of the artists who, when their recorded output is playing, make the listener feel as if he should set a box of Kleenex by the speakers, move into the next room and shut the door to give the music some "alone time," but I still contest your position on there being any prerequisite for making music beyond an ear for a tune.
And Timehat, you're right. Those examples were a dick move. Although I'm glad you agree Asia suck completely.
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Oct 2006, 07:26
Do I have to attend seminars on the English language before I write a story? Do I have to draw nudes for an hour a day for four years before I attempt to make art?
If you look at pretty much anyone of any consequence in the fields of art and music: Yes. Life drawing, I must say, is about the most essential thing for not making your art suck balls ever. There's a reason why life drawing is even a component of foundation media courses. Of course, you can vanity publish your short stories or put your images on deviantart as much as you want, and I will not call you a novelist or an artist. Put quite simply: if you don't want to put any effort in to being a musician, then you shouldn't be a fucking musician. If you don't want to put in the effort to explore the tools, techniques and methods of your medium, why fucking work in it? I wouldn't trust someone who knew nothing of colour theory to do my interior design, so why should I respect someone who can't even play the fucking guitar properly when he or she wants to put music in to my fucking ears. I can just about respect some of the sloppier punk bands for their intent and enthusiasm, but the kid with acoustic guitar archetype is just post-modernism gone wrong.
Post by: Storm Rider on 31 Oct 2006, 08:53
Put quite simply: if you don't want to put any effort in to being a musician, then you shouldn't be a fucking musician. If you don't want to put in the effort to explore the tools, techniques and methods of your medium, why fucking work in it?
Man, I was about halfway through saying this in about 5 times as many words.
Post by: Johnny C on 31 Oct 2006, 09:20
Post by: timehat on 31 Oct 2006, 10:08
Put quite simply: if you don't want to put any effort in to being a musician, then you shouldn't be a fucking musician.I feel this way about my own approach to musicianship, but for some reason I have a hard time holding other people to that standard. I do generally appreciate well-learned and well-practiced musicians, but there is a lot of music I enjoy that may not have the same sort of technical or theoretical finesse, but still maintains a strong emotional connection or spirit of creativity and inventiveness. I think now is a good time to bring up Slint, since everyone's been mentioning them lately. They fit the bill perfectly here. The playing on Spiderland is far from perfect, but what is clear is that the musicians really did care to try to think outside of the box to some degree and come up with something rather striking. I think many musicians would do better to take a more serious approach to the craft side of what they do, but the fact is that art is not science. I mean, look at serialism, which can be taken apart and combined in so many fashions that are often so complex that they all just sound the same. It does create a certain mood, I think, often very tense and anxious sounding, but the thing is that a lot of people who treat their music very mathematically give very little thought to how it sounds in a general sense or what sort of feelings it evokes. That is not to say that music cannot be and should not be treated with some sort of sophistication and complexity, it's just that there's a careful balance between technique and concept, skill and feeling, intellect and emotion; not all great music encompasses all of these things equally, and that's part of what makes the world of music so diverse and rich. In retrospect, I suppose I am not even arguing against your statement, but rather at the perceived extension of your statement which I believe goes along the lines of "complexity and technique in art come foremost". Of course, I am not accusing you of positing this sentiment, but just in case someone read it way, here's my rebuttal.
Post by: Storm Rider on 31 Oct 2006, 11:16
But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.
I'm not saying that my opinion is the only opinion, I'm saying that I don't want to pay people to produce music if they show no indication of being good musicians. I think that's within my grounds as a consumer.
Post by: David_Dovey on 31 Oct 2006, 12:38
Essentially this is what you needed to say in the first place!
However, I move my attentions to the rest of your post. I don't think poignacy has anything to do with how technical your playing is. The quote about the kid with the cheap acoustic guitar is bullshit? I disagree. What that means is, the songwriting comes first. Always. Period. That gets lost by so many people who flaunt their knowledge of music theory.
No, I believe my point about the kid with the broken guitar stands. It takes someone of immense natural talent to pick up a guitar and with no experience to churn out something that is going to be genuinely intriguing and interestin and emotionally engaging. It's possible, but it's a one in a million ting. For most of us mere mortals, it takes some semblance of musical knowlege to be able to produce something that isn't utter atonal shit. Once again, I'd like to clarify my viewpoint. I'm not saying that you have to know everything about music or be Berklee trained or whatever, but it's just fact that someone who is knowlegeable about music and music theory will be able to make better music (and I know that "good" and "bad" are entirely subjective terms) than someone who isn't. Like I said, sometimes there are exceptions like The Ramones, but they ARE exceptions, not the rule.
Essentially, Khar has already made the point I'm trying to make, and he did it way more eloquently than I could ever hope to
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 31 Oct 2006, 15:36
But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.
There's just basic basic stuff. Even when I'm writing music reviews (the lowest form of anything, i guess) i draw on everything i know about writing - from basic grammer to literary techniques. Guys like Stephen King are so popular partly because they know how to plot their stories.
I would submit that alot of the singer/songwriters I like might not be very sophisticated as musicians, but they might be very good as poets, short story writers, or songwriters... and okay musicians. Bob Dylan or the Hold Steady or the Mountain Goats aren't the most technically accomplished guys, but they know their poetry and thats what alot of people go for in their music, so it makes up for a lack of technical skill (though they do have that, THS especially). The Ramones might not be great musicians, but they could write catchy pop/punk songs (i don't care if thats a dirty genre now. thats what they were) and thats a seperate skill in itself.
The bands I like I usually like for reasons other than musicianship, but they're still professionals dedicated to certain crafts - Bob Dylan listened to a ton of folk songs and read a ton of poetry and yes he probably took a few writing classes, so his scribblings are better then stuff made with no background at all
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Oct 2006, 15:56
But who decides what artists have weight and consequence, though? Who are the arbiters of this all-encompassing field of worthiness to create? I think the answers are "no-one" and "no-one," to tell you the truth, and I think in matters of what you'll note is all subjective opinion that is the way it should be.
Who decides? A consensus between critics and audience probably. However, as I said, consider it in terms of other mediums, and you'll see the comparisons I'm trying to make. No one seriously argues that their aunt who dabbles in watercolours is better than Manet, or that their doodles on the crossword page they do when they can't finish the Sudoku have more to offer the field of illustration than Hokusai or Dore. There has been a similiair move towards simplicity in art as well as music, but it's all done by people with art degrees. You make better films if you know how to use an editing suite and a camera. You get what I'm saying? There may be the occasional fantastically talented outsider artist, or as eyeball kid said, those who are talented enough in their poetry, or perhaps just have a naturally beautiful voice, but mainly we're talking about the musical equivalent of nice watercolours of flowers. Pretty, maybe, but ultimately unsatisfying and pointless. There needs either to be a sophisitication of method or ideas, preferably both.
Post by: KharBevNor on 31 Oct 2006, 18:30
Whether anyone can actually produce work of any quality, that's another matter entirely.
Post by: VonDook on 31 Oct 2006, 19:11
I look at art that looks good to me.
I couldn't give two shits how much training they have or haven't had. In fact, the more they seem to care about how much training they have had, the less I care.
Post by: BeoPuppy on 31 Oct 2006, 23:59
And anyone can paint, and anyone can write.Hmm .. isn't quality determined not only by technical prowess but also by (emotional) content? I mean ... maybe Nirvana (there's that example again) weren't really technically gifted but you cannot deny them a certain substance. It may not be musical genius but at times ... wasn't it possibly art?
Whether anyone can actually produce work of any quality, that's another matter entirely.
Post by: Yossarian on 01 Nov 2006, 06:08
Post by: Ernest on 01 Nov 2006, 06:19
Post by: Johnny C on 01 Nov 2006, 06:42
Von Dook has the right attitude. And statements about sophistication of ideas ultimately negate any argument of technical training. You don't need to be trained to think.
It all comes back to this, guys:
Quote from: me
I guess what I'm saying here is that in songwriting the songwriting should take precedence
In the end it doesn't matter - unless the song is highly autobiographical and you need information on the writer to make any judgement on the song - who's playing or singing or writing. It's the quality of the music that matters.
Post by: David_Dovey on 01 Nov 2006, 06:50
In the end it doesn't matter - unless the song is highly autobiographical and you need information on the writer to make any judgement on the song - who's playing or singing or writing. It's the quality of the music that matters.
This is absolutely true. It just so happens that people who know what they're doing are more likely to make better quality music.
Post by: Yossarian on 01 Nov 2006, 07:21
Guys, you're impeding a perfectly good derailment here.
Sorry! I didn't intend to interrupt your discussion - which I think fits perfectly nice on the subject.
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 01 Nov 2006, 10:49
I think the most extreme examples of the 'taking classes, but not in music' are bands like Augie March, The Decemberists and the Mountain Goats, who are good but sometimes pretentious 'cause they seriously studied literature in university. Pretentious lyrics sometiems (but not always) but alot of it scans as poetry
I like that in my music, so i don't mind of musically it isn't all that complex. If you're into complex instrumentation you probably don't mind some simple lyrics and I bet there are plenty of bands I haven't heard yet that have both.
As for 'pretension' it all depends. If you're writing about Alexander the Great 'cause you want to show off how smart you are then you're just being pretentious. If you're writing about him 'cause you think 'Alexander wept, for their were no more worlds to conquer' is a kickass thing to put in a rock song, then you're ok.
I think thats an Iron Maiden song, but i haven't heard it yet
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 01 Nov 2006, 10:50
And anyone can paint, and anyone can write.
Whether anyone can actually produce work of any quality, that's another matter entirely.
we've traded places from last year haven't we?? :lol:
johnny is right though, who is to say what is quality?
ever heard anything by beat happening (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsIZg74mLt8)? they are one of my favourite bands. their music was insanely primitive. i'd listen to this over a 'technically proficient band' such as rush any day of the week.
Despite what i just said, I will agree with this. However, i bet the primativism was a choice, developed through practise and study and such.
I'll ask Calvin Johnson next sunday.
Post by: timehat on 02 Nov 2006, 01:53
Guys, you're impeding a perfectly good derailment here.This is absolutely true, but training can help you think better, and it can help you quickly plug in existing variable into your artistic/mental/whatever equations. I believe a large factor in art is how the art is affected by the creator's strengths and weaknesses in the area of translating ideas into some sort of form. These weaknesses can often create great strengths in other aspects of the art, such as the blind have a heightened sense of hearing, but I doubt many people choose to be blind just because they love hearing so much.
Von Dook has the right attitude. And statements about sophistication of ideas ultimately negate any argument of technical training. You don't need to be trained to think.
Post by: Felix_ on 02 Nov 2006, 02:00
I think the most extreme examples of the 'taking classes, but not in music' are bands like Augie March, The Decemberists and the Mountain Goats, who are good but sometimes pretentious 'cause they seriously studied literature in university. Pretentious lyrics sometiems (but not always) but alot of it scans as poetry
I like that in my music, so i don't mind of musically it isn't all that complex. If you're into complex instrumentation you probably don't mind some simple lyrics and I bet there are plenty of bands I haven't heard yet that have both.
As for 'pretension' it all depends. If you're writing about Alexander the Great 'cause you want to show off how smart you are then you're just being pretentious. If you're writing about him 'cause you think 'Alexander wept, for their were no more worlds to conquer' is a kickass thing to put in a rock song, then you're ok.
I think thats an Iron Maiden song, but i haven't heard it yet
I definitely agree here. The pretentiousness of bands is a characteristic that is within the eye or rather ear of the beholder, just as all music inherently is. To discuss why and why not some bands are pretentious page after page on a message board could be considered pretentious in and of itself.
I love the bands you mentioned though, and the track "Alexander the Great" by Iron Maiden is one of my faves. Good stuff. :-D
Post by: Johnny C on 02 Nov 2006, 10:25
Sorry! I didn't intend to interrupt your discussion - which I think fits perfectly nice on the subject.
I think this is a burn. If so, well done.
Quote
This is absolutely true. It just so happens that people who know what they're doing are more likely to make better quality music.
I am going to start asking you for hard statistics in a second.
Post by: Scytale on 02 Nov 2006, 11:05
I think the most extreme examples of the 'taking classes, but not in music' are bands like Augie March, The Decemberists and the Mountain Goats, who are good but sometimes pretentious 'cause they seriously studied literature in university. Pretentious lyrics sometiems (but not always) but alot of it scans as poetry
I like that in my music, so i don't mind of musically it isn't all that complex. If you're into complex instrumentation you probably don't mind some simple lyrics and I bet there are plenty of bands I haven't heard yet that have both.
As for 'pretension' it all depends. If you're writing about Alexander the Great 'cause you want to show off how smart you are then you're just being pretentious. If you're writing about him 'cause you think 'Alexander wept, for their were no more worlds to conquer' is a kickass thing to put in a rock song, then you're ok.
I think thats an Iron Maiden song, but i haven't heard it yet
I definitely agree here. The pretentiousness of bands is a characteristic that is within the eye or rather ear of the beholder, just as all music inherently is. To discuss why and why not some bands are pretentious page after page on a message board could be considered pretentious in and of itself.
I love the bands you mentioned though, and the track "Alexander the Great" by Iron Maiden is one of my faves. Good stuff. :-D
Yeah Iron Maiden take a lot of their lyrics \ song inspirations from movies and books, I don't think its pretentious at all, some of my favorite songs of theres are stuff like: Phantom of the Opera, Children of the Damned, To tame a Land (Frank Herbert wouldn't let them call it Dune), Rime of the Ancient Mariner and the afor(sp?) mentioned Alexander the Great).
Post by: David_Dovey on 02 Nov 2006, 13:24
I am going to start asking you for hard statistics in a second.
I'm not too sure how easy it would be to get statistics in these sorts of situations, but I'd still be willing to assert that almost every one of your favourite songwriters have had some sort of music theory and instrument training at some point.
Post by: Dimmukane on 16 Nov 2006, 21:22
Dream Theater (Especially John Petrucci, the show off bastard) Are extremely pretentious.
my problem with dream theatre is the singer, actually. I can't stand his voice. So instead I listen to Liquid Tension Experiment, essentially the same thing minus a vocalist. And they have a song called Chewbacca.
as for the whole genre thing, some bands just have a whole bunch mixed in, and it's hard to say all 10 genres or whatever at once. Cynic comes to mind. Jazz New Wave Technical Fusion Melodic Death. or something like that.
Post by: timehat on 17 Nov 2006, 08:51
my problem with dream theatre is the singer, actually.? I can't stand his voice.? So instead I listen to Liquid Tension Experiment, essentially the same thing minus a vocalist.? And they have a song called Chewbacca.There's only one genre label for Cynic: rockin'.
as for the whole genre thing, some bands just have a whole bunch mixed in, and it's hard to say all 10 genres or whatever at once.? Cynic comes to mind.? Jazz New Wave Technical Fusion Melodic Death.? or something like that.
Post by: Dimmukane on 17 Nov 2006, 10:07
Post by: CutMan on 20 Nov 2006, 09:51
are the great and mighty decider of what is "quality" and "good" and
what is "bad" and "suck, as I like to put it.
No one has the right to decide what is quality, what matters to you in
this subject might not mean shit to someone else. Assuming that
what you like and think is the best should be considered
the best period is one of the most arrogant things
one can possibly do.
Sure, you can pretend that you have some sort of concrete evidence to
back up your opinion.
Proggressive bands or bands that do a lot of "excessive" playing.
You call them pretentious? Oh, that's interesting. So that genre
shouldn't exist? These people who enjoy "playing the shit" out
of their guitars and instruments should just conform to your
opinions? Ever thought that they're just playing the way they like?
As members of Dream Theater have said, they play how they want.
They write songs as long or short as they feel.
In fact, that applys to bands that dont "play the shit" out
of their instruments. Panic! At The Disco, for instance. They
write well crafted songs and implement a variety of styles into
their music. They do what they want, and people just so happen to
like it. *gasp* They're popular! But moving on. How do you know they're
"Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified."?
Do you know them personally? No, even better, are you a psychic? You inside their heads?
You. Don't. Know. Anything.
Everyone can write. Everyone can play music. Everyone can paint.
No one can decide if it is absolute "quality".
You either like it or you don't. Don't pretend you're a god.
You're so called "facts" are as personal and flimsy as any of
your other opinions.
By the by, this is a rather intense first post I realize, I dont intend any meanness in it,
and I'm not directly trying to slap anyone in the face about anything. This is
just the first topic I entered.
Post by: David_Dovey on 20 Nov 2006, 09:55
Post by: CutMan on 20 Nov 2006, 10:00
Oh shit. You've gone and done it now.
*laughs* Yeah, I suppose I have, I'm sure I've pissed off
both ends of the spectrum.
Post by: Johnny C on 20 Nov 2006, 10:08
Post by: Storm Rider on 20 Nov 2006, 11:14
it's like when you shine a flashlight against the sun
insignificant
Post by: CutMan on 20 Nov 2006, 11:22
i want to care about your opinion but i just can't
it's like when you shine a flashlight against the sun
insignificant
And I could claim you're insignifigant and inferior to me too..
but I'm not an arrogant bastard who pretends to be better
than other people.
You don't care because you want to cling to the idea
that the music you happen to like is better than anyone
else. You choose not to care because you CAN'T answer me.
Or can you? I welcome proof that I'm wrong. But what you
just did? Yeah, cop out.
Post by: Storm Rider on 20 Nov 2006, 11:25
Basically, I was kidding around. Don't take shit too seriously.
Post by: CutMan on 20 Nov 2006, 11:28
Dude, I was being sarcastic. You're new, so you don't remember when that post was originally made. I was referencing the 'oh aaaddison' user (or however that was spelled) before he got banned for being a dick.
Basically, I was kidding around. Don't take shit too seriously.
Ach, insert foot in mouth, terribly sorry about that.
I'll slow down there and make sure things arent just jokes,
hell, I make enough of those.
And I gotta see that original post, by the way. Is it still around?
Post by: Storm Rider on 20 Nov 2006, 11:33
Also, you should take note that if I ever fail to capitalize or punctuate my posts properly, it's a pretty clear sign I'm being messing around.
Post by: CutMan on 20 Nov 2006, 11:37
And noted.
Post by: CutMan on 20 Nov 2006, 11:55
hilarious. Thanks for linking me, seriously, I can't stop laughing. XD
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 21 Nov 2006, 15:33
They don't act pretentious and I love them to death, so you get back into the same debate... are they being pretentious - knowledgable for the sake of showing off knowledge- or do they genuinely just like talking about books? considering that THS go on to reference Billy Joel and Meatloaf (and the Mountain Goats) and John Darnielle talks about obscure Nintendo games on his blog i'm thinking non-pretension.... but then i get back to an album starting with "Some nights I think that Jack Kerouac was right"....
Post by: spinning_Starlet on 24 Nov 2006, 16:59
ANY local band that has played at my pub (with one or two exceptions) who has EVER said "yeah. But i'm in the band"
FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!! It really makes very little difference to me.
*ahem*
Sorry.
Post by: BeoPuppy on 24 Nov 2006, 18:14
Post by: spinning_Starlet on 24 Nov 2006, 21:14
The difference it make is i am actually now going to be even more sarcastic and mean to you* than i generally (sp?) am to customers.
:-D
i love my job.
*general. not you personally.
Post by: BeoPuppy on 24 Nov 2006, 23:30
Post by: spinning_Starlet on 28 Nov 2006, 17:21
Bradford
England.
But Hurry.
It is closing on new years eve. it is its last night open.
the week before it closes i am allowed to be as mean as i want, seeing as we do not need to encourage the customers to, y'know... come back at all.
:-D i cannot wait!
Post by: KharBevNor on 28 Nov 2006, 21:20
Hmm .. isn't quality determined not only by technical prowess but also by (emotional) content? I mean ... maybe Nirvana (there's that example again) weren't really technically gifted but you cannot deny them a certain substance. It may not be musical genius but at times ... wasn't it possibly art?
I never said that technical prowess is important. The key is your vocabulary, whether it be visual, linguistic or musical. If you haven't got the language in which to express yourself in a medium, you aren't going to be able to produce quality work, no matter how good your ideas or how strong and profound your feelings. You need to know the tricks of the trade, the theories of colour or music or grammar or whatever that will allow whatever it is inside you to make the transition into a strictured medium.
Post by: ScrambledGregs on 28 Nov 2006, 21:49
I think Ryan Adams is pretentious, but only because he records and releases so many albums Robert Pollard is telling him to slow down.
Post by: Dimmukane on 28 Nov 2006, 22:15
The Market Tavern.
Bradford
England.
But Hurry.
It is closing on new years eve. it is its last night open.
the week before it closes i am allowed to be as mean as i want, seeing as we do not need to encourage the customers to, y'know... come back at all.
:-D i cannot wait!
hehe, sounds like a good time. if i could, i'd fly over there just so you could yell at me and i could start a brawl.
Post by: jimib on 29 Nov 2006, 15:19
interviewer - so what have you been upto between record your newest album and the last album?
ctt- ..........recording this album
interviewer - .....um, besides recording that album?
ctt - sleeping.
i think the interviewer then went to ask the girl keyboardist some questions instead
Post by: David_Dovey on 29 Nov 2006, 15:45
Luke Steele is like this centuries Brian Wilson! But with 1/16 of the talent!
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 29 Nov 2006, 16:25
I should mention that the devil was in my yard, but the devil is no longer in my yard.
Post by: camelpimp on 29 Nov 2006, 22:55
I guess there's my litmus test: if I like their music and yet still want to punch them in the face, they are pretentious. Which doesn't make sense, so scratch that. But it SOUNDED concise.
Which a lovely, horrible thing about art is that neat little concise theories never work. Which is why the whole, "does more musical training equal better music" argument is pointless. The answer: we don't know. Most people will like music BEFORE evaluating the band's musical abilities.
Post by: redgreengaze on 02 Dec 2006, 00:33
Post by: Narr on 02 Dec 2006, 00:51
The guys think they are THE motherfuckin' best thing to ever happen to Metal. Don't get me wrong; they were a highly influential band and deserve to be talked about in that regard, but they really aren't anything special. They are so incredibly full of themselves that it's rather funny. Seriously, they've become the FACE of over-the-hill rockers who still live in a rose-colored past.
I like a lot of their music. I'm completely and utterly burnt out on it, but I could still probably sing along with just about every song they've ever written up until Load because that's about when they completely lost their minds.
Is it just me, or did the 90's totally shatter the minds of everyone that thought they were big in the 80's? Metallica went loco. Michael Jackson LITERALLY lost his mind. Do I even need to mention Hair Rock in general? The fact that some of the hair rock band members are still alive and can actually articulate complete sentences boggles my mind.
Post by: Patrick on 15 Dec 2006, 10:30
Any band that's ever referenced Tolkien - anyhow, anywhere.
Daw, you don't like power metal at all?
And Narr, I second the entirety of that second paragraph.
Post by: Hat on 15 Dec 2006, 11:36
Is it just me, or did the 90's totally shatter the minds of everyone that thought they were big in the 80's? Metallica went loco. Michael Jackson LITERALLY lost his mind. Do I even need to mention Hair Rock in general? The fact that some of the hair rock band members are still alive and can actually articulate complete sentences boggles my mind.
You raise an interesting point. I blame the fact that they quit doing drugs and drinking. Spend enough time in a permanently altered state of mind, only to have it taken away, and ego-madness is bound to kick in eventually.
Post by: The Eyeball Kid on 16 Dec 2006, 11:39
I like Devo, but whenever I read or watch an interview with Mark Mothersbaugh I really, really want to punch him in the face. I don't know why. Also, I want Morrissey in the balls.
I guess there's my litmus test: if I like their music and yet still want to punch them in the face, they are pretentious. Which doesn't make sense, so scratch that. But it SOUNDED concise.
Thats a great theory.
Try watching a documantary about something music related and seeing Nick Cave pop up to natter on about his theories of art and beauty. Proves the theory for me anyway