Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A Town Called Malus wrote:

Electric Six! C'mon I dare someone to not smile whilst watching this

I love this band...

If I recall they came out post 2k. And as a bonus the lead singer's sister works at Charm City Cakes (Mary Alice if you ever watched Ace of Cakes)

Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.

Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

azazel the cat wrote:Anyways, regarding free-flow jazz: my point was mostly hyperbole, but the general idea that I was trying to convey is that every time a musician is incapable of maintaining any consistency, or produce anything of quality, they may as well call it free-flow jazz.

Because free-flow jazz is what happens every time someone is terrible and fails.

Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Django Reinhart, Nels Cline, Sonic Youth, Stockhausen and John Cage called, they'd like a word.

azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.

Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Funny, you're the one who made that claim in this discussion to begin with.

dæl wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:Anyways, regarding free-flow jazz: my point was mostly hyperbole, but the general idea that I was trying to convey is that every time a musician is incapable of maintaining any consistency, or produce anything of quality, they may as well call it free-flow jazz.

Because free-flow jazz is what happens every time someone is terrible and fails.

Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Django Reinhart, Nels Cline, Sonic Youth, Stockhausen and John Cage called, they'd like a word.

Sonic Youth's claim to fame is playing every note at the same time, and John Cage's most famous work involves him sitting silently at a piano for four minutes.

Amaya wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.

Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Funny, you're the one who made that claim in this discussion to begin with.

No, I'm not. I'm the one who made the assumption that someone was talking about the Beatles as being one of greatest bands ever from the 1960s, and who would never be surpassed. I merely refuted the statement that the bands of 1960s were the greatest ever.

No, you simply voiced your opinion.

azazel the cat wrote: John Cage's most famous work involves him sitting silently at a piano for four minutes.

Makes argument with Beatles that popular does not necessarily mean good.
Implies John Cage's most popular piece invalidates all his other work.

One is commercial art, the other is postmodern art.

One statement does not contradict the other.

Try harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Amaya wrote:No, you simply voiced your opinion.

Actually, I quoted John Lennon himself, who had stated that much of the Beatles' work was not very good.

So if something is commercial then popularity is bad, but if something is niche then popularity dictates quality? Your gonna have to help me out here.

treadhead1944 wrote:
If I recall they came out post 2k. And as a bonus the lead singer's sister works at Charm City Cakes (Mary Alice if you ever watched Ace of Cakes)

Excellent choice of band, AND your from Michigan? Im in love But your correct, they came out in the early 90s originally. Easily one of my fave bands there, they just always kick ass

dæl wrote:

Amaya wrote:

dæl wrote:

Amaya wrote: Rock has really declined since the 80s since its fall as the most popular genre.

Nirvana, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, At the Drive In, Dinosaur Jnr, My Bloody Valentine and Radiohead. All amazing bands from late 80s/early 90s, but not much since. I almost think that rock got creative after the british invasion of the 60s, and was then killed by britpop in the late 90s.

Rage Against the Machine was pretty decent as well.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Amaya wrote:Listening to "All Along the Watchtower" without him singing just sounds wrong to me.

considering its a cover song... I actually heard the original (i think its a bob dylan song... could be wrong there), and I have to say that I greatly prefer the Hendrix version.

It's a Bob Dylan song, but he actually said he prefers Jimi's version and plays it as a tribute to him now.

hell yes to Rage. Jimi's version of Sunshine of your love is better than Cream's too.

edit: and tool , and perfect circle, and screaming trees. and mogwai. struggling to think of anything formed post 2000.

Audioslave formed in 2001, and they were pretty good. As far as 80s and 90s bands that are still around go, Soundgarden is really good. Primus is great as well. They just came out with a new record last September. A lot of other artists are have been doing some really cool side projects post 2000, like Maynard James Keenan's stuff in Puscifer, and Zach de la Rocha and Jon Theodore's stuff in One Day as a Lion.

Well, Rock may not be dead, but it is certainly moribund.

Disco, however, just got one foot closer to the grave.

Disco "Queen" Donna Summer died yesterday at 63.

No more "hot stuff" for her.

@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.

This is proof that the US is rejecting god.

After all...

That's a faulty argument. You don't need to be a musician to understand music.

dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.

And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.

And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh

This is what im trying to get at, there are some good bands around but no great ones. When was the last "this band will change your life" moment anyone had? The world is falling prey to focus groups and marketing men deciding everything, and while it can be argued that may work for certain areas of commerce, in the area of art then it's never a good idea. Music just ends up with rehashed gak that isn't even as good as the original stuff.

I don't think music has ever changed my life but it may have changed my outlook on things...

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.

And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh

This is what im trying to get at, there are some good bands around but no great ones. When was the last "this band will change your life" moment anyone had? The world is falling prey to focus groups and marketing men deciding everything, and while it can be argued that may work for certain areas of commerce, in the area of art then it's never a good idea. Music just ends up with rehashed gak that isn't even as good as the original stuff.

Honestly the last life changing music moment for me was when Grunge hit. Since then I have had some minor ones (Mumford and Sons, and please forgive me, Gotye come to mind right now as they are the most recent) but nothing major has driven me to a record store, or amazon, or i tunes. I don't know if this is because of my age (42 Saturday, same day as Pete Townshend) or lack of talent, or both.

azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.

Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Not a red herring, really. Most people I know that have strong opinions about anything such as what you've put forward are involved in some degree in whatever it is they're so passionate about, be it art, politics, cars, etc. I merely thought you might be some kind of musician.
As far as refuting anything, I'm not. You don't like the Beatles, I do. Tomato,tomato, doncha know.

treadhead1944 wrote:
If I recall they came out post 2k. And as a bonus the lead singer's sister works at Charm City Cakes (Mary Alice if you ever watched Ace of Cakes)

As long as Clutch is around, Rock will rock. I freaking love that band. They've changed their style so many times, and yet it always sounds great. One of my friends asked me to describe their music, and I literally couldn't find words. I think said something along the lines of "Well, they're progressive blues now, but they used to play electronic styled metal (Robot hive/exodus) and before that they were stoner metal (Self titled "clutch" their second album) and they've done pretty much everything else in between.

Also, if you can't headbang to this song, you can't headbang to anything




How these guys aren't one of the biggest bands out there right now will always confuse me. These guys can curb stomp just about any other modern "rock band" out there right now. And for the one guy who said "when's the last time a band changed your outlook" check these guys out. They're cut from a completely different cloth than most bands these days. Wish there were more bands like these guys

Relapse wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:

Relapse wrote:Azrael, you must be some kind of superior musician with all the strong statements you've put forrward. Do you have anything we can listen to out there?
I'd be interested in hearing it.

Ah, the last refuge of those who realize that they have erred: the red herring. I think you'll find that an appeal to accomplishment will not work this time, as my own musical accomplishments completely irrelevant to our discussion. I could just as easily turn this logical fallacy back around and state that if my opinion is invalidated because I am not a professional musician on par with The Beatles, then your opinion is also invalidated for the very same reason. By this logic, you should never criticize your government unless you have been a government.

Now, I've put forward several strong statements that I have yet to see you refute in any significant manner. I recognize that you may be quite infatuated with The Beatles, but my entire point is merely that they are not the musical avatars of Pure Good that people make them out to be, nor are they the greatest band ever in any category other than popularity. That's all I'm trying to put forward: that such a foolish notion of the "greatest band ever" not be used to describe the Beatles, because that statement is easily challenged, -as I have been doing- because the burden of proof lies on the person making the claim.

Not a red herring, really. Most people I know that have strong opinions about anything such as what you've put forward are involved in some degree in whatever it is they're so passionate about, be it art, politics, cars, etc. I merely thought you might be some kind of musician.
As far as refuting anything, I'm not. You don't like the Beatles, I do. Tomato,tomato, doncha know.

Ah, fair enough. I was probably a little quick to go on the defensive there.

To answer your question: I can play piano (poorly), guitar (also poorly), Trombone (poorly again) and I can sing about half as good as Leonard Cohen. To my knowledge, I am not and have never been part of any rock bands, amateur or professional.

The truth of it is, that I've heard the same preaching about how the Beatles are the greatest band ever, but nobody can ever seem to explain why, aside from citing sales numbers and popularity. But that in itself is a fallacy, unless popularity is what determines talent, in which case those same people would have to begrudgingly admit that Justin Bieber is fantastic, too. Personally, I think the Beatles overall are kind of a sucky band, because for every Hey Jude they wrote, they also recorded a dozen Maxwell's Silver Hammers. Normally, I wouldn't think twice about ignoring the statements about how fantastic the Beatles are; even just writing those preachings off as the hyperbole of fans about their favourite band. But what bothers me is how it has become such a taboo to even suggest that the Beatles are not the greatest band ever, despite the fact that much of the lyrics in their catalogue are little better than nursery rhymes, and overall I find their songs to be painfully boring and impossible to listen to when sober (which, in my case, is always). While this latter bit is just personal opinion, the concept that the bulk of the Beatles' songs lack any real lyrical depth is more easily put to test. I've found that their lyrics generally do exactly what it says on the tin, and what it says is typically uninteresting. I also don't care for how manufactured they were (they cleaned up their image very well at the behest of Epstein after smelling EMI's money). Between the vapid lyrics and the marketing transormation of their image, I find the band to be somewhat dishonest, and lacking any soul.

But again, that's me. I think the Beatles kinda suck. I've never made any claims that suggest other people should not like the Beatles. I've only made claims that they are not the greatest band ever, and should not be lauded as such. I haven't made any claims about anyone else being the greatest band ever either, because such a title is foolish. Truth be told, I've grown quite bored having to explain this to zealous Beatles fans.


Moving on, I'll try to catch up on the rest of the thread:

Personally, my favourite band is Green Day (despite their last album). I appreciate their sound, and they (typically) write honest and heartfelt songs. And there's also the nostalgia factor; as I was probably just the right age when Green Day hit their stride. As far as true "rock" goes, I think CCR might get my vote for the best band of that era (and to a small degree this may even make me somewhat of a hypocrite). Strung Out writes the best lyrics. Boston had the best guitar sound. Chuck Berry is probably the most influential musician of all time. And I think that from 1958-60, Elvis was not 'sidelined' in Germany; he was becoming even more awesome:

Doesn't matter if you play poorly. At least you play.
For me, the Beatles are more about sitting by a breezy window on a fine summer day, just listening and letting my mind wander a tad.

dæl wrote:

treadhead1944 wrote:

dæl wrote:@Hordini Supergroups don't really count, I wasn't trying to say good stuff doesn't get made, it probably does. But next to no labels are taking on groundbreaking stuff and running with it, supergroups get picked up because the fanbase already exists and its less of a financial risk.

And then you get something like Audioslave. Tom Morello. Rage Against the Machine, blow your ears off power rock with a message. Chris Cornell. Soundgarden, raw powerful sonic attack. Audioslave... Meh

This is what im trying to get at, there are some good bands around but no great ones. When was the last "this band will change your life" moment anyone had? The world is falling prey to focus groups and marketing men deciding everything, and while it can be argued that may work for certain areas of commerce, in the area of art then it's never a good idea. Music just ends up with rehashed gak that isn't even as good as the original stuff.

Funny, because that sounds exactly what music was like during the every other decade too. By and large, mainstream music has always been an attempt by major labels to cash in on what's hot at the moment, or something from the hidden depths that has risen to mainstream success and will soon be the template for what will be cashed in on next. Just look at the Monkees. Horrendous band that was put together to capitalize on the Beatles popularity, everything about them was manufactured from the ground up, hell, they didn't even play their own instruments. And they were incredibly successful, in the 60s. This has been going on forever.

Remember surf music in the 60s? Or glam rock after it lost its novelty in the 70s (and 80s... and 90s...)? Or hair ...anything... in the 80s?

Really, this generation of music isn't so bad. It's just as mechanical and uninspired as it's always been, it's just not what you grew up with. And when you consider just how good some of the good stuff is, it does a hell of a lot more than just make up for it. I have to say, some of the very best music in my collection has come from the last 15 years, but you'll hear none of it on the radio or top 40.

Just off the top of my head here are a few very different bands (and one crazy artist) that are all proof that rock is alive and well, and more than that, growing and evolving. Rock sounds different than it did five years ago, ten years ago, three decades ago. People are making new music, not just rehashing old songs. If all you're looking for is new people singing the same songs, you're better off just listening to the old stuff. Just 'cause it's changed doesn't mean rock is dead.

Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.

dæl wrote:Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.

Aphex Twin makes my brain hurt. The dude makes music you can watch. If you run His song Equation through a spectrogram his face shows up. WTH? who thinks of that?


The face shows up at 5.30

Edited to fix link

treadhead1944 wrote:Aphex Twin makes my brain hurt. The dude makes music you can watch. If you run His song Equation through a spectrogram his face shows up. WTH? who thinks of that?

Spoiler:

The face shows up at 5.30

Edited to fix link

Venetian Snares has done it too, but with pictures of his cats.



some AFX is quite pretty, check out the album Druqks.

dæl wrote:Kim Churchill is pretty good, hadn't seen him before. Interpol I was actually considering referencing in my post about music being rehashed by comparing them to Joy Division, a comparison Interpol don't do to well out of. As I said there is good stuff around just none that is amazing, groundbreaking or lifechanging. Bloc Party, Mumford and Sons, Laura Marling, 65 days of static, Four Tet, all really good, but they aren't in the same league as The Pixies. Unless we go outside of rock/guitar music and then things look a bit rosier with labels like Warp and Planet mu really looking for something new and you get things like Aphex Twin, Squarepusher and Venetian Snares which are truely groundbreaking.

See, I'd agree with this. It seems that electronic music is where the innovation is these days. 'Guitar music' is dead - it's all just a re-hash of a re-hash, sadly.