Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
The Housemartins were infinitely better than The Smiths
I'm old enough to remember it when it came out. An excellent album, better than their later stuff.
*i know loads of people like him, i just always see youse lot go on as if he's the worst pop music thing about. that one with rihanna was mint too.
Excepts if it's a multi-suite song. If it's the same tune noodling for 20 minutes, no.
No can't be an answer to that. Imagine there were no track marks in your multi-song suite. BLAM. Instant 1 hour long song.
If you're William Basinski.
d|lp 3 > d|lp 2.1 > d|lp 1.1 > d|lp 2.2
What`s the rush? Big fan of music that can slow down/alter your perception of time.
The equal temperament system of tuning that forms the basis of most western music since the 17th century should be abandoned in favour of the old purer pythagorean system.
Please take a look a this video:
It's also much better than Terror Twilight.
I would go as far to say it is his best album including all Pavement.
very average album with one great song
but his music is fussy, trite and predictable. History's most overrated artist.
I posted it at the bottom of the page
That's a popular opinion (on Dis). Popular and completely incorrect.
Patchy at best
The Rolling Stones are alright I suppose
Pink Floyd are mostly shit
The Smiths are alright I suppose
Led Zeppelin are alright I suppose
"Pink Floyd are mostly shit"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
They're entirely shit
They're actually entirely shit
...the Syd Barrett-era stuff is actually alright.
Floyd could get a groove on and least they went beyond the boring, rigid and predictable pop formula/structure, and I couldn`t trust anyone who doesn`t like Echoes. Fuck the bandwagon jumpers.
but still, a fair bit better than Let It Be.
Also, late 90s/early 00s era Red Hot Chili Peppers were a fun band with a great guitarist (albeit with often shit lyrics).
Actually fuck it, ^this to The Chilli Peppers too...
maybe even their best.
It's JG doing some weird guitar effect. I can see how it can be confused for drums though.
nobody really likes Trout Mask Replica
I think a more unpopular opinion is that it's a relatively accessable album in the grand scheme of things. It's also quite easy to sing along to.
Sucks massive balls.
E.g. see Steely Dan Thread.
Baba O'Riley is bollocks though I'm afraid.
...but then it plummets into total naffness, IMHO.
though I should add that by "Noteworthy", I don't necessarily mean good. For as much credit as Nirvana gets, it seems like most mainstream Rock is either influenced by Pearl jam, Alice in Chains, or Smashing Pumpkins; most indie bands that at all resemble Nirvana do so only because they're more influenced by the same bands that influenced Nirvana
were the new Nirvana
and im confident that they will have been influenced by nirvana, whether you see it or not
Godspeed you Black Emperor!
I'm getting the impression that this will be an exercise in "these bands were influenced by Nirvana's influences, therefore Nirvana gets credit." It's like everything about Nirvana's legacy is about other people's music.
Me and my friends had been listening to Sub Pop's music-- from Mudhoney to Nirvana's Bleach-- so when it became popular, we felt like we'd died and gone to heaven. Especially at that young age, it was inspiring to see that music infiltrating the mainstream rather than becoming the mainstream.
I was 15 in 1991 and my song was "Aneurysm", which was the B-side to "Smells Like Teen Spirit". I saw Nirvana play the Reading Festival and had absolutely no idea of the celebrity that was about to take them. They were just this little band, but they really played amazingly that day. Looking back at that gig, it kind of made them. There was this weird anarchy that was gaining momentum.
At that same Reading Festival, I remember seeing Kurt sitting on the side of the stage with Courtney Love watching Iggy Pop. There was a lot of good music, and that saddens me a little bit. Back then, festivals were pretty alternative. Big ones have all become radio war shows over here.
still don't sound like them (see: my comments at the end of my last post.)
"despite their legendary status, i don't like any bands from the last 15 years who sound like them"
which is nonsense
My argument is that for all of the fawning over Nirvana, their impact is pretty much non-existent outside of the late 90s:
* While it's certainly to be expected that a band will become less overtly influential after they, uh, break up, Nirvana's impact seems to have dropped off entirely and now seems to consist of "Nirvana brought more attention to smaller bands, therefore Nirvana gets credit for bands that sound like Dinosaur Jr." It's not that I dislike any of these bands, I just think it's way misplaced credit.
* Their influence on the major record labels to promote/sign acts they would've otherwise ignored prior pretty much dried up by the end of the 90s (I'm not sure an argument could be made that the labels currently are as open-minded as they were in the early 90s)
all of these are relatively minor gripes that are just part of a larger bit of bullshit. To me, it seems like for as much as Nirvana is lumped in with greats such as The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, Hendrix, etc., none of the legacy of those other bands seem to involve other people's music nearly as much as Nirvana's does. Even if The Beatles kicking off the British Invasion is a big part of their lore, it never overtakes the Beatles' narrative nearly as much as having to explain how Nirvana was a big deal because the 80s underground overtook Hair Metal (which is an increasingly silly argument) and opened the floodgates for smaller bands until the majors became disgustingly conservative again.
I really don't dislike Nirvana, I just really dislike the circlejerk surrounding the band. To be fair, it's not the band's fault, but the whole thing just really falls apart under larger scrutiny.
for what it's worth, I'd say Spiderland and Loveless are much more influential albums from 1991.
just suggesting that, as i say below, you're pretty hung up on the idea of a surveyable, digestible understanding of rock history
It's not necessarily the same thing at all.
I see where you are coming from feed the collapse & see some sense in what you are saying if you said "musically influential."
Nirvana are a bit like the Sex Pistols, in terms of their music they took other peoples ideas and packaged them a bit better.
Nirvana's legacy for me will always be DIY values in the American mainstream. Hugely influential in that way.
well, I did make an argument that their non-musically influenced impact (http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4437906#r7770639) isn't really that prevalent either, but people seem to have missed that...
Not sure I'd associate Nirvana with DIY or their success bringing about more attention to the idea. I guess in a very broad sense...
Nirvana are the most deceptively simple band probably ever, in terms of the gap between how easy it looks to replicate it versus the reality. If you don't have a drummer as good as Dave Grohl or a voice as good as Kurt Cobain, and certainly if you don't have the songwriting ability, you're basically going to sound like one of those bands you mentioned, by accident.
which seems to be a shockingly common trait among Nirvana's legacy; an outlook that comes off as though those bands served no purpose but to eventually influence Nirvana. I don't deny that Nirvana's popularity certainly opened up previously underground bands to a wider audience... but why does Nirvana get credit for a band sounding like Sonic Youth, Dinosaur Jr, etc?
who's taking credit away from Dinosaur Jr? I genuinely don't know what you're talking about.
If a band sound like Dinosaur Jr then they usually get credited as sounding like Dinosaur Jr in my experience, ditto with Sonic Youth.
I just said it's hard to sound like Nirvana (because they were deceptively good) and you said my post was somehow denigrating bands that influenced Nirvana. I feel like I'm missing a step
...but your argument, at least how I read it, was that subtracting some features from Nirvana's sound essentially gives you a band that sounds like either Sonic Youth or Dinosaur Jr.
'For as much credit as Nirvana gets, it seems like most mainstream Rock is either influenced by Pearl jam, Alice in Chains, or Smashing Pumpkins'
if you shoot for Nirvana and miss, you're very likely to end up sounding like one of these bands.
eh, I don't entirely agree, though I understand your point better.
very hooky, pop writing with influences from underground US rock bands.
they were in the right place at the right time and with the right sound done very well, and brought that music to millions of listeners.
in so doing, some of those listeners started making music that sounded like US underground rock music. they were influenced to do so by nirvana.
if you're going to claim that a band having influences means that they cannot be an influence in themselves, then the very idea of influence is complete and utter idiocy
"in so doing, some of those listeners started making music that sounded like US underground rock music. they were influenced to do so by nirvana."
So Nirvana's legacy is that they influenced people to listen to other people's music?
That's what I'm getting at. I don't deny that due to their popularity, Nirvana brought more attention to these bands; my annoyance is that it seems like Nirvana gets some kind of shared credit when the real influence comes from the original band. I'm sure it's unintentional, but it's an attitude that comes off as if those bands contributed nothing beyond being an influence on Nirvana; like the quality of their work is irrelevant, their legacy can be summed up as "Kurt Cobain liked 'em".
WHO are these people you're talking about? Where has this happened, specifically?
anyone with half a brain knows that looking at things in these terms isn't of any worth other than to give people a very shallow glos of context.
nirvana don't "own" the idea of playing a distorted electric guitar, but neither do sonic youth.
For what they did - radio-friendly hard rock with substance and underground credibility - they pretty much did it perfectly. No-one's gonna try sound too much like Nirvana because they were the apex of that and it would invite unfavourable comparison.
Really good point.
why would you think what you term 'electronic music' is inherently more interesting than guitar music?
unless it's strictly acoustic, guitar music IS electronic music
+ recording equipment
see what happens
Now: why electronic music is no more inherently interesting than guitar music?
you don't know what you're talking about
...that your opinion "take all the electronics out of your guitar, amp and pedals + recording equipment" is a diversion.
Electronic music is considered music primarily made using electronic devices (synths, samplers, drum machines etc). Let's not be pedantic about amps and stuff. The electric guitar is electric, not electronic.
You confuse electric with electronic:
What's the difference between electric and electronic?
"Electric" uses only PASSIVE components, such as resistors, capacitors and inductors. They are called "Passive" because they do not "act" upon the current/voltage passing through.
"Electronic" is when a component is ACTIVE, or apply some transformation of the current.
A filter made of resistors, capacitors and inductors is electric.
The same filter, using at least a diode, a transistor and/or an op-amp is ACTIVE, and electronic.
(Usually, if there is a vacuum tube, a semi-conductor or some sort of amplifier, we talk of "electronics")
But what is considered "electronic" is different to simply "electric". I'm not a physicist, but there's clearly a difference.
and that is an active component so my band plays electronic, electric music
Bass guitar is electric. If you use an additional electronic device (that pedal) that doesn't mean you produce electronic music, as it's understood in music.
Synths appeared after guitars. You could produce new sounds and a new form of music. That music needed a name. Probably it was called synth music or something else at that time. Anyway "electronic music" proved to be more popular. The music genres names aren't always 100% accurate.
A little analogy: guitar is like a lightbulb, synth is like a pocket calculator. Both use electricity, but the latter is way more advanced.
Now if you think otherwise, you're probably wrong.
I ask this so I can categorize my new sub genre 'bulbcore' a bit better, the is a big muff involved
A standard lightbulb doesn't have diodes, transistors and stuff like that.
Anyway, good luck with your bulbcore music. ;)
is it Electric and Electronic?
Electronic music has a certain aesthetic.
These are just tags to differentiate various music genres. You see a tag and you have a vague idea of how that music will sounds like until you listen the actual music.
How does something look electronic? do i need to stick wires out my bulb?
A simple Google search:
"a set of principles underlying the work of a particular artist or artistic movement".
e.g. "the Cubist aesthetic"
As for your lightbulb, keep it as it is. Its aesthetic it's pretty good.
You can ignore the boop...
Are the Ting tings electronic?
I will never forget the boop
Ting * 3 + boop = duck.
Duck and the Bulbasaurus Rex
"electronic music" is far too wide a thing to have a "certain aesthetic". if this were the case then like one piece of "em" and you'd like them all.
See this: http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4436620#r7770085
Can you explain Deep-blue?
1. On 19 Sept 2013, Body_In_The_Thames said in this topic (the main post) http://drownedinsound.com/community/boards/music/4436620
"I mean, everyone is listening to and likes electronic music these days don't they? It's like guitar music never happened".
Basically he acknowledged that electronic and guitar music are two different entities.
2. On this topic, he wrote: "unless it's strictly acoustic, guitar music IS electronic music".
3. This clearly contradicts what he wrote on 19 Sept.
I can't believe that.
On 19 September you said that everyone is listening to electronic music, like guitar music never happened. Good.
Today you said that guitar music music IS electronic music. If it's the same thing, then why on 19 September you mentioned them as two different genres?
Because if you replace electronic with guitar (they're the same thing according to you) you get: "I mean, everyone is listening to and likes guitar music these days don't they? It's like guitar music never happened".
Does this makes sense to you?
PS: I did a bit of programming, so don't try to fool me with weak arguments. Use your brain.
What do you imagine that capitalisation indicates?
Once again: today you said that guitar and electronic music are the same thing; on the previous topic you said that electronic music is more popular like guitar music never happened.
Very clear contradiction. How could be electronic more popular than guitar music if they're the same thing (according to you)?
He clearly said that. I don't see anything ironic in what he wrote before. Since when it's this habit of invoking irony when someone is caught contradicting himself?
Is this the jokes topic and I don't know?
and that you speak it very well considering this - infinitely better than any language i've ever tried to learn.
however, i would advise you to try and get a handle on what irony means and how it is used in britain (obviously this is the internet, not britain, but on this board the vast majority of people are british), and to think about how it can be used, and the fact that he "clearly" said something and that you "don't see anything ironic" in no way contradicts the existence or effect of irony
Maybe I should follow a course in British irony. It's quite subtle it seems...
it tears our lives apart
can't believe he doesn't know the difference. What a shitty Body!
has no more worth or value than electronic music.
Every song should be judged on its merit. Not because it's x or y genre, that means it's worse or better than a or b genre.
moves to Glasgow, suddenly becomes the big man
why do people keep embarrassing themselves by making them
why does he keep embarrassing himself by making posts
but what am i
Did anyone force you to visit this topic? Is that hard to ignore it?
is that these terrible threads are really commonplace, which is a bad thing for the music board.
actually I can't say how deep his concern runs. but fuck these kinds of threads anyway. RUINING THE BOARD, M8
*internet-shakes head, then internet-wanders off to ilxor or hipinion or something*
it's not like the other threads just cease to exist. you can have both, it's fine, really not worth getting upset over.
and I was listening to the Housemartins.
i couldn't hear you over the sound of how boring you are on a daily basis
she saved them from continuing and making progressively shittier music.
would be vastly improved if you removed every string except the lower E.
and I'm already there with that one. who needs the other strings?
almost killed music
the beach boys were a bad novelty act
Surf's Up, Friends, Sunflower, Wild Honey, Holland, 20/20 etc...
That so-called "warm sound" of vinyl is actually distortion. And that is far from high fidelity (to hear the original recorded sound).
It's perfectly reasonable for people to say that they prefer the sound of music played on vinyl. You might not agree, which is also fine, but their opinion is not invalidated by a technical analysis of why vinyl sounds different.
Get with the digital age, granddad!
It's like saying photographs are 'better' than paintings.
Life's more complicated than that.
Anyway, I'm off to wind up my gramophone...
Enough for me.
But only because I enjoy collecting records, etc.
How can something that's recorded in a far far inferior way, sound better than something that's recorded in a far far superior way.
It's actually impossible.
I mean - produced onto a listening format!!
Dirty Moose = tune.
and like things "just because of the way they sound" are morons who like shitty music EVEN if they like the same stuff as me, because they are obviously listening to it in a completely different way.
have something to say about that.
See also: Vashti Bunyan.
There are exceptions of course.
and that wouldn't be an intrinsically bad thing anyway
are still good.
I occasionally imagine a parallel universe where The Thrills were never flustered by so many negative reviews, and spent the rest of the 00s releasing increasingly more interesting records instead of increasingly less interesting records.
Santa Cruz and One Horse Town are tunes
I remember the NME used to slate them on a weekly basis during the whole 'New Rock Revolution' era. And whenever they get mentioned on DiS, it's always as a punchline.
it's a no from me
it may never click with someone as well as it could have
the trouble is that I got into all of the bands who were massive influences on them before I gave them a proper go so they've always just sounded like a bit of a knock-off to me
please. I get bored.
I politely decline your invitation to bloated tedium.
Definitely didn't mean to this that.
and I stand by it.
Have you ever been at a gig and though, "I was enjoying that but now I'm getting bored, when is this going to end"?
That has happened to me about a thousand times. With notable exceptions being every Godspeed and Mogwai gig I've been too, plus a few others that just play 5 minute songs - ie, less suited to playing for ages.
But a a rule, 40 minutes would be a lovely set time, no space to overdo it.
20 min. That was it. Changed my life.
Controversial, I admit.
Mansun's Six is a terrible, terrible album.
don't think I quite qualify for weird in the same way guntrip does
I'm not sure I've ever expressed an opinion on Six on here.
I dont remember which user always expressed their opinion on Six
That's right, you can't.
it's just not particularly memorable, one or two tracks aside.
the you-can't-have-a-negative-opinion-unless-you've-personally-bettered-the-object-of-ridicule argument
You don't like Thriller? Come back when you've sold 500 billion records. Yeah good logic.
(AND ARE GENUINELY BRILLIANT [prior to their last album])
was the greatest album of the last decade
....since deep-blue came back.
but it felt very much like a kind of shit band trying to prove they at least have decent taste in music. Soem of it's quite good, others just don't really do anything for me. Skying is much more consistent.
also, ice age is a bit embarrassing.
yeah, I think I skipped the track the first time I heard that.
I Only Think Of You drags down the album's momentum a bit too.
For me, it's better
Sunn, MBV and Fuck Buttons are my limits of noise.
I mentioned that before
It has built up a cult status thing due, initially, to the Spike Island drug-fuelled nostalgia which has been perpetuated by subsequent generations.
Second Coming is a much better record.
When I listened it, I had few favorite rock albums. I liked that album instantly. And I wasn't the only one. Still sounds amazing.
feedthecollapse feverishly trying to argue that nirvana haven't been influential was pretty funny
I only made the thread because I saw deep-blue was back on the boards.
disappear in shame
You don't impress anyone with your taste.
not that bleepy bloopy shit you listen to
It means you can think outside the box, maaaan.
I get told all the time I have terrible taste in music. In fact the exact words I usually get are "you love shit"
PF may be old music, but is still fucking awesome.
the is just no place for dull monotonous wankery passing it's self off as interesting, edgy and anything other than the pretentious sludge ridden bullshit it actually is.
Are you curious how I call what you wrote above? Bullshit. Don't hate, it's just my opinion.
but my opinion of your opinion is that it's sooooooooo wrong that Pink Floyd would probably write a shitty concept album about it today if they didn't realize they were too shit and embarrassing to continue as a band and split up.
it was fucking shit
U2 and Coldplay are popular because of marketing, sure, but also they have great songs. They're also great live bands. Their gigs are big events everywhere they are.
Real or fake instruments, they're all sound generators. The final result is what counts.
I'm leaning on the side of Electronic right now though.
It needs more appreciation.
Deadly serious here.
The Cure, The Go Betweens, Public Enemy, Prince, Talking Heads, The Fall, Japan, Talk Talk, Human League, Soft Cell, Caberet Voltaire, The Associates, Orange Juice, Dexys, Tom Waits, Violent Femmes, Aztec Camera, Blue Nile, Cocteau Twins, Run DMC, Eric B and Rakim, Husker Du, The The, The Triffids, Jesus and Mary Chain, Felt, LL Cool J, Kate Bush, Prefab Sprout, Scritti Politti, Dead Can Dance, Michael Jackson, Boogie Down Productions, Sisters of Mercy, The Wedding Present, The Stone Roses, Pixies, Jungle Brothers, Soul II Soul, Fugazi, Inner City, Sonic Youth, NWA, American Music Club, Slick Rick, The House of Love, 808 State, A Guy Called Gerald, Galaxie 500, Kurtis Blow, The Specials, Grandmaster Flash, Heaven 17, ABC, The Birthday Party, Grace Jones, Afrika Bambaata, XTC, The Birthday Party, Trouble Funk, Dinosaur Junior, Happy Mondays, De La Soul, My Bloody Valentine,
Some opinions are 'unpopular' because they're just stupid.
I really want to listen to Losing My Edge now, thanks
you're not a better person for having them
no one believes me.
they sound like skying-era horrors if anything
Pulp do charging keyboard + guitar churn.. A few of Toy's tracks absolutely sound like It, Freaks and Separations stuff.
especially the slowed down one off youtube. Crushing
I'm listening to the new Moonface album. It's just piano and vocals, and it's fucking great. Take that, deep-blue!
Great thread btw, sad I missed most of it.
This thread is like a load of untrue OP's. So it's quite a timesaver.
and, maybe this is just me, but does anyone else think most of the albums pitchfork gives a score less than 8 to are actually the most interesting albums?
reminds me, i heard a joy division song once and i didn't like it that much. i decided from then on to hate them and to tell everybody that i hate them until the end of time, which seemed like a lot more fun than actually listening to that prick complain across several albums. it started nice, a few shocked reactions and "well you MUST listen to their live album" and for a while i was satisfied with that. but in time i needed more, and so i'm now at the point where when i tell people i HATE joy division, i immediately fart into a jar, seal it, and put a label on noting the time and place. i collect them and smell them when i'm lonely, every jar reminds me of each unique rebellion i've committed against the presumptive indie mindset. i'm also quite into nyc ghosts & flowers.
me and my brother used to share a room. we used to fart in a jar and seal it then smell it later.
the Breeders are better than the Pixies though aren't they
Massively influential but actually kinda crap.
Never understand why they get lumped in with Can etc
but all their tracks with vocals are uniformly awful.
Put up your dukes mate! *slaps face with glove*
yeah, you read that right. i said it.
yep, fuckin' went there.
Not Falling tbh
it's great. but fucking iowa.
I think the bands that were influenced by this period (i.e Godflesh, Head of David, Loop, etc.) were much more interesting as they added a bit more to the sound.
I do like their debut EP though.
early swans is about a billion times better than LOOOP
and godflesh as well (I've never heard head of david)
eh, I just think they do something more with early Swans music other than the CHORD! CHORD! CHORD! (repeat for 5 minutes until song ends) structure; even Swans themselves recognised that they should probably be a bit more ornate with that formula.
Head of David was primarily known for having Justin Broadrick as drummer for one album just before he formed Godflesh. They're not a great band and they're certainly in need of a remastered catalogue, but they're enjoyable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6EvjcWmBJw (Justin appears on this album)
barring the first half of Cop Shoot Cop, but even that overstays its welcome. Also the title track isn't all that good.
but then i realised i rarely get past halfway when i put the album on. and i love this album too, it's just a bit of a slog.
Are anywhere near as good as you think they are the first time you listen to them.
Not sure if I'd care for it now, though.
everything after was rather shit, though. I also think Johnathan Davis was contractually obligated to cry about a family member who fucked him (literally or figuratively) on each records. Not sure if that's better or worse than his awful scat singing he did on every track (think: Twist.)
And I am pretty much a proper grown-up...
should have packed it in then.
is The Open.
aside from his tendency to play Hey Jude at almost every event he's asked to play at.
Nice bloke - belting songwriter... not sure what more needs to be said.
Hey Jude fucking stinks though.
Watching it being played live on tv= Ugh
not by a whole lot, but Automatic has always been a rather stiff album that sounds a bit too much like Billy Idol for me*. I think it's fairly positive standing is based only on 2 or 3 tracks.
Though nothing on Munki is quite as good as Head On or Blues From a Gun, even ignoring how much filler is on Munki, I think it has more goods tracks than Automatic.
*Ironically enough, the John Peel version of Coast to Coast sounds even more like Billy Idol, but I prefer that version.
can be annoying, on a bad day, mainly due to the way the vocals, bassline and synth use exactly the same melody in the chorus. It's a bit sixth form.
I still love it though.
I spawned a monster