Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
beirut really annoy me for some reason.
plus beirut has no obvious connection to nmh. so LOSES.
i've heard a lot of hype about both of them (maybe slightly more for Beirut) but only Hawk & A Hacksaw seem to me to justify it.
wanky sentence i just wrote.
let alone 'hyped'.
p.s. beirut > ah&ah.
even though i do love jeremy barnes dearly.
and i'm trying to work out why.
Beirut is more sad, but the brass bits are lovely and warm. A Hawk and A Hacksaw makes me think of folky dances around around a campfire.
having seen them both live at the same gig, H&AH were not bad but Beirut were awesome. H&AH's best moments were when the band from Beirut joined them on stage.
Beirut are all about the voice & lyrics, they're an emotionally evocative band.
H&AH, for me, are more about the interesting arrangements & rythms, the dynamic interplay between the accordian & violin. Except for a few songs like 'Portland Town' which resonate.
they are utterly, utterly different bands that are lumped together because they both produce music that is derived from 'Balkan' influence.
however, only one of them is playing a Drowned in Sound tour in April 2007...
because H&AH are often Beirut's backing band?
Although i agree that they do different things, it's not that tenuous a connection and they're pretty easy to compare.
I do prefer H&AH, i think it has a lot more musical depth, whereas i find myself not wanting to overplay Beirut because i know i'd get bored of it quickly.
you could still choose a favourite.
why is it necessary to rank everything in order of what's better or worse? why can't we just enjoy things. it's such a competitive American thing to do.
the band that isn't doing a DiS tour is doing a DiS show. not a normal one though. OH NO!
2007 is going to frickin' own.
just a bit o' fun.
i'm sure you like fun little lists as much as the rest.
p.s. i can't wait to see beirut!
if not ranking everything in order of what's better or worse?
i like talking about music though. So.
I agree. It sounds more... real.
And had already had a musical career before that.
Zach and his band are still practically kids.
It stands to reason that A Hawk and a Hacksaw are going to be better than Beirut, simply because of the experience they've had...
does that mean that Aerosmith are better than Beirut?
but A Hawk and a Hacksaw and Beirut are doing similar things. Practice makes perfect. If you're doing something longer you're generally going to do it better.
I realise that isn't everything though. I'm not fucking stupid. I'm just giving a perspective on something and it doesn't necessarily cover EVERY SINGLE FACTOR in what makes a band good.
The first paragraph I mean.
Doing something for longer doesn't make you better at it. If anything you're more likely to get stale the longer you're doing it, whereas a new band can come along with something fresh and brilliant... But yeah, it really makes no difference.
I think both Beirut and AH&H are great for different reasons though, I'm going to sit on the fence for this one.
It's not so much about having BRILLIANT NEW IDEAS. A Hawk and a hacksaw certainly haven't, but they have had some time to hone their style, improve as arrangers etc.
You might get technically better as musician through experience, but that doesn't mean the music is better. And that's what we're judging them on, surely...
I think AH&H and Beirut are bothing aiming for different things though. Beirut seems less about making technically good arrangements and things than AH&H, and more about songs.
It's very rare that you hear somebody moaning about how a writer or author's earlier stuff is better.
Your music is going to develop over time, and as you get technically better as a musician you have more control over what you want to make. If you don't improve then it suggests a general lack of ideas...
is it, or isnt it about having new ideas?
Also, "a general tendency in all artistic disciplines is to improve with experience."
Like, not really, for a start the comparison between musicians and writers in this instance doesnt work at all, you're dealing with two completely different disciplines that work in different ways. Nevertheless I dont think its ever a certainty that someone who has been doing something for a long time is necessarily going to produce something better than someone who is new to it, that depends on individual cases, what conclusion would you get applying your logic to a comparison of Oasis and Arctic Monkeys? And secondly, you do hear people talking about how writers (or filmmakers or whatever) later output isn't as good as their earlier output (Heller, Murdoch, Almodovar, Truffaut, Godard, the list goes on...).
Anyway, I vote a hawk and a hacksaw... I do quite like beirut though.
and both were excellent. Own an album by both but the Beirut one someone stuck in their bag the day I bought it and went back to Edinburgh with it at the beginning of November so I've never heard my own album yet. I was so happy because I got it from 'under the counter' before it was released.
For all of you who are into these two bands I've got a great album from ages ago called Bam by a band called 3 Mustaphas 3. If any of you want a copy pm me and we'll arrange a swap but it may take a while, I'll need to find my copy which may take some time
Last night I was in a record shop, and the guy from the indie section played Beirut.
In 2 mns, he sold 4 albums...
I still found Beirut shit, but that's just me...
As H&AH are average, I suppose I have to say H&AH >>>>> Beirut...
they seem to be a completely different proposition to beirut. aside from the obvious similarity aesthetically what the bands are trying to do seems completely different. beirut is all about the voice, and the feelings and emotions that it evokes, sad but uplifting. ahaah on the other hand are much more about the band as a whole. dancier i suppose.
both are great but beirut does it for me more. his voice is just fucking amazing.