I really hate som of the popular music around today that are for teen. Tunes and stuff like that are mostly good for dancing.
But the lyrics and videos are just WOW. Has feminism done really this little?
like
Those songs are about getting drunk and having sex. and treating women like objects.
Acording to some people who went to junior prom at my school the place was filled with songs like that.
Why would the school even consent to that.
What does dakka think?
garret wrote:I is not about that. It about sending the wrong message to women.
Hmmm, I suppose I can agree that if referanced to "a young girl" (8-15) this isn't apropreiate.
However,in the larger picture,pfft...this sort of thing is no better/worse than the "millions" of "messages" dericted at women every day via advertising/magazines/entertainment...or for that matter,dericted at men.
There is a lot of "crap" in the world,it's up to the individule to decide if they want to watch/participate/belive it.
Whatever, chicks were just as freaky in the roaring 20's and free loving 70's just ask Frazz, he ws there for both. Nobody is forcing girls to do anything. In fact groupies have been doing this since the 80's glam rock days. As for music. It's more about how hot the singer looks, thinks to TV and music videos. If you want good music, type in Underground rap /rock and pick a cd. or tune in to your local crazy college radio station. If you are to lazy for that then...
Well, hardcore here is just utter rubbish. Actually.. I think that about most pure electronic music. It's all just 5 seconds of music pretty much on repeat... with the random intermission. Theres always an intermission.
Rap isn't musing either if you ask me, but yea... personal taste it is I guess...
Well dance music is the cure to this issue in my mind. Or at least one option. For one most dance music is made by skint late teens early twenties who are bellow trying to sell their product to the masses and instead are most probably trying to atract the attention of a dj so they can get their record played in nightclubs, on the radio etc. So the music is generally the primary selling point of the product, rather than sex.
Well, I haven't stuck to a single genre in years. I pretty much just listen what I like at a certain time, for instance, lately, I've been listening a lot to the Gorillaz. Before that, Imogen Heap.
Right now I'm listening to Machine Head. Inconsistency ftw.
I listen to music like the ones you posted. I'm a junior in highschool at the moment, and our Prom is this weekend. I've already had a look at the playlist, and as you said, music such as this is very prominent.
Something you have to understand is that teen culture is changing rapidly. Whether it's for the better is questionable, but music like this is the norm, so schools don't exactly think much about it (and I go to a Catholic High School). Teens have been getting drunk, having sex, and doing drugs since God knows when; this music isn't going to and hasn't changed or adversely affected that. And sending the wrong messages to women? Alot of girls at my school listen to this kind of music, but they aren't any more slutty than girls that listen to other genres. There are always going to be slutty girls; that's just the way it is. There's always that girl that sleeps around. Somehow I doubt that mainstream music is affecting that. I have enough faith that women are intelligent enough to not base their morals on what they hear in music.
Like I said, I listen to this music because it's got a good beat, is good to dance to, and I personally enjoy it. If you don't, that's okay, everyone has their own taste in music. For instance, I listen to this stuff, but I also listen to Death Metal, Rock, Hardcore, Techno, and even some (SOME) Country.
if you are at a venue where you dance.
I fail to understand the point of it outside that context.
Unless it is being pumped out of some dudes carsystem that is more poweful than the car in which it is installed.
In which case the purpose is to cause tinnitus in later life.
also make sure you wear a vest and eat properly
I just hate a lot of modern music. I prefer listening to classics instead of a bunch of teenage wannabes who will crash and burn at the age twenty-five.
Wait, what? You mean this is discussing the references in music? Oh, Ok. In that case, I agree. A lot of female artists today seem to care less about whether a song is good or not, because in their heads it seems all that is going on is "Right, so I'm making the film clip. SHould I wear almost nothing, or really slutty clothes?"
It is just sad really, that they seem to lack confidence in their music, and attract viewers by the clothes. But don't mind me, I got lost in the first half of my rant.
garret wrote:Those songs are about getting drunk and having sex. and treating women like objects.
Acording to some people who went to junior prom at my school the place was filled with songs like that.
Why would the school even consent to that.
What does dakka think?
The sentence itself sounds like what the average male's fantasize about doesnt it?
Thats what makes those songs appealing, its singing out their fantasies.
Now days everything we want are in excess , excess violence, blood and gore and sex.
Geez we'll spawn Slanesh pretty soon like this...
This woman is awesome: I knew her back in the Halifax days. Actually it's kind of weird how many people I knew from back in the day that actually made it:
Were you around in the 90's? Music was exactly the same then. 80's too. 70's also. It's amazing how music has been getting "worse" for 40 years.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LunaHound wrote:
garret wrote:Those songs are about getting drunk and having sex. and treating women like objects. Acording to some people who went to junior prom at my school the place was filled with songs like that. Why would the school even consent to that. What does dakka think?
The sentence itself sounds like what the average male's fantasize about doesnt it? Thats what makes those songs appealing, its singing out their fantasies.
Now days everything we want are in excess , excess violence, blood and gore and sex. Geez we'll spawn Slanesh pretty soon like this...
You might want to watch out about how you use the word average, and "these days" is meaningless. Ozzy used to bite heads off of chickens in concert and reign in blood came out when I was like six.
You know, I'm starting to think the whole. "Back in the good old days" is really just a reason to not think about how fethed up stuff is today. Which granted is not bad at all. But people in the past all had problems just different ones depending on how far back you go.
Shadowbrand wrote:You know, I'm starting to think the whole. "Back in the good old days" is really just a reason to not think about how fethed up stuff is today. Which granted is not bad at all. But people in the past all had problems just different ones depending on how far back you go.
There is no "back in the good old days" people just like to romantisize their youths. Music has gotten better in the last fifty years, the world has gotten better in the last fifty years. Things usually are getting better. But people get old as they get old, and when your old new things suck.
Shadowbrand wrote:You know, I'm starting to think the whole. "Back in the good old days" is really just a reason to not think about how fethed up stuff is today. Which granted is not bad at all. But people in the past all had problems just different ones depending on how far back you go.
There is no "back in the good old days" people just like to romantisize their youths. Music has gotten better in the last fifty years, the world has gotten better in the last fifty years. Things usually are getting better. But people get old as they get old, and when your old new things suck.
So, what you are saying is that nobody really liked their past. They really like what is going on now more than what was going on back when they were young?
Umm. Most new school hip-hop/rap sucks. It's just beats with no actual meaning or poetry.
At least Tupac could put lyrics, that while no Shakespeare, at least made rap into something more than just beats and stolen hooks.
Don't hate all rappers but 2 icons of rap, Tupac and Notorious (God Bless them) set the bar and none have come even close yet. I like Dre and Snoop but they still don't hold a candle to Tupac or Notorious.
Country sure as hell hasn't gotten better. I like SOME new artists but none can still compare to 50's, 60's and 70's country.
Rock hasn't gotten any better. Not many acts come out in 20 years that can top Led Zeppelin, The Doors, The Who, Pink Floyd.
Sure it's a matter of opinion and perhaps to you Shuma music is better but IMO it's not. That is something I know you can't say I'm wrong about. Ha.
I'll agree that country has gotten worse, but keep in mind that country and western is a new genre. It used to just be rock before. Pink floyed also wasn't rock, it was psychadellic (it's still not rock). I disagree about the doors though, there have been hundreds of acts that have outdone the doors. Same with the who. Both were great, but they were hardly in the same category as pink floyd (who are still the masters of their game).
He's saying RNB/RAP artist number Y is better then anything we made in the last 40 years. Right?
Also, 90's music, though horribad too, was at least funny.
Rap basically had it's start in the 80's and new rap is a hell of a lot better than old rap. Public enemy and NWA were good for the times, but they don't hold much of a candle compared to what del the funkee homosapian or nujabes could lay down. Hell, even wu-tang did it's best stuff later.
Don't hate all rappers but 2 icons of rap, Tupac and Notorious (God Bless them) set the bar and none have come even close yet. I like Dre and Snoop but they still don't hold a candle to Tupac or Notorious.
You should probably stop listening to dre and snoop then. Both suck. Tupac was alright, biggee wasn't really anything major. He just just died and got martyred into a west/east cost movement.
At least we somewhat agree on Tupac (ugh, I think I'm gonna be ill).
Lots of rap acts in the past 5 years are just garbage. Just some black dude wanting to make an easy dollar by pumping bass through speakers.
Lots of rap acts in the 90s and 80s were garbage too. Just some black dudes wanting to make an easy dollar by pumping bass through speakers. That hasn't changed. Do you like any rap thats contemporary besides major label artists like dre or snoop?
Also as an aside, del isn't in the gorillaz. The gorillaz is basically just danial abarn and whatever artists he scrounges together. Hating the gorillaz implies that you hate dre and snoop as they are both collaborators with the "gorillaz".
Forgettable music gets forgotten. New forgettable music gets produced. We've forgotten the
old forgettable music, and so we assume that music has gotten worse.
I'll agree that country has gotten worse, but keep in mind that country and western is a new genre. It used to just be rock before. Pink floyed also wasn't rock, it was psychadellic (it's still not rock). I disagree about the doors though, there have been hundreds of acts that have outdone the doors. Same with the who. Both were great, but they were hardly in the same category as pink floyd (who are still the masters of their game).
Actually, Pink Floyd are considered either Psychedelic Rock or Progressive Rock. Which is a sub-genre of rock obviously. Also, Rock and Country have been considered under different genres for a very long time. Ever since Bob Dylan went electric really. Rock was considered for the longest time (still is considered by some) a sub genre of the Blues.
Either way, whether music has gotten better or worse in your opinion over the last few decades. A lot of people consider "the good old days" to be better because they have the opinion that it is better. Mostly because they probably own all the music from "the good old days" and listen to it regularly over any new music that comes out now.
Music technology and recording has obviously gotten better over the years, but you cannot argue that quality of the music itself has gotten better. Opinions are opinions friend.
I'm not a big fan of rap honestly. I like Tupac, Notorious, Snoop and Dre and Eminem.
My last gf tried to get me to listen to Flo-Rida and TI but that gak hurt my ears. No substance, just beats.
If I want to just listen to lots of bass to catchy beats I'll switch the XM to trance/house/techno or dance. If I want bleeding ears I'll crank up my metal to ridiculous volumes.
malfred wrote:So we've boiled this discussion down to:
Forgettable music gets forgotten. New forgettable music gets produced. We've forgotten the old forgettable music, and so we assume that music has gotten worse.
Essentially.
Actually, Pink Floyd are considered either Psychedelic Rock or Progressive Rock. Which is a sub-genre of rock obviously. Also, Rock and Country have been considered under different genres for a very long time. Ever since Bob Dylan went electric really. Rock was considered for the longest time (still is considered by some) a sub genre of the Blues.
Either way, whether music has gotten better or worse in your opinion over the last few decades. A lot of people consider "the good old days" to be better because they have the opinion that it is better. Mostly because they probably own all the music from "the good old days" and listen to it regularly over any new music that comes out now.
Music technology and recording has obviously gotten better over the years, but you cannot argue that quality of the music itself has gotten better. Opinions are opinions friend.
Good point on music terminologies, though isn't prog rock a fairly new invention? I'm certain that during their time many would not have considered artists like pink floyed or king crimson to be rock. Music terminologies are black forests of confliction and fandom, we should probably abandon any argument pertaining to them early. Nothing good ever really comes from them.
I would argue that the prevalence of foreign influences and the sheer increase in artists worldwide (accompanying globalization and the modernization of many countries) that music has to have gotten better by default. More people working on making music means that by volume more of them will be good. Then by volume more of them will be great.
I'm not a big fan of rap honestly. I like Tupac, Notorious, Snoop and Dre and Eminem.
What did you think of the first youtube vid I posted. "feathers".
ShumaGorath wrote:I would argue that the prevalence of foreign influences and the sheer increase in artists worldwide (accompanying globalization and the modernization of many countries) that music has to have gotten better by default. More people working on making music means that by volume more of them will be good. Then by volume more of them will be great.
If you are going to argue that with more artists worldwide, the amount of good music would increase, you would also have to factor in that the amount of crappy music would also increase.
ShumaGorath wrote:I would argue that the prevalence of foreign influences and the sheer increase in artists worldwide (accompanying globalization and the modernization of many countries) that music has to have gotten better by default. More people working on making music means that by volume more of them will be good. Then by volume more of them will be great.
If you are going to argue that with more artists worldwide, the amount of good music would increase, you would also have to factor in that the amount of crappy music would also increase.
True! But I personally would rate musical quality by the number of good artists, it's easy to find good music when there are a lot of good artists and bad artists, it's harder when there are few in both camps. A bigger pyramid has a higher top.
The rap scene more than many others suffers under its label artists. There are an incredible number of good rappers, but the monolithic status of the bigs like 50 and snoop make it very difficult for them to break out meaning that the crappier R&B artists tend to filter through and move into rap (hence it's movement towards dance beats and lyrical tripe).
Sure some will think Em is just drivel but under all his gay bashing and anti-women rhetoric (which he doesn't actually believe) his songs have messages.
I like a lot of mainstream music but most of the metal I like is non-mainstream; most dance/techno/rave is not exactly "major record label". In fact, is any of it really mainstream other than maybe Moby?
Shuma wrote:Good point on music terminologies, though isn't prog rock a fairly new invention? I'm certain that during their time many would not have considered artists like pink floyed or king crimson to be rock. Music terminologies are black forests of confliction and fandom, we should probably abandon any argument pertaining to them early. Nothing good ever really comes from them.
Hey, you could always just talk to me. The term 'Progressive Rock' came to popularity in the late 60s, and was used to describe rock and roll music that sought to include influences outside of the standard blues scale material/accompaniment. The Beatles were considered by some to be progressive rock in their late period, but naturally there IS some crossover in terms of what constitutes progressive rock, and what constitutes psychadelic rock - but as you rightly pointed out, that is the realm of fandom. Such is the nature of discourse in this area. I think the most accurate appraisal would be to say that psychadelic rock was still heavily reliant on blues scale material and traditional rock and roll band instrumentation - as the focus begins to shift towards alternative instrumentation and scale material a new, 'progressive' rock music begins to take shape. It's an evolution - these things are rarely delineated clearly. King Crimson and Pink Floyd were definitely considered progressive rock bands in their time, although Barrett-era Floyd (i.e Piper At The Gates of Dawn) is one of those 'evolution' records that is hard to define. So why bother?
As for 'Country and Western', that term was cooked up by record executives to replace a term they had used earlier to describe rural American music - namely, 'Hillbilly Music'. Off the top of my head, I think it began being used in the 20s or 30s. Jimmy Rodgers is widely considered to be the first C&W 'star', in fact he was one of the first 'true' pop stars.
Back on topic, modern pop music is not great, but study popular music for any length of time and tell me there was a period in which all artists were! Even in the 60s and 70s there was a lot of gak. Anyone who needs proof that modern popular music hasn't got the monopoly on being crap need look no further than this little, ahem, 'gem':
NOT. SAFE. FOR. WORK. I would also recommend headphones.
I dunno if you ask me its all about metal and classic rock, And don't mistake me for only liking Black Metal, I don't like much Death Metal though.
I like the music that all came from, hell I to this day still have Def Leppard casettes.
sexiest_hero wrote:Whatever, chicks were just as freaky in the roaring 20's and free loving 70's just ask Frazz, he ws there for both. Nobody is forcing girls to do anything. In fact groupies have been doing this since the 80's glam rock days. As for music. It's more about how hot the singer looks, thinks to TV and music videos. If you want good music, type in Underground rap /rock and pick a cd. or tune in to your local crazy college radio station. If you are to lazy for that then...
Ayah, I remember the chickas would get a major groove on for anything Wagner threw out there. He didn't name it ride of the Valkyries for nuttin! Mmm, the good old days, when men were men, women were women, and Leichtenstein did what it was told!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll agree that country has gotten worse, but keep in mind that country and western is a new genre. It used to just be rock before. Pink floyed also wasn't rock, it was psychadellic (it's still not rock). I disagree about the doors though, there have been hundreds of acts that have outdone the doors. Same with the who. Both were great, but they were hardly in the same category as pink floyd (who are still the masters of their game).
WTF is this bull ?
Western music was around before rock, before records, before the phonograph.
OT but Rock n Roll (ya pukes!) was around for a substantial period before rock and evolved from swing and soul/jazz/ragtime (really old but some lyrics and rifts are similar)
Remember you poor black guys sang it decades before some Brit sang it, and better!
Electronics aren't evil, despite what your average rockist will tell you. To me the most dangerous music-related thing on the front of women's rights is "artists" like Taylor Swift. She's a full adult yet sings like she's in early high school. She talks about needing boys all the time, and I don't believe it's a far leap to say just to validate her. She will be praised for being "family friendly," not ever trying to push any boundaries and living in her perceived box and essentially having no soul, however. It's really, really sickening to me.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Electronics aren't evil, despite what your average rockist will tell you. To me the most dangerous music-related thing on the front of women's rights is "artists" like Taylor Swift. She's a full adult yet sings like she's in early high school. She talks about needing boys all the time, and I don't believe it's a far leap to say just to validate her. She will be praised for being "family friendly," not ever trying to push any boundaries and living in her perceived box and essentially having no soul, however. It's really, really sickening to me.
She could care less. Her target market is tweeny girls. Be careful young Padiwon to not disturb this hive of predators. Throwing raw meat into a nest of velociraptors is nothing compared to a pack of pre-teen girls. If you survive (and you won't) then their moms will run right over you in their minivans. It will not be intentional, they just drive that bad...
Taylor Swift is not a bad influence on women's rights. She writes songs that her audience identifies with, and isn't trying to make her fans grow up too fast. She writes her own songs which makes her way better than the little Disney brats. And she's writing about her own life experiences.
Frazzled wrote:
She could care less. Her target market is tweeny girls. Be careful young Padiwon to not disturb this hive of predators. Throwing raw meat into a nest of velociraptors is nothing compared to a pack of pre-teen girls. If you survive (and you won't) then their moms will run right over you in their minivans. It will not be intentional, they just drive that bad...
Have you seen the crowd reactions to Justin Bieber?
loranafaeriequeen wrote:Taylor Swift is not a bad influence on women's rights. She writes songs that her audience identifies with, and isn't trying to make her fans grow up too fast. She writes her own songs which makes her way better than the little Disney brats. And she's writing about her own life experiences.
And she's 20 and sings about being 16 and being a fairy tale princess. She really deserved those Grammy's :p
loranafaeriequeen wrote:Taylor Swift is not a bad influence on women's rights. She writes songs that her audience identifies with, and isn't trying to make her fans grow up too fast. She writes her own songs which makes her ...
Hot ginger and dynamite
There's nothing but that at night
Back in Nagasaki
Where the fellers chew tobaccy
And the women wicky-wacky
Woo.
The way they can entertain
Would hurry a hurricane
Back in Nagasaki
Where the fellers chew tobaccy
And the women wicky wacky
Woo.
In Fujiyama
You get a mama
Then your troubles increase.
In some pagoda
She orders soda
Earth-shake milk-shakes, ten cents a piece.
They kissy and huggy nice
Oh, By Jingo! It's worth the price.
Back in Nagasaki
Where the fellers chew tobaccy
And the women wicky-wacky
Woo.
loranafaeriequeen wrote:Taylor Swift is not a bad influence on women's rights. She writes songs that her audience identifies with, and isn't trying to make her fans grow up too fast. She writes her own songs which makes her way better than the little Disney brats. And she's writing about her own life experiences.
And she's 20 and sings about being 16 and being a fairy tale princess. She really deserved those Grammy's :p
Edit: And she butchered Rhiannon!
Not sure why you're jealous about someone who sings to a different market than you are. Completely different circle.
$80Bazillion dollars can't be wrong. Tweener crooners make more money than God. In the last concert run Cyrus tickets were multiples of what U2 tickets were. You tap into that market and you tap bank. Plus all these little demon spawn will always remember those dorky songs from the past. They won't remember Elvis, the Beetles, whatever. But they will remember those crooners.
But as noted, if you aint got Bach you aint got jack so all you youngins can biteth my carbuncled arse!
"Babes, beer, barbeque, and Bach, it doesn't get better than that"
-Budha
It has a lot less to do with jealousy and a lot more to do with that sinking feeling you get in your gut when you see something and know it isn't right, but then that things starts receiving critical acclaim and you fear for everything around you. Something along those lines.
Fateweaver wrote:Sure it's a matter of opinion and perhaps to you Shuma music is better but IMO it's not. That is something I know you can't say I'm wrong about. Ha.
I don't know about shuma but I know I can say you're wrong. The majority of music at any given time is awful, and a lot of it is really awful. Fortunately the really awful stuff is mostly forgotten, while the good stuff is more likely to stick around.
Truth is there's always enough good music around that if you care to find it you'll never stop hearing great new material. It might not always be to your tastes, but there's a lot of good music out there. Just don't go looking for the good stuff on MTV and then get shocked when they're playing the latest pop tart.
ShumaGorath wrote:Also as an aside, del isn't in the gorillaz. The gorillaz is basically just danial abarn and whatever artists he scrounges together. Hating the gorillaz implies that you hate dre and snoop as they are both collaborators with the "gorillaz".
Damon Albarn.
Dreadwinter wrote:Music technology and recording has obviously gotten better over the years, but you cannot argue that quality of the music itself has gotten better. Opinions are opinions friend.
True, it'd be hard to argue music has gotten objectively better (I think an argument could be made for greater diversity and production standards in modern music, but that'd be countered by arguments of how that diversity isn't accessible to modern listeners, and that production standards result in records that are more produced than recorded which can be seen as a bad thing - overall it'd be hard to really establish either way).
I certainly think it'd be just as hard to argue music has gotten worse. When people aren't enjoying modern music as much, it's because of the change in them, not the music. Are people really hunting down decent acts, or just hearing what's on FM radio and remembering the good old days?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And she's 20 and sings about being 16 and being a fairy tale princess. She really deserved those Grammy's :p
Edit: And she butchered Rhiannon!
I don’t know, I don’t think 20 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to sing about stuff that interests 16 year olds, especially when that stuff was written by the artist when she was 16 or 17. Rap and heavy metal consists of 20, 30 and 40 year olds singing about stuff for teen boys. Should U2 be told to stop singing I Will Follow because it’s a childish song written when they were in their teens?
And regardless of the tripe subject matter, that You Belong to Me song is a pretty slick piece of songwriting – I think everyone who heard it knew it was going to sell a million copies.
Fateweaver wrote:Sure it's a matter of opinion and perhaps to you Shuma music is better but IMO it's not. That is something I know you can't say I'm wrong about. Ha.
I don't know about shuma but I know I can say you're wrong. The majority of music at any given time is awful, and a lot of it is really awful. Fortunately the really awful stuff is mostly forgotten, while the good stuff is more likely to stick around.
Truth is there's always enough good music around that if you care to find it you'll never stop hearing great new material. It might not always be to your tastes, but there's a lot of good music out there. Just don't go looking for the good stuff on MTV and then get shocked when they're playing the latest pop tart.
ShumaGorath wrote:Also as an aside, del isn't in the gorillaz. The gorillaz is basically just danial abarn and whatever artists he scrounges together. Hating the gorillaz implies that you hate dre and snoop as they are both collaborators with the "gorillaz".
Damon Albarn.
Dreadwinter wrote:Music technology and recording has obviously gotten better over the years, but you cannot argue that quality of the music itself has gotten better. Opinions are opinions friend.
True, it'd be hard to argue music has gotten objectively better (I think an argument could be made for greater diversity and production standards in modern music, but that'd be countered by arguments of how that diversity isn't accessible to modern listeners, and that production standards result in records that are more produced than recorded which can be seen as a bad thing - overall it'd be hard to really establish either way).
I certainly think it'd be just as hard to argue music has gotten worse. When people aren't enjoying modern music as much, it's because of the change in them, not the music. Are people really hunting down decent acts, or just hearing what's on FM radio and remembering the good old days?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:And she's 20 and sings about being 16 and being a fairy tale princess. She really deserved those Grammy's :p
Edit: And she butchered Rhiannon!
I don’t know, I don’t think 20 year olds shouldn’t be allowed to sing about stuff that interests 16 year olds, especially when that stuff was written by the artist when she was 16 or 17. Rap and heavy metal consists of 20, 30 and 40 year olds singing about stuff for teen boys. Should U2 be told to stop singing I Will Follow because it’s a childish song written when they were in their teens?
And regardless of the tripe subject matter, that You Belong to Me song is a pretty slick piece of songwriting – I think everyone who heard it knew it was going to sell a million copies.
First off, you just said someones opinion was wrong, which isn't possible. It's his F-ing opinion.
Secondly, there are plenty 20 30 and 40+ metal listeners.
And last of all, U2 should be told to stop because they are ear rape.
u2 is ear rape? possibly recent u2, but classic u2 like With or Without You, Who's Gonna Ride Your Wild Horses, All I Want is You, One, Bad, and Pride (In the Name of Love) is magic.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The objective parts of music can be judged objectively, the subjective parts can't.
Objective: John Petrucci plays faster than James Taylor.
Subjective: Beyonce is the new queen of pop.
Been down this road a million times
Mate, has it ever occurred to you that if you just stopped liking Lady Gaga you wouldn't keep having to the same argument over and over again!
I wasn't defending anything, I just foresaw some other comments people had made potentially starting an "objectivity of music" mini-thread within this one and wanted to cut it off before it had the chance to become the monster that it can. If it was as arbitrary as liking a person's music, I might, or at least never admit it openly and not worry a second about it. There's something deeply personal about the relationship Gaga fans have which I won't begin to attempt to explain, but think of it as a mini hippy movement for swallowable terminology. Sooner or later "you people" will see the full effect
"The music you young whippersnappers listen to is nothing compared to what my ancestors used to listen to."
I must agree with whomever said that "Of course it's bad, its not metal" (my comp is being slow, cant see who it was)
And come on, Almost all musicians (pop, rock, rap, other popular ones, not so much classical) have never grown up because they've never had to, all it is to them is booze, boobs, and bongs. Why should they not make women out to be sex objects, thats all (most) teenage men think of women anyway.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:The objective parts of music can be judged objectively, the subjective parts can't.
Objective: John Petrucci plays faster than James Taylor.
Subjective: Beyonce is the new queen of pop.
Been down this road a million times
Mate, has it ever occurred to you that if you just stopped liking Lady Gaga you wouldn't keep having to the same argument over and over again!
I wasn't defending anything, I just foresaw some other comments people had made potentially starting an "objectivity of music" mini-thread within this one and wanted to cut it off before it had the chance to become the monster that it can. If it was as arbitrary as liking a person's music, I might, or at least never admit it openly and not worry a second about it. There's something deeply personal about the relationship Gaga fans have which I won't begin to attempt to explain, but think of it as a mini hippy movement for swallowable terminology. Sooner or later "you people" will see the full effect
im pretty sure music booze and women are kinda related in some way.... probubly in a little triangle thing with arrows going from one to another and back, there are songs about women, there are songs about booze. booze makes most musicions feel a little bit enspired easyer, and booze makes you want women, women want booze, and listen to music(i presume).
Music is more of an oppinion, its like cheese in a few ways, everones got there favorite type of cheese, and youll defend it to the ends of the damn earth, doesnt mean your right or wrong though!!
i think music has gotten better personaly, as the skill of musicions is learnt quicker by someone already knowing it and passing the techneke on instead of havting to figure it out yourself, like everything nearly, technology and history are kinda pushing music forward, as people have to get better and do new things. there isnt much point in say U2 did exactly the same as say justin boober(should be the other way round realy).
lost my line of thought there as i has to blank my mind from the thoughts of that little kid.
last words of this post? "GET TO ZEE CHOPPAAAA!!!!" - Austrian death machine.
cormz wrote:Todays music is just one more thing that makes me lose hope in society.
Hey, no-one's forcing you to listen to 'today's music', you could always just listen to old music that you like, then start a band that plays the type of music you enjoy.
'Be the change you want to see in the world', as they (rather cheesily) say.
cormz wrote:Todays music is just one more thing that makes me lose hope in society.
Hey, no-one's forcing you to listen to 'today's music', you could always just listen to old music that you like, then start a band that plays the type of music you enjoy.
'Be the change you want to see in the world', as they (rather cheesily) say.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Back on topic, the problem with most music is that is has not angry men singing about violence and beer. Conclusion, the world needs more metal.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote: Back on topic, the problem with most music is that is has not angry men singing about violence and beer. Conclusion, the world needs more metal.
Preach my brutha, preach the gospel to the crowd!
The issue with people that only like a certain genre of music is that they usually aren't very discerning in their tastes. Theres so much bad metal out there it the prince of space couldn't roll a ball big enough to get it all. There's good stuff too. As my first post as a not banned man I will post some great music of differing genres for people to listen too and educate themselves.
World folk
Accordian, drum, and a voice.
Prog rock
Electric Guitar, drum, and a voice.
Nu Metal
Bunch of instruments.
Electronic/world
Everything.
Electronic/retro
Beeps and boops
Funk
A flute and some sweet ass drums
Educate yourselves!
Automatically Appended Next Post: For that matter, heres a litmus test. Which of these sounds better.
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - Just out of interest, do you like Blur?
No, and agree with the criticism of plastic beach (gorillaz new album) in that he didn't try hard enough to get collaborators and it ended up coming off as a bit of a classic blur album. Blurs lame.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
loranafaeriequeen wrote:commercial radio is one of the biggest problems with the music industry. every station plays a better variety of the same 10 songs.
Thats because every station is owned by clear channel. Stop listening to radio.
Dude, I can now die a happy pirate, you have completed my soul.
@ Shuma: Oh I know their are good songs outside of metal, Dope, Khorn, Kate Voegelle, Shinedown, their is alot of good music out there that isn't metal. The Offspring is pretty good.
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - Just out of interest, do you like Blur?
No, and agree with the criticism of plastic beach (gorillaz new album) in that he didn't try hard enough to get collaborators and it ended up coming off as a bit of a classic blur album. Blurs lame.
Really? You think so? I would disagree with that in the strongest possible terms (the 'Blur being lame' thing). Have you heard '13'? It's awesome. Never been a fan of Gorillaz, sadly.
Anyone remember them when they were Battleheart? (name pre-signing I think).
I actually prefer their mix/production on the pre-label demos they did.
The lead singer, Chris, used to also be in Splen, a sort of parody band. He was painted completely blue and played the keys. Check 'em out: http://www.splen.co.uk/
--
On topic, Brokencyde are what's wrong with music.
I can't tell whether they're a self parody or not though.
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - Just out of interest, do you like Blur?
No, and agree with the criticism of plastic beach (gorillaz new album) in that he didn't try hard enough to get collaborators and it ended up coming off as a bit of a classic blur album. Blurs lame.
Really? You think so? I would disagree with that in the strongest possible terms (the 'Blur being lame' thing). Have you heard '13'? It's awesome. Never been a fan of Gorillaz, sadly.
Really? I find it very samey and poppy. Hes got a great voice but the insturmentalism and overarching sound is very simplistic and "pretty".
@Goliath: Not by me. I'm just not a huge fan myself. I find the "band with guitar as primary rhythm, verse verse chorus verse chorus bridge chorus chorus and a singer who sounds like lots of other singers" genre to be a little tired. It's irritating on a personal level that just because someone can follow that formula that many people will rank them above another artist who is actually doing something different. That's not even to say I don't listen to stuff like that from time to time, it's just a preference issue.
Goliath wrote:If I mention that I like both Snow Patrol, some of Nickleback's older stuff, Blur AND Gorillaz...
Will I get shouted at?
One of this bands is universally lauded as being incredible. The others are universally lauded as being awful!
What's with Dakkas hate on the gorillaz, though?
Speaking for all of Britain - which I do() - I would say that here, they are generally considered the inferior band to Blur. They really had a massive impact on the culture here. I can see why Americans in general would have a very hard time with them though - they ARE very British!
Shuma, I'm just gonna put 'Trimm Trabb' from '13' by Blur here. Just leaving it here. You don't have to listen to it.
Feel free to, though.
Incidentally, which do you prefer? At The Drive-in or The Mars Volta? Choose wisely.
Listened to the song, and honestly all i heard here is a band that couldn't manage to be what radiohead became (instead breaking up until a bad idea reunion tour much later). It plays well, but the instrumentals are (by modern standards) uninventive, simplistic, and don't contribute to the laconic drawl of Albarns vocals for a good half of the song. The guitar deformation helps, but then they abandon a lot of it when the straight vocals come back in. The song parallels to Black star or creep (Radioheads first album was very heavily influenced by blur) but thats not a particularly endearing value. It's not a bad song, but it's not particularly inventive or original either. It just sort of floats along with peter gabriel and old u2 in the realm of "pretty but empty".
Became:
Blue became... Well, the same.
As for the difference between at the drive in or the mars volta to be honest I do prefer the mars volta. At the drive in was great, and it's a hard decision, but the mars voltas body of work fills my need for avant-garde virtuosity and dark themes better.
That song is really, really minimalistic. Not really a good or bad thing but that sorta drowns out the rest of whatever it's trying achieve to me. I t feels kind of like a verse that never transitions into a chorus, just sort of drones on indefinitely with a completely unrelated cut to piano with an overly processed guitar running through a POD (and do I ever hate a digital effect tainting a guitar when superior analogs are available). The last guitarish bit sounded kinda grungy and, again, counter to whatever the song was trying to accomplish. It wasn't bad IMO, but it kinda felt like the song needed to be finished being written or only half the tracks were recorded. For curiosities sake, tell me what you enjoy about the song and I'll see if I can hear it. I love learning to appreciate different stuff
I like Hadouken! in a cheesy sorta way if you've ever heard of them.
Contrast that blur song against something Albarn produced years later, and you will see a significant difference in actual compositional and vocal skill. That and a good backing set of instrumentals.
Ha, I only heard about Hadouken! off a Gaga forum because they made a statement bashing her. I find them to be entertaining in an over-the-top kind of way
@Shuma: I give the track you posted +50 points for the production quality alone over the other one. I'm still a little confused at what I'm supposed to be hearing though. I hear a layer or two of down-tempo instrumentals and beat that doesn't really push the song, just kind of nudges. The vocal just kind of blends in by not doing anything in particular. I don't understand what's supposed to be impressive about it really. It's kind of like a dying synthesizer reading his memoirs aloud. Could you explain what you like about it so that maybe I could hear it?
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Ha, I only heard about Hadouken! off a Gaga forum because they made a statement bashing her. I find them to be entertaining in an over-the-top kind of way
@Shuma: I give the track you posted +50 points for the production quality alone over the other one. I'm still a little confused at what I'm supposed to be hearing though. I hear a layer or two of down-tempo instrumentals and beat that doesn't really push the song, just kind of nudges. The vocal just kind of blends in by not doing anything in particular. I don't understand what's supposed to be impressive about it really. It's kind of like a dying synthesizer reading his memoirs aloud. Could you explain what you like about it so that maybe I could hear it?
I like some ambient-ish things like the odd Oasis song or down-tempo electronic stuff. If it makes any sense I think a lot of bluegrass or folk music shares a similar feel if a different genre and I enjoy it. There's even a few Velvet Underground songs that have a nice laid back vibe like that. I feel like all of the instrumentation in that song could have easily been done by a beginner so I'm failing to see the objectively good element in it, though I can see the skill put in the arrangement and production.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Ha, I only heard about Hadouken! off a Gaga forum because they made a statement bashing her. I find them to be entertaining in an over-the-top kind of way
@Shuma: I give the track you posted +50 points for the production quality alone over the other one. I'm still a little confused at what I'm supposed to be hearing though. I hear a layer or two of down-tempo instrumentals and beat that doesn't really push the song, just kind of nudges. The vocal just kind of blends in by not doing anything in particular. I don't understand what's supposed to be impressive about it really. It's kind of like a dying synthesizer reading his memoirs aloud. Could you explain what you like about it so that maybe I could hear it?
Do you like downtempo and downbeat music music?
No, he likes costumes!
Zzzzzzzing!
Just kidding, Cannerus!
The attempts at serious musical analysis are cute though, you two. Where to start?
Shuma wrote:The song parallels to Black star or creep (Radioheads first album was very heavily influenced by blur) but thats not a particularly endearing value.
'Trimm Trabb' bears absolutely no structural similarity to 'Black Star' or 'Creep' (which are on different albums, 'The Bends ' And Pablo Honey' respectively) - there is some superficial similarity rhythmically, but that is where any similarity ends really. I don't want to go too deep into the theory behind it, but a cursory examination shows it to be in A Phrygian, which is modal harmony. 'Creep' is in plain old G major (with the addition of a chromatic chord, C minor) as is Black Star - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
'Creep' was written long before Blur were ever signed - the suggestion that Blur were a large influence on 'Pablo Honey' is frankly ludicrous. Blur's early '90s material was a mix of art-rock and Ray Davies, whereas Radiohead where more influenced by American bands. It's not too much of a stretch to say that they were more influenced by Grunge than they were by Blur! You really couldn't pick two more dissimilar albums than 'Pablo Honey' and 'Modern Life is Rubbish'.
Now if you'd have said Massive Attack - you may have had a point. It was around this time that Damon Albarn began to experiment with the types of sounds and effects that would lead to him starting Gorillaz, and stuff like that is a clear influence, in terms of the more 'Dub' pieces, anyway.
That song is really, really minimalistic. Not really a good or bad thing but that sorta drowns out the rest of whatever it's trying achieve to me. I t feels kind of like a verse that never transitions into a chorus, just sort of drones on indefinitely with a completely unrelated cut to piano with an overly processed guitar running through a POD (and do I ever hate a digital effect tainting a guitar when superior analogs are available).
It's all about the sound-world, babe. And if that's a POD....well, it isn't. Trust me. At least not on the Guitar.
And Coxon is Awesome.
But you know, whatever - like them, don't like them. I don't mind.
Srsly though, I'm just calling it how I hear it, which isn't exactly how anyone else in the world hears it. Some people say a song is really emotional and others will say it sounds completely soulless. I do like knowing what other people are hearing so I can try to hear it too. I decided to listen to a bunch of older music a week and a half ago then advance through the ages and see if i pick up anything new in my rotation since I noticed a lot of what I listen to is from the past 10 years. I've recently gotten addicted to CCR's first album for some reason and the aforementioned Velvet Underground as well as The Hollies (one of the most underrated groups ever IMO). It's hard to explain why this stuff is really catching my ear now and it didn't with near the same capacity a few years earlier. I wish you guys were a little more descriptive about why you liked stuff
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:It's all about the vibes, man
Srsly though, I'm just calling it how I hear it, which isn't exactly how anyone else in the world hears it. Some people say a song is really emotional and others will say it sounds completely soulless.
Hey, we're sweet - no worries man. We've had similar discussions before - opinion is just that: opinion.
I do like knowing what other people are hearing so I can try to hear it too. I decided to listen to a bunch of older music a week and a half ago then advance through the ages and see if i pick up anything new in my rotation since I noticed a lot of what I listen to is from the past 10 years. I've recently gotten addicted to CCR's first album for some reason and the aforementioned Velvet Underground as well as The Hollies (one of the most underrated groups ever IMO). It's hard to explain why this stuff is really catching my ear now and it didn't with near the same capacity a few years earlier. I wish you guys were a little more descriptive about why you liked stuff
It's weird though! It's like when your missus asks you! What can you say apart from 'Just because'?
Here is another song, this time by Canadian DJ Deadmau5 (feat. Kaskade). I like it because I find the minimalism unsettling (which is partly why I like 'Trimm Trabb'), and the chords are really atmospheric. The movement is strange because some of the chords feature the 9th interval, which creates slight dissonance and makes for a tense feel. The chords are awesome when they come in, in the most literal sense of the word. I also love the vocal melody - I bet it's modal, but I haven't had time to work it out...
'Trimm Trabb' bears absolutely no structural similarity to 'Black Star' or 'Creep' (which are on different albums, 'The Bends ' And Pablo Honey' respectively) - there is some superficial similarity rhythmically, but that is where any similarity ends really. I don't want to go too deep into the theory behind it, but a cursory examination shows it to be in A Phrygian, which is modal harmony. 'Creep' is in plain old G major (with the addition of a chromatic chord, C minor) as is Black Star - and that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Psychology doesn't respect musical structure and they "sound" quite similar. Pablo honey and creep are also radioheads first two albums and both were in the same scene as (and heavily influenced by (though I suppose indirectly)) blur until they broke out.
'Creep' was written long before Blur were ever signed - the suggestion that Blur were a large influence on 'Pablo Honey' is frankly ludicrous. Blur's early '90s material was a mix of art-rock and Ray Davies, whereas Radiohead where more influenced by American bands. It's not too much of a stretch to say that they were more influenced by Grunge than they were by Blur! You really couldn't pick two more dissimilar albums than 'Pablo Honey' and 'Modern Life is Rubbish'.
Blur was signed in 1991. Radiohead 1993. Black star (on the bends) was released in 1995, two years after modern life, but the temporality is an aside. You're right in stating that they were not directly influenced by them. They were certainly influenced by the environment that both bands were founded in however, and much like the big four grunge bands are founded within the "Seatle sound" radiohead and blur both draw their roots from the contemporary britrock that blur helped found. kind of like how puddle of mud and nickleback sounded exactly the fething same, despite being (supposedly) different bands.
My point was that radiohead evolved since then, quite a bit so and became something generations will enjoy. Blur remained exactly the same.
Now if you'd have said Massive Attack - you may have had a point. It was around this time that Damon Albarn began to experiment with the types of sounds and effects that would lead to him starting Gorillaz, and stuff like that is a clear influence, in terms of the more 'Dub' pieces, anyway.
He actually worked with massive attack a bit as collaboration in the gorillaz too. That said, blur was not influenced by massive attack (nor was radiohead) and gorillaz has so many influences it's almost pointless to discuss them all.
Shuma wrote:Psychology doesn't respect musical structure and they "sound" quite similar. Pablo honey and creep are also radioheads first two albums and both were in the same scene as (and heavily influenced by (though I suppose indirectly)) blur until they broke out.
Pablo Honey and The Bends are Radiohead's first two albums. Hate to nit-pick, but they are one of my favourite bands. As far as the songs you mentioned sounding the same, I'm going to have to just shake my head and leave you to it.
Shuma wrote:Blur was signed in 1991. Radiohead 1993. Black star (on the bends) was released in 1995, two years after modern life, but the temporality is an aside.
Thom Yorke wrote 'Creep' in the late 80's. But yeah - meh. I think it's more a case of the two bands having simalar influences, rather than them influencing each other. They really are two VERY different bands - Radiohead always seem to get lumped in with Britpop, in a similar fashion to the Manic Steet Preachers. It's... inaccurate.
My point was that radiohead evolved since then, quite a bit so and became something generations will enjoy. Blur remained exactly the same.
Except they didn't. Compare 'Charmless Man' to a song like 'Tender' or 'No Distance Left To Run' - there's a definite progression there.
I love Radiohead, own all their albums, and have seen them in concert 3 times. However, I think they have disappeared up their own arses.
Discuss.
Shuma wrote:That said, blur was not influenced by massive attack (nor was radiohead)
Trip-hop was a pretty pervasive influence in British music around the time of OK Computer and later, 13. The use of samples and more programmed (and programmed-sounding) drums is evidence of this. You also had people like DJ Shadow, a direct influence on Radiohead.
Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:It's all about the vibes, man
Srsly though, I'm just calling it how I hear it, which isn't exactly how anyone else in the world hears it. Some people say a song is really emotional and others will say it sounds completely soulless. I do like knowing what other people are hearing so I can try to hear it too. I decided to listen to a bunch of older music a week and a half ago then advance through the ages and see if i pick up anything new in my rotation since I noticed a lot of what I listen to is from the past 10 years. I've recently gotten addicted to CCR's first album for some reason and the aforementioned Velvet Underground as well as The Hollies (one of the most underrated groups ever IMO). It's hard to explain why this stuff is really catching my ear now and it didn't with near the same capacity a few years earlier. I wish you guys were a little more descriptive about why you liked stuff
Pablo Honey and The Bends are Radiohead's first two albums. Hate to nit-pick, but they are one of my favourite bands. As far as the songs you mentioned sounding the same, I'm going to have to just shake my head and leave you to it.
I'm doing several things at once here, forgive my slip.
Thom Yorke wrote 'Creep' in the late 80's. But yeah - meh. I think it's more a case of the two bands having simalar influences, rather than them influencing each other. They really are two VERY different bands - Radiohead always seem to get lumped in with Britpop, in a similar fashion to the Manic Steet Preachers. It's... inaccurate.
It was inaccurate after OK computer. It was pretty accurate until then, since thats what they were. They were great at it, but being great at something doesn't put you in a different category.
Except they didn't. Compare 'Charmless Man' to a song like 'Tender' or 'No Distance Left To Run' - there's a definite progression there.
And when you compare 'There's nowhere left to run' and 'tender' that progression is far less obvious.
I love Radiohead, own all their albums, and have seen them in concert 3 times. However, I think they have disappeared up their own arses
Howso? The bands internals, the members, or the music? I don't think In Rainbows was their greatest album, and the bside of it was even worse, but I I guess I don't know enough about them as a group to see it that way. Their sound went a little to soft for me recently with in rainbows. Hopefully they can get back a little bit of the edge they had.
Trip-hop was a pretty pervasive influence in British music around the time of OK Computer and later, 13. The use of samples and more programmed (and programmed-sounding) drums is evidence of this. You also had people like DJ Shadow, a direct influence on Radiohead.
I would argue that they didn't have a very heavy influence on blur, even with obvious personal acquaintances. I would also disagree that you could attribute the slowly rising use of clearly digital percussion on massive attack. That was a movement that had been ongoing for a few years.
Radiohead though was most certainly influenced by the electronic scenes shadow was in.
As an aside you asked me which I preferred between the mars volta and at the drive in. You then let the answer go unanswered! What was the right answer?
Shuma wrote:Howso? The bands internals, the members, or the music? I don't think In Rainbows was their greatest album, and the bside of it was even worse, but I I guess I don't know enough about them as a group to see it that way. Their sound went a little to soft for me recently with in rainbows. Hopefully they can get back a little bit of the edge they had.
Well, for my part I haven't been crazy about much that they have done since the Kid A sessions (which spawned Kid A and Amnesiac). I loved Kid A (and still do) - it's a ridiculously brave move after what will definitely be considered a classic album in years to come (OK Computer), but Thome Yorke was still able to retain his songwriting abilities. Amnesiac is basically the outakes from that extended period of recording (funnily enough, I think 'Nude' was written about that time..), and it's the first Radiohead album I went 'meh' too. Since then, I think they've let the desire to experiment override their songwriting.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is, because Yorke's songwriting is their strongest element - I'm not interested in hearing him mumble about raindrops.
Shuma wrote:I would argue that they didn't have a very heavy influence on blur, even with obvious personal acquaintances. I would also disagree that you could attribute the slowly rising use of clearly digital percussion on massive attack. That was a movement that had been ongoing for a few years.
Well, yes - here I'm substituting Massive Attack for 'trip-hop' really, as I'm not sure what sort of stuff you're aware of and they're pretty well-known. Perhaps I could have been clearer. I could quite easily have said Portishead or something - the band isn't important, so much as the style.
You're correct in that trip-hop wouldn't have been a major influence initially - but in terms of the sonic landscape, by the time they got to '13' Albarn would most certainly have been aware of it. I think this is borne out by songs like 'Battle' - the bass-line is pure trip-hop. Very queasy-sounding.
Guys, there aint nothin wrong with Shinedown. Shinedown is a good (maybe not great, but good) band, with amazing songs like What a Shame, Cyanide Sweet Tooth Suicide, Call Me, and a few others.
Anywho, what would everyone say is their favorite song of all time? Mine would have to be Kryptonite by 3 Doors Down
As an aside you asked me which I preferred between the mars volta and at the drive in. You then let the answer go unanswered! What was the right answer?
There isn't one!
But I prefer 'Relationship of Command' by At The Drive-In - I think it's better than anything the Mars Volta have done to date by several orders of magnitude. It's just more visceral, which is nicely offset by Rodriguez-Lopez' avant-garde/salsa tendencies. I just don't buy them as a prog band.
Well, for my part I haven't been crazy about much that they have done since the Kid A sessions (which spawned Kid A and Amnesiac). I loved Kid A (and still do) - it's a ridiculously brave move after what will definitely be considered a classic album in years to come (OK Computer), but Thome Yorke was still able to retain his songwriting abilities. Amnesiac is basically the outakes from that extended period of recording (funnily enough, I think 'Nude' was written about that time..), and it's the first Radiohead album I went 'meh' too. Since then, I think they've let the desire to experiment override their songwriting.
Is this a bad thing? I think it is, because Yorke's songwriting is their strongest element - I'm not interested in hearing him mumble about raindrops.
I think I personally value the instrumentals and soundscapes radiohead created over the songwriting merit, and I do agree that both seemed to weaken a bit over time. I personally see in rainbows and amnesiac as far less experimental than either ok computer or Kid A. They seem to be going safer with their more recent work.
Well, yes - here I'm substituting Massive Attack for 'trip-hop' really, as I'm not sure what sort of stuff you're aware of and they're pretty well-known. Perhaps I could have been clearer. I could quite easily have said Portishead or something - the band isn't important, so much as the style.
You're correct in that trip-hop wouldn't have been a major influence initially - but in terms of the sonic landscape, by the time they got to '13' Albarn would most certainly have been aware of it. I think this is borne out by songs like 'Battle' - the bass-line is pure trip-hop. Very queasy-sounding.
I'm aware of massive attack, but triphop didn't have a huge amount of penetration in the states beyond them. It made it here, but it didn't really take off. So I don't have a tremendous amount of knowledge of the scene.
As an aside you asked me which I preferred between the mars volta and at the drive in. You then let the answer go unanswered! What was the right answer?
There isn't one!
But I prefer 'Relationship of Command' by At The Drive-In - I think it's better than anything the Mars Volta have done to date by several orders of magnitude. It's just more visceral, which is nicely offset by Rodriguez-Lopez' avant-garde/salsa tendencies. I just don't buy them as a prog band.
And I love prog. Perhaps that's why.
I don't believe that the "salsa tendencies" really showed through very well in at the drive in, and it's probably my favorite part of the mars volta (And Omars side projects!). Both bands are great, but for distinctly different reasons.
Forgive the prose, but in my mind at the drive in had a lot of heart, but it didn't have the spirit. It knew what it wanted to be, it was smart, well written, and musically sharp. But it never took me on an oddyssee beyond what the lyrical talent made me picture. The mars volta and by extension omar and cedrics side projects are a whole-nother animal. I also find that the backing instrumentals of the mars volta are generally superior, though the songwriting is certainly... Different.
?
