Dear Mr. Tommy Shaw,

Thank you for that expose of how your band’s shitty overplayed music can actually be good sometimes. You made some good points but I am still deeply under the impression that your band, Styx, really truly sucks. On every song, no matter what you attempt, including Blue Collar Man.

Despite how you define Styx as sounding like a lot of other 70s crap (Rush, Deep Purple) with a hint of early-80s rock (Ozzy, which, how dare you compare yourself to Randy Rhoads you arrogant frizzle-haired mustachioed fuck), I see that you take pride in sounding like another, more futuristic shitty band, Bon Jovi. I respect this.

Normally I would expect to see you 70s radio rock legends denigrating your successors and mentioning how much more intricate and virtuosic your music is than theirs. You, however, are gracious enough to recognize that an even less talented, more commercial band like Bon Jovi is an apt comparison to yours. For instance you mentioned that your song Blue Collar Man really rocks hard and has a nice set of balls. This was in contrast to how your other, more popular songs have no balls at all (i.e. Come Sail Away, etc.).

You are clearly a man of honor because you recognize and acknowledge significant cultural trends such as the move away from your brand of virtuosic bullshit music to a simpler, more party oriented version of what you and your esteemed colleagues began.

Bon Jovi made some really terrible songs just like you did in order to please a record buying public who was rabid for whatever they could be fed as long as they could rock out and/or feel sad about unrequited or lost love. I can’t blame them, as I’m sure you agree, for sucking down the swill that was offered by your financiers. After your band offered a six-minute shhitfest of emotional balladry that begins to rock hard around 2:40..



Bon Jovi followed your lead and shat the classic I’ll Be There For You ballad. I’m sure you’ll want acknowledgement for how many more notes you played in Come Sail Away but you obviously respect the young man’s resolve. Bon Jovi’s audience was more into cocaine than marijuana and hallucinogens as yours was and he capitalized on this without ever taking his eye off of your model. He squeezed out the runny shit that is I’ll Be There For You with dumbed down guitar heroics and a blast of emotional heaviness twice as quickly at 1:20..



But that is not the point. You would like to focus on how your slightly more tolerable songs like Blue Collar Man should be remembered for the more rocking sounds of say, Roulette by Bon Jovi.



..with an added dash of the classic sounds of Bruce Springsteen. Super.

Good luck convincing MusicBanter that any of your music is any good. I, for one, wholeheartedly feel that all of it sounds embarrassingly terrible.

Sincerely,
Engine

You just reminded me how much i love that song. I haven't heard it in ages.
I think all bands have one or two songs that are hard and balls to the walls rocking that doesn't fit with their mainstream commercial type songs. For example, with all the crap that Nickelback puts out they have one song that I ****ing love and I use it whenever I'm playing a racing game because it gets me pumped up.

Nickelback - Animals


That is probably the only Nickelback song that I will readily admit that I like to anyone.

I need your help MB. I'm a few months off from attempting to launch a Web Publication that will cover a large number of topics, not excluding music. If you had an opinion, which one should I take from this scrap heap as something to dust off, brush up, and put out there?

Thanks!

The narrative of feel...
 

http://caelusconsulting.files.wordpr..._wallpaper.jpg

To parry rhetorical idiocy, lets not use a genre here, but instead I’m just going to put 5 songs down, and say that sound equals genre X, where X = a word I will make up soon.

Yeah Yeah Yeahs – Down Boy
Arcade Fire – Ready to Start
TV on the Radio – Blues from Down here
The National – Blood Buzz Ohio
Decemberists – And here I dreamt I was an architect

This genre, which I’ll attempt to put into words, should be called (for the sake of this article) Menthol-Indie because I feel like it. Moving on.

Maybe its because I live in a city known for lobster and sub-arctic wind chill. Or maybe its because I’m keen on lament, but this style of music creates an environment, so closely resembling abandoned city streets in winter, I can’t help myself but try and draw the parallel.

I think Phil Spector is over-hyped and what he contributed was, at best, benign to the times. But his philosophy, while boring in concept is amazing in practice. The wall of sound with the least amount of instruments possible (Somewhere in here, Andy Warhol becomes the creator, but I’m not entirely sure where, and its not essential for this ramble) essentially creates white noise, and with some percussion, melody, and narrative in front of it, makes it the backdrop of a person lost in the world, contemplating the finer details of “why the hell am I here?”

What we get in life is often background noise, car horns, engines rumbling, trains roaring by, planes, dogs, one-sided cell phone conversation and any number of small ticks; insects, clocks, technologies constant reminders that they’re waiting for us. This serves no purpose to the individual, and in a musical sense, it would not effect (or shouldn’t, outside the schizophrenic mind, a purpose to narrative.) If it hasn’t been made obvious yet, I’m making the connection between the individual and the narrative, which should be clear to begin with, but its being pitched differently here.

What this white noise may come to represent, if it wasn’t the intention to begin with is the innumerate life teeming beyond the individual which, when already in a position of indirection, may only further the idea that life goes on without, therefore, what’s your purpose?

But beyond our teen angst and depression, these instances are less an overall characteristic of the individual, and more a characteristic of an event: a break-up, a parent dying, rejection, and unemployment. Could white noise, in the adult mind (or narrative) be the chaos that comes with the myriad of responsibilities throw into havoc when something like this comes? Ignore for a minute whether or not it does. Hear me out…

The device (Wall of Sound), when viewed as a device, seems to suggest to us the interpreter that the chaos marches in a lock-step uniformity; that chaos must represent “the other” by virtue of its consistency, and lack of relationship to the listener. When applied to any narrative, this follows a logical literary pattern of Person v. Environment, which is a traditional Antagonist. Traditionally, this is found in Drama not Comedy (literal sense) but music, and especially that which could be considered post-industrial (society, not music) seems to suggest a comedic effect in so far as there is no resolution. The white-noise, chaos of the Wall of Sound is a constant, something the Protagonist lives with and grows increasingly familiar with. Have you ever heard the Wall of Sound used in a staccato capacity? Neither have I, and I’m not even sure how you would pull it off, but lets forget that for a second.

What this style says about chaos, which was traditionally considered the opposite of self (the other) , is that it becomes a familiarity. If we look to the alternative of the post-industrial society, its generally rural, where all noises come with nature, and therefore has a very logical connection to a given person. People hunt, fish, farm, and live in the environment, which are at least a few degrees away from direct relations. But in the city, too much “environmental” factors have little or nothing to do with anyone else. The consumer order is sharply divided. I saw 3 news helicopters today. While the argument for benefiting the individual could be there, if it wasn’t our lives wouldn’t be so much different (do we really need to know about a traffic jam after the fact?).

A few paragraphs back I wondered if the familiarity with noise is the immediate stress of the responsibility and it’s new found immediacy. What I think we’ve tripped over in between is that its less the immediacy, but the presence of all things that must exist in order for a City-Society to function. That is, theres a butterfly effect that occurs to me if the Traffic-Copter isn’t out that day, even if its effects are not felt directly. In finality, the wall of sound seems to operate within the narrative as a sort of societal feedback. One that doesn’t suggest a wish to return to a rural life, but the pressure cooker of demands in a metropolitan lifestyle, and beyond this, the ever growing coldness that comes with or all too familiar relationship with it.

Its said of New York City, if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere. If we funnel this through out musical filters, I think Menthol musicians would argue its because a grave disinterested attitude is not created by a personal interest, but a necessary interest in survival. Essentially, the Menthol guitarist, with his reverbed out instrument asks us, “Do you really think Deluth would have recovered from 9/11 as quickly as NYC did?” For too many albums, they’ve been telling us the answer is “no.”

Brennan, I love the way you write.

thanks.

Environmental sounds have been used in music. Whether it was John Cage composing a piece of silence to show that there never is complete silence, or whether it is the environmental sound based experimental music/work of Luc Ferrari and many others.

But I would say anyway that I do think Phil Spector was involved with some good music, more so than the bands you listed anyway. He also had an influence if anyone thinks that is important as well.

As for you comparison of the individual singer against the music background, you might want to compare this to the soloist against an orchestra in classical music for example.

I'm at least 300 hundred years old and I too am a fan of Brennan's distinctive, if somewhat unorthodox writing style.
I can find myself nodding in agreement, or shaking my head in confused disbelief at his literary antics.

A nonsensical jibbering idiot, or MB's modern day poet?
How I wish we had more like him here.

Why would you want more like him? he's pretty unique and it would take away from his uniqueness.

No offense, but this is elitist propaganda. To mention John Cage, in reference to an article on narrative is like mentioning like mentioning Thomas Aquinas in a discussion about Science. Its not bad enough that he's terrible at it, but that his work has moved against its progress.

As for your second paragraph, this solidifies the elitist completely. To suggest John Cage or Phil Sector is good is something I can believe, but to back both while simultaneously assaulting ALL of the bands I listed its complete non-sense. At least 3 of the acts listed are closer to either specter or cage than cage is to specter. If this were a sailing trip you'd have left England for New York by going around the Cape of Good Hope - in other words, roundabout for the sake of it and for nothing more.

And again, classical ought to have very little to do with this. Its about narrative, which classical may have, but it should never be the measuring stick. A genre without lyrics is inherently hamstrung when it comes to narrative. Yes I'm speaking about music, or more accurately sound, but its sound pitched against lyrics than can, when angled certain ways, reflect sound like light through a prism and give us a kaleidoscope of options, a blinding attack on the pupils, or illuminate that prism wholly.

Imagine the whole thing like a Theremin. Waves emanates out, objects (hands) alter those waves to create sound. Each object on a completely independent axis and trajectory, with all three dimensions in play.

Classical couldn't possibly enter the discussion.

I'm not at all elitist, I listen to all kinds of music. If I was elitist I wouldn't be on this board lol. And Cage has done theatrical work with his music as well. If you don't want to broaden it out into other areas of music then that is up to you. I'll just add that the background sound can be seen not necessarily as being in opposition to the singer but as reflecting their emotions as well, it obviously depends on the piece which interpretation is useful.

[Eric Turner]
Oh written in the stars
A million miles away
A message to the main
Ooooh
Seasons come and go
But I will never change
And I’m on my way

People say an awful lot by some of the stupid **** they do. As it relates to music, lyrics tell me too much.

Take the above example for instance. This is the refrain of some terrible ass rap song who’s verses are so terrible it defies description. But those are seemingly deliberate (as I imagine everything is when you talk about yourself). This refrain I’ve posted above is just filler, and it drives me ****ing nuts.

Let’s start from the start: In anything you do you can give 100%. Its used a lot in sports though I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a professional athlete give that much. In most things, doing 60% puts you well above the pack. Imagine for a second, if you would, putting countless hours into a song. Do you think, if you did that, you’d come up with something better than the refrain at the top? So do I.

Whats most disconcerting about this “effort” is that it doesn’t make any ****ing sense. First off, wtf is a Main? And why would you send messages to it? This sounds like ridiculous nit picking. “Come on man, its like, you know, a general sense of the word…like he’s sending this to everyone.” Is he? If that’s honestly what he was saying, that was the best phrase he could come up with? It doesn’t even ****ing rhyme with anything? Why would you say that?

Paul Simon once said “syllables matter.” He said that when he was asked why he used Joe DiMaggio in “Mrs. Robinson” as opposed to his favorite Yankee, Mickey Mantle. So, alright, syllables do matter…but I can’t imagine Simon backing up Mr. Turner. 6 syllables were all he needed. One starts to imagine that he’d have made more sense if Main was “Maine” or “Mane.” All three are crazy illogical, but there might have been some misconstrued inference in the latter 2.

And I feel like the time invested in these lyrics are now coming up on nearly 3 times the amount by the original author, but if you take nothing else from this, let it at least be that

1. Someone is going to look this closely at what you do and…
2. Great artists (great anythings really) will put this much effort into everything.

The “plot” of this refrain also start to make you wonder if they didn’t just do a melody recording with words thrown in for the hell of it and decided after one take that, yeah this will do. So theres some message written in stars a million miles away. First of all, unless its God, who the **** is writing this message? And who’s the message for? Who reads stars? The Mayans? Either this artist “Tinih Tempah” (which, for the record, is a TERRIBLE NAME) is some sort of super hero, or this is supposed to be metaphorical. If that’s the case, you wouldn’t see stars a million miles away, so what’s that say about you? Even when you try and salvage it by factoring in the speed of light, which is well over a million miles per second (299, 792, 458 to be exact, almost 3 times), then why even mention that the stars are that far away?

I’ll tell you why, you lazy ****, because you didn’t do a ****ing lick of research and it smacks me in the face everytime Kiss 108 plays your half-hit wonder on the ****ing radio. You’re a throw-away artist just like every other R&B infused, synthed to death, pop song that’s come out since Boy Bands died a horrible, horrible death in 2003.

Folks, lyrics matter. You can’t say “well this song is ****ing killer, so lets just rush through the refrain and sell it on the body. You know why, because not everyone likes the body, and if you really want to make a classic song, or convey emotions accurately, then you don’t rush through anything. Michael Stipe once said if it were up to hi they’d still be remixing murmur. I don’t think that’s necessary, but do something. It’s a sad day when you can’t even be bothered to work at your day job, let alone hide the fact that you’re a studio musician showing up for a paycheck.

I don't know the song you are quoting but I do consider the musicality of words important, it normally works better if it fits the music. And you seem to be taking some of the phrases in those lyrics too literally as well. Some imaginative license is allowed perhaps. If the music is good I normally find that the lyrics are at least ok, there isn't normally some repetitive or really simple idea throughout the lyrics that sets back the music. And for most people the music is certainly the main thing. Great lyrics to bad music won't be listened to by many people.

No thats fair, but I don't think theres a level of success or failure to be judged/measured here. I think it should be on a sliding scale of "effort" and it probably should be binary; Yes there was, no there wasn't. But you judge for yourself here...

You know....I always thought he was saying "A message to the maaaaaan oh.

not main.

Maybe you think he's saying main but he's really just stretching out man. The same man that keeps everyone down.

You know like hippies talk about the government and call it the man. Uncle Sam all that jazz.

Now that we understand that he is really saying man in a ****ed up way because of his singing.

Why would he be sending a message to the government? or maybe The Man is just a term to describe opposition, those that oppose him to represent a system.

Yeah well I got those from a site. And it sounds like main to me.

Okay, so I did a quick google research and main means people because we are the dominant race.

A message to the main is basically a message from God to the main(people)

It seems to make sense but that's just one persons interpretation.

For Paloma
 

Lie to Me



Goin' out West



16 shells from a Thirty ought Six

Thanks for trying Brennan. 16 Shells From a Thirty ought Six was probably the closest thing to listenable that a Tom Waits song has ever been to me. The two other ones were utter crap though. Especially Lie to Me, it sounds like something someone's embarrassing dad does with his friends on weekends off from his desk job

Then this is it for us. You've failed the only litmus test I have. Good knowing you.

Evolution: Stasis
 

http://designer-daily.com/wp-content...nd-statues.png

There is a flap every now and again about whether or not MusicBanter is in decline. People wonder if its glory days are behind it, and whether we should all find greener pastures. My concern is if we’ve hit the ceiling.

Back when the real *******s still roamed around here, you could get in some 12-page fights that generally ended in personal attacks and snark, but at least it held your attention. All due credit to the Mod Squad, we’ve eliminated the *******s (as we should), but we haven’t brought in any heavy weights. I might be the cranky old man in the corner, but every time I look at the “new posts” offerings all I see are a bunch of Lounge-oriented questions that spawn endless debate. I could rant for days about why they go on, but lets just suffice it to say that they happen.

I wonder now if this is the limit for MB. Can we move beyond? Are we destined to be a destination for the latch-key kids bored ambition? Troll bait waiting to attacked: Too well modded to be ruined by them. Not intellectual enough to drive them away. How many more The Virgins should we endure? Last night I went to Digital Dream Door for the first time, just to see what the story was. I don’t think I’ll ever make an account there – too many *******s we’ve banned from MB still exist over there, and from the stories I’ve heard, its too undermodded for any real discussion to occur. All I did while I was there was poke around. I could tell in a second what type of community it was. The front page had some ridiculous Ad saying something about “Rock, Blues, and Soul” or something like that. Flags were being thrown immediately: “This sounds like it was made by a 16 year old who still thinks ‘Clapton is God.’”

I immediately went to find the one thing no rebellious 16 year old rock fan can tolerate. If this place was worth a damn, it would have a Country Forum. Shockingly, it did. But just as I’d suspected, I think it had 7 threads, 3 of which were stickied and the unstickied thread with the most posts (a grand total of 3) was a “100 Greatest Country Artists of All Time Thread.” The first one on that list – the best country artist of all time according to DDD’s posters – was Johnny Cash. The second post in that thread was shocked Carrie Underwood wasn’t listed. It was just as I’d imagined.

I’m telling you this story because, as much as I rage against the current state of MusicBanter (and its certainly not the new music bastion it was) its at least got a rich history of debate. You can find a good discussion out there for most bands that had existed prior to now. It appears as if our main competitor doesn’t even have good past debates. I came to MusicBanter roughly 7 years ago for a few reasons.

1. My old forum was closed by the management. They’ve decided to be simply a news site for ****ty music. You can feel free to check out Shoutweb if you want, but I haven’t been in a very long time, and no bands they talked about then made me want to go back.
2. The second reason I came because I remember asking a friend “Hey, do you think Paz’s involvement with Zwan means she’s out of A Perfect Circle?”
I think he asked me if I was speaking English and I knew I had to find people who were a little more savvy about the world of music. I still can’t tell you 3 bands Loose Lips Sink Ships listens to, and I feel like he’s been here for at least 3 years.

For much of my time at MB, its been very productive, useful, engaging, and fun. But today everythings “what are we drinking?” or “lets take photos of ourselves so we can eFlirt with people we’ll never see.” I’ll admit it, I’m depressed. I think maybe I’m too old for the game, maybe I need more than MB can offer. I’ve searched for other forums and I can’t seem to find a damn thing. They’re either too genre oriented or just out-and-out ****ty.

So this is me sending out an S.O.S for any passing ships that can take me back to the mainland. To somewhere they speak my language. To somewhere they still know what exploration is like. MB these days is my Easter Island. Its filled with stone-faced inhabitants unflinching in their interest, and too silent about what it is in the first place.

anytime someone mentions sending out an S.O.S.

I think of this song and I must listen to it.



If funny that you mention this topic sometime last week, I was going to post an open letter in the spill your guts thread to all the whiners and complainers that are going around like chicken little screaming the sky is falling.

As you mentioned you were at a forum before joining MB and you should know about forum life.

Forums go through periods where people keep harping on about it's decline/demise.

I feel like people either outgrow it and should move on or try to help the forum they once loved return to a state where they can be content. If you are going to continue to complain about it why not, contribute a little more.

If you don't feel like contributing then maybe it's time for a break or to move on permanently. There are times when people just out grow certain forums and I feel like you are at that stage.

I don't get how people can't see why there are more lounge posts than music posts. The lounge posts are easier to get into because it's a broad general topic being discussed as opposed to the obscure band that you heard and decided to post about in the avant garde section thinking there are other fans that will appreciate it as much as you do but they don't.

There are some people that will listen to said band and decide that they don't like it or some that will just write it off completely because of the genre that it is in. You might turn one or two people onto this band that you love so much and they will in turn love it as much as you do but that's not going to happen all of the time.

A 21st Century Criticism
 

For one reason or another, critics today seem to be wholly enveloped with the concept of negative reviews. Once upon a time, climbing out of the yellow journalism that existed since the printing press had existed; a heavy weight was put on objectivity. This genius position accounts for much of the boring reporting you see in newspapers still today. It also, at one time, had the New York Times reaching out to the Klu Klux Klan for “their side of the story” when there was a lynching in town. I don’t know who finally woke them up to notion that this was madness, but Churchill once famously said “I fail to be impartial between the fire brigade and the fire.” By then, objectivity dominated the American media.

But today criticism is ruled by the negative. I would be lead to conclude that **** trait is picked up from academia where in an assault upon something means a well thought out understanding and command of the subject matter. To be more direct about it, it’s easy to show the failings of a new piece of art by comparing it to the masters of the craft. No painter is Van Gogh, no musician is Dylan, no writer is Shakespeare, and no Director is Orson Wells. This not only shows the critic has taste to the reading public, but also shows that what is being presented is terrible in comparison. There is a crisis of confidence in the young critical community.

For one thing, if you haven’t got the confidence to back up your intellectual chops, you shouldn’t be reviewing anything up to and including restaurant reviews on Yelp. But the important point I mean to convey here is this: If the modern day critic should aspire to anything, including an expression of one’s own intelligence, it must do so through praise, positivity, and, in the worst situation, a salvaging of the few decent points. To invent a word, we need more complimentarianism.

All bold statements should be followed with reason, so here goes. Negativity is at this point old hat. Theres nothing new, theres nothing deliberately valuable there, we know how things, without the blessing of time, stack up against the very inspiration to countless generations. What we need today is a critic willing to sit in the fire of terrible offerings from artists of all stripes, who’s willing to trail blaze through the thick grasses of rote, emotionless output and come back wounded, bleeding, and bruised with reports of any signs of life. This is where critics are not only needed today, but where they can most solidly advance the art of a conveyance of quality.

The enduring benefit here should appear to all interests within the communities who hope to see an advancement. Encouragement of the vagrant class being the only downside, a generally positive outlook has going for it an inalienable ability to murder any trends of snotty illuminati in their cradles. The critical community tends to be cut from a similar fabric. To play to an interest, which in this case might be called “classics” but by any other name is still a preference, drives a movement toward groupthink and hivemind. If we should drive ourselves willfully against any trend it would be those. If not here, where? If the artistic community of Earth cannot find within itself an urge to move in a direction that fosters creativity, because we can rest assured that the insurance agencies of Western Connecticut won’t be doing it for us.

Radio Nowhere
 

When I first heard Springsteen's Radio Nowhere, I couldn't appreciate the song for what it was. I had been in love with a woman from New Jersey, and I could only think of her when it came on. She's getting married this year, and I've told myself I need to move on. The song happened to pop up on my iPod this morning, and while I still think of her, for the first time I heard the song as well.

I don't know if there has been a tighter, stronger song that doubled as a love letter to all that was good and holy in America. Who should be shocked that Bruce was the one deliver it. For the purposes of this writing, I think its appropriate to use the lyrics:

Since America existed, there has been a sense that anyone could be lost, or get lost here (intentionally or otherwise). As we've moved beyond the travails of a frontier nation, getting lost here often meant being without a place, and that generally has to do with love. Its very obvious that a romantic interest could be plugged in here. But there is also the love-lorn aspect of an America increasingly dying do to technologies sprawling reach.

Not only can we, as a people, no longer get off the grid, get lost, and get gone, but a connection seems to be constant at this point. Its hard to split the concept in twain, but this isn't just an inability to recreate yourself, its an inability to never get away from ourselves. You can imagine this character singing thinking to himself "Stop ****ing calling me, e-mailing me, and wtf is twitter?"

No one wants to hear another Luddite stand-up routine. It was never, never clever to make fun of social-media because people were updating how bored they were (that's on you, friends. If your friends do that, you're probably boring yourself.)

The song also does hammer harshly on the dehumanization of people. And here, The Boss might also be talking about some of his own past. Could the dark hole be "Tunnel of Love" a monumentally horrible album, an album the signals a period where Bruce was living in California, dating super models and living the life of just another rock star? Could this be a condemnation of the rote through self-criticism?
Or maybe its a comment on the prevailing insincerity in modern music. This song, on an album that was a return to the E Street Band, could he be suggesting that there is too much affect and posture in todays music? Its possible, since the solo in this song comes from a Saxophone, which harkens back to the 1950's rock scene, when a hot sax solo was obligatory.

Whatever it means, like all good music/art, it should effect you differently than me. But as someone still fascinated by what this continent can do to a person, its a stark reminder that we're not alone in our constant wanderlust, and that we should remember that connections can be made beyond the keyboards and +1's of the world wide web.

Don't be afraid to get lost, friends.

This is the best music forum on the 'net. I used to go to the music hall on my marijuana forum because I was looking for a music centered community with more going on and MB is better, and better than any of the alternative music forums I passed over. Ebb and flow of forum life. I wish there was more active discussion here about everything. I check MB twice a day and can easily never miss a post by anyone ever, and I come back for more updates and there really aren't any. On the weed forum, at least there are tons of threads created daily in the music hall, even if it's not modded very well and there are hundreds of repeat threads. It's all we got, so let's try to be content and hope for more activity. All we can do is keep making threads and talking and hope someone cares enough to reply. I feel like a good majority of my best made posts go by uncommented upon, but I press forward onto a new topic hoping someone will read it a few months or years later and enjoy it... Happy 7th Big3...

What do you get if you take a cowboy, a fairytale, an alcoholic, a meth head, and a 1930's leftist policy book?

Whatever the **** this is. God damn brilliant. I imagine this is what Fisherman sing to one another when their blasted at 3 am out at sea.

I hate Johnny Cash
 

http://blogs.westword.com/backbeat/zhb.jpg

Since everyones sandy vagina and bunched panties can't handle a little hyperbole these days, i'm going to be an ******* in my own journal.

Music fans have made me hate Johnny Cash.

I used to like him, I have albums, I download singles. As a huge Tom Waits fan, the Waits-written "Down there by the Train" is a masterpiece in my eyes. But if I have to listen to one more snob tell me the only country he likes is "Waylan, Willie, Cash, and Hank" I might ****ing go on a killing spree in Williamsburg.

If I'm being honest, I think when people say this they mean "I like Cash because he covered NIN, and I hate country because they're a bunch of racist hicks who bomb abortion clinics." No ones ever said that to me, but its how I always hear it. I own Johnny Cash's gospel album. I'm guessing no one who "like" Johnny Cash listens to "It was Jesus." Again, just a guess.

But I shouldn't complain. Times are getting better. At the time that NIN cover happened I remember people trying to tell me Cash was "really more rock than country." I'll give you I have some crazy rage issues (I have standards, sorry you're half assed) but how could you not want to punch someone like that in the throat? I mean, what the ****? Did you hear the one ****ing song before you decided you were enough of an expert to comment on someones history? To be fair, he did listen to that one song 100 times. Thats like listening to 10 albums!

I was recently at my girlfriends brothers house and he told me, in a discussion over music (he's a big...uh, lets call it hair metal fan), Johnny Cash was the only country he liked. So there it is. Johnny Cash appealing to the Ratt/Ozzy/Judas Priest base.

I think what we should do, as a forum, an album for people who think they like Johnny Cash. Not just as service to those folks, but as a service to those of us who actually listen to music - not singles - and have a real problem with these casual, drive-thru fans who feel competent enough to pontificate about the very sound of an artist, and the very communal understanding of the music community.

Hey Big3, happy seventh anniversary!
I like your style, and I feel your pain. I too hate when the lyric becomes secondary to the song, and you're right: the lines you quoted make no sense, but then people these days (the majority at least) don't care too much about lyrics, which is why so many sub-sub-sub-par artistes can get away with simply sh1t songs, as long as the "kids" can dance to them. Pathetic, really.

But one thing that annoys me about lyric usage is the employment of the quick or easy rhyme. I'm talking about the maybe/baby, school/fool, girl/world idea, where anything will do as long as it rhymes. I mentioned a while back in my review of Heart's "Brigade" that I hated the lyric in "All I wanna do is make love to you" (penned by Mutt Lange, no less, so there's no excuse!), where he rhymes stupid lines like "We found a hotel/It was a place he knew well" and so on. If you're going to write a lyric, take pride in it and try to make it as interesting and as original as possible.

That's why I love Fish (Marillion) lyrics: they're just so, well, poetic. I also often prefer lyrics that DON'T rhyme, but scan well. You know Waits' "9th and Hennepin"? None of those lines rhyme, but my god do they paint a picture! Speaking of Waits, I wonder that you may have tried to "convert" starrynight with the wrong Waits songs. "Sixteen shells"? I would have gone with something more along these lines

or maybe this

or even this


So much of Waits' music is inaccessible to those who know no better, you really have to lead the newbies in slowly... :D

As to country music, well I know virtually nothing about Johnny Cash, although I have it on good authority that he once fell into a ring of fire, and by all accounts, it burned, burned, burned. :)
Seriously, I know OF him, but not enough of his music to try to pretend I know whether he's more country than rock (the former, obviously) but I do like some country. I try, you know: I started watching Willie Nelson's 70th birthday special, or something. It was ok for about 15 minutes, but then it got too twee for my tastes, so I shut it off.

I do like some country artistes, like Crystal and Emmylou, but probably my favourite would be Nanci Griffith. I also like the sort of rock/country crossovers like Dwight Yoakam and the mighty Steve Earle. But in general I'm fairly clueless when it comes to those two popular music forms, country and western. Thing is, I KNOW it, and accept it, and don't try to pretend otherwise.

As for, for want of another word, banter on the site, yes I too feel we're a little isolated. When I first started my journal I had high hopes, but the pressures of holding down a fulltime job while also looking after my disabled sister forced me not to be able to update, and I drifted away. It was only when I quit my job to look after her fulltime that I found I had a lot more free time on my hands, so about four months ago I had another shot at it, and although I don't get too many comments, the ones I do get are quite complimentary.

I was thinking at one stage, about two months in, about giving it up again, as maybe no-one was reading, but then I chanced to glance at the views, and saw there were about 2000 I think. These days it's getting closer to 7000, so at least someone is reading what I'm writing. I do get the odd comment from the likes of Jackhammer and Nonsubmissivewife that help perk me up when I feel it's maybe all for nothing, and they assure me that they read the journal regularly.

So I guess the moral there is, just cos no-one is talking to you doesn't mean your work isn't being appreciated. It certainly is, and I'l continue to talk to you via comments here, or if you prefer, on my own journal. Or both.

Keep your chin up, man. :)
And now, to cheer you up...

Arena Music or Coldplay is a glorified Douchebag Collection.
 

I was in one of those moods where I'm just pissed about all the nuance of modern music. "Who the **** does that?!?!! Everyone knows this is all affected-bull**** for the sake of appealing to stupid people!" (yes I'm like this IRL as well).

A friend of mine who drags me to almost all the local shows I go to threw on this channel called Palladium which was constant live music. I happened to grab the "I <3 Radio" concert which, to my delight, was Nikki Minaj, Kenny Chesney, and Coldplay.

You can think whatever you want of that lineup, but two of them are what they are. They may not appeal to you, but at least they seem honest. Then theres Coldplay. I started to feel really bad for the guy playing bass. I looked at it like I look at the VP of Enron. By the time the poor shlub knew how wrong his life was, he was in too deep, making too much money, and was too tainted to ever do that well again. You're just along for the ride even if it was a downward spiral. And it is.

Its moving irreversibly in that direct because of one Chris Martin. Not since Ja Rule have I thought an artist was willingly malleable for the sake of getting 13 year olds to jerk off to them. The graffitied piano, the countless wristbands that hover somewhere between a crazy-band bedecked tween and a 1970’s Steven Tyler. The marriage to Gwyneth Paltrow who might be one of the more deplorable celebrities. And don’t think I can’t hear you, Coldplay fanboi.
“But wait, whats this got to do with the music?!? Nothing! You’re just bitter! And The Scientist is a masterpiece!”
Shut your god damn mouth. First of all, the Scientist sounds like the rest of the album which is a watered-down Radiohead track made for the Adult Contemporary audience. It’s the Gerbers of artsy music, mashed up banana-flavored mush meant to appear to be one thing, but in fact be completely unrelated and designed not only to fool but to be digestible. Short of pretending that the spoon was an airplane coming in for a landing, Coldplay marketed their swill for the bowel tracks of Americas masses. And holy **** did they chow down. They’ve been in every commercial known to man, and I’m pretty sure Chris Martin loaned his name out to credit card companies to put on the fake card they show in ads.
But I’m writing this tirade for a more noble reason. While we’re sitting there getting sloshed on $10 wine (bottle, not glass) my friend says to me “you know, music just wasn’t meant to be written for arenas.” I don’t know if he actually thinks that or the booze was talking but I think he has a damn good point. Music is not supposed to be consistently soaring and atmospheric. Not in my universe anyway. For one thing, it inherently implies that the sound system is part of the act. In this case, the sound guys ought to be getting a cut of the check. Secondly, have you ever heard these songs played on acoustic instruments? You either need Phil Spector arranging the ****ing thing, or you need to completely change it up. Primarily because when you’re not cowering behind a way of reverb, you need to back up your nonsense with talent.
To be, Arena music can be damn fun, but it doesn’t have much substance. I never get deep into “Cum on Feel the Noize” or much of the Bon Jovi back catalog. Which isn’t to disparage them (or to make the comparison) but those acts at least know what their wheelhouse is. Neither pretend they’re the Poet Laurite of modern music. Except Coldplay. And that’s the issue. That everyones fully prepared to put their hands out for accolades when they’re cowering behind technological handicaps.
I asked a music professor I once knew (friend’s husband) why you didn’t hear a lot of cello in jazz. In short his answer was “Well jazz recordings were ****ty so players use to find ways around the brass to be heard on an album.” Are ya ****ting me? If Coldplay formed up in 1924 it would be 4 guys with bows behind 3 trumpet plays who had talent. And the dopes would all be in zoot suits.
But beyond my Coldplay hatred, can music be created for Arenas? Is there a value out there in the atmosphere? Should music be something that holds up in the coffee shop, the street corner, and Red Rocks? I had my opinions, and they shouldn’t be heard to figure out, but I’d love to hear from you folks. Whats the point of putting a song 6 feet underreverb?

And wtf is mylo xyloto?

Woops! You'll want to steer clear of my review of "Parachutes" in my journal then! :D

Seriously, I know people hate Coldplay, but (and I'm not a huge fan, but I do like their music. Mostly) isn't it sometimes easier just to knock something because it's there and it's got bigger than really it has any right to be? What about REM? They're surely an arena band (or were): do you think they sold out, and do you think that of all bands who play arenas, or did I miss the point? I know it was essentially a rant at Coldplay, but I do wonder. If the London Philharmonic (or pick your orchestra) play in an arena, is that wrong? What about Peter Gabriel and his orchestra on that "New blood" thing? Or the live version of Jeff Wayne's "War of the worlds"? Some music MUST have been written for arenas --- can you really see Meat Loaf playing the Mean Fiddler?

I never really thought about it to be honest. Gigs have just more or less evolved into larger beasts as the artistes get more popular and more people want to see them, and to accomodate them they have to use arenas. Biggest bands here usually play Croke Park or the Point, which would both be considered arenas, sometimes Phoenix Park, biggest park in Europe. Would you relegate them to smaller venues, thus less people could get to see them unless they played more nights, and that's not always logistically possible?

I think you HAVE to have arenas. Sure, it's much better when it's all small and intimate. I saw both BB King and Steve Earle in the National Stadium, which holds about two thousand people:small, really, in comparison to the likes of the Point which can seat up to 13,000 --- it's called the 02 arena now, as it happens. But those gigs were great. Would they have been better or worse in an arena setting? I really don't think so.

When it comes down to it, I think the music has to stand up, whether it's played for a worldwide television audience or six guys in a pub. The venue should not matter: let the music do the talking, is what I say!

Okay, I'm SLOWLY reaching inside my pocket and taking out my musical prejudices .... see? ... sliding them across the floor... you're in no danger --- backing away slowly, just want to talk.... no need for anyone to get hurt....
:cool:

I'm always happiest when posters come with weapons drawn.

Do you think music should be written with the venue in mind? Arena or club.

Personally , as I think I've made clear, no, I don't. If writers and musicians have to start considering how their music will sound in arenas (or clubs) then it is bound to restrict them. Besides, who knows how popular a band or singer will get in the future? If say Badly Drawn Boy started out in clubs and then got so popular that they had to play bigger and bigger venues, should their music then be tailored to those bigger venues? What about when an artist either gets less popular (Roger Waters playing solo to a few thousand people while Floyd play to ten or more times that number), or else stage a less-than-successful comeback (Jeff Lynne AS ELO)? Do they then have to rewrite their material so that it sounds better in smaller settings?

I don't think the venue has any bearing at all on the music. It's up to the listener. After all, if they don't enjoy a big arena concert they can still go home and listen to the album as it was meant to be, but not if somehow it gets written --- or rewritten --- for stadium gigs.

On another note, what do you think of Waits' new album? Is it brilliant, or is it just brilliant? Or, to put it another way, is it brilliant? :)

Musicbanter as Dinosaurs: Hipster Dinosaur Coloring Book | Runt Of The Web

Baby Boomer Santa

The future of discussing music...
 

I feel bad for the “heard it first” crowd. The internet is expanding quicker than the universe. Indie music, which seemed to be the most genre open to odd arrangements and instrumentation since electronic music hit it big has now been consumed by big business. I find more cooler music on commercials now than I do on Musicbanter. The ability to say you heard it months ago is dying. Yesterday is the new “months ago.”

I read once that it’s impossible to remain counter-culture for long because capitalism will find a way to market that culture and make a buck. Not to mention, with the internet allowing everyone to build their portfolio in any capacity they want (advertising, directing, creating music) people who normally wouldn’t have the experience years ago are now proven sensations. Youtube & the Internet have taken the old boys network out behind the woodshed and murdered it painfully.

In a similar comment, I remember some fairly successful mogul (Jay-Z maybe) saying whats wrong with the record industry is that people who had one great find never get fired. That he personally had been told “You can’t fire him, he discovered Motley Crue!” The nerve of some people.

I mention all of this because its leading to one great and final “enough” from the youth of the world that’s going to essentially erase time. The Clash was once called “The only band that matters.” It was predicated upon them living on the cutting edge. But today, that edge is moving so fast that the distance between “Heard it yesterday” meaning current, and “heard it yesterday” meaning forever ago is impossible to distinguish. Hipsters, be forewarned, trying to be ironic about hearing something yesterday is going to land really poorly.

For me, this is all great news. “Heard it first” was always a really poor indicator of music or people who listened to it. It implied you were an amazing scout with a sharp ear for new music; that your judgment was to be higher than those who heard it second or fourteenth. But now you can’t help but trip over some ******* with a rebec backed up with a three-piece brass set walking down to the subway or walking by a television set. If music were dimensions, the days or width would be dead or dying. It’s time to move on to height.

Depth in music is not new. People have been trying to write up the Beatles like they would Shakespeare for too long. It’s not inherently bad, we all start somewhere, but Literature and its critique have evolved as they have because of the type of medium that Literature is. Music, by virtue of its difference, must follow its own path. But it seems only plausible for music that’s old, presumably because we’ve sat with it for a while. Literature needs to allow for time to determine its value to some degree because it is, to steal a line from Christopher Hitchens, “the vehicle by which we deal with questions of ethics and morality.” (paraphrase). Literature is not inventing by refining. It is the Aristotelian Mirror to our human condition. And this differs from music in two very large ways: Music does not give us the same reflection or philosophy nearly as well if at all, and music consistently tries to reinvent the wheel.

You’ve no doubt seen someone try to write something where the words represent the action. Poems about leaves falling throw words all over the page. Shell Silverstein was a master at this sort of thing. But his longevity is not determined by his groundbreaking presentation. And that presentation doesn’t make for good literature. But when music attempts the same concept, that’s what separates the wheat from the chafe. One of the reasons the “heard it first crowd” also held some sway is because they had the potential to bring you not new music, but new sound. Music is like food at times because the same old ingredients you know in parts can be mixed to create new flavors you couldn’t imagine. Do you remember the first time you heard a sound or style that you’d never heard before? There’s a moment there where something ancient and familiar reappears before you, like this sound you’ve never heard before seems somehow natural and refreshing. It is on this ground that music, even in the rapid-paced world of technology, has a future and a contribution to make.

Music going forward should yield a deeper discussion. Without concern about what comes next, we can worry about what will influence “next”; what “next” will reflect of the past. I think it’s best if our discussions of music become richer, that our discussions concern themselves with layers. Depth, arrangement, and scope seem familiar to those who’ve spent time in the more established genres; Classical and Jazz fans probably routinely talk in these terms, but those forms never worried about “next” in the first place. The existed as new at a time when technology only allowed them to be heard places other than in the club live. Today it allows us to auto-tune the news.

As I look around my usual music outlets whether it be friends of forums, I sense a great lull in the conversation. Music, as I’ve said, hasn’t really slowed, so why the conversation? Sloth is natural in a time of transition. No one is looking to commit to things that are on a dead-end. Beta Max, the Mini Disc Player, Google+ -investing in those products was a waste of time for everyone involved. It’s natural to wonder what’s next when the old norms have been worn out and dried up. But I think when the dust clears, technology finally removes “first” from the musical lexicon, we’ll discover that the path forward isn’t “forward” but in fact, its “down.”

I don't think I've ever listened to things just because someone has said it is hip or new in style, why should I care about fashion? You still do get music critics damning by faint praise in both classical and popular music. The technique is normally to compare a lesser known music with something far better known and celebrated and say while it is ok in it's way it is still inferior to the person who is more famous and supposedly did it first. What should matter more is whether something is simply good musically and not whether it is thought to be totally original or influential. Originality and influence tend to be vastly overhyped factors at the expense of the reality anyway. Music is about enjoyment to me and not about agonizing where I place someone in some music history I have constructed.

As for talking about music, I find it easier to talk about things which I have known and lived with for a while. And often what is there really to say about specific music except that you consider it consistent, well constructed and done with feeling? Or the opposite if you don't like it. I find talk about music as an art in more general terms can be more interesting as it can be broader in scope and bring in other subjects and so be a more fruitful way of exploring this mysterious art.

I think the major problem is that now music is so accessible and there is so damn much of it that it gives absolutely everyone the opportunity to "hear it first". I think that is where the lull in conversation comes from as well. I have a plethora of bands I would love to discuss, but generally no one has heard them. For me, I would LOVE to have deeper discussions about shoegaze, but the only guy I know that can hold his own with that is Zero. I'm sure many of you can relate.

I honestly can't decide if this situation is good or bad. I have plenty of music to listen to but now the crap to good music ratio has drastically increased. I also have to pick and choose whose recommendations to follow up on. I've listened to so much music over the past 15 years (obsessively for the past 10) that I walk around completely confident that I probably know more about music than the next guy...so why should I take his recommendations? This is why it makes a site like MB even more vital for me. I know the people here who love music on my level and I know when I should take note of a recommendation. It's a little disheartening that it has slowed down.

Despite this transitional limbo, I think it's a fascinating time to live in. It will end (as everything does), a new way to distribute and find music will emerge, and hopefully we can get back to the good stuff. I love the idea that I can look back and say "I lived through a very confusing and uncertain time in music...it was pure anarchy. I could download whatever the **** I wanted".

One of the big downsides of the internet is now someone can dabble into so many genres of the music casually; not knowing very much about any genre aside from 2-3 bands they may have happened upon. Their scope of music may be wider than it would have been without the internet, but overall knowledge on any given style is very limited.

I use google for recommendations and that leads me to many websites. Just type in the name of an album you like (better if more obscure), then type "best albums" and you will come up with lists that are probably worth looking through. This place is more for music discussion for me, I don't even have that much time to listen to the youtube vids here really.

It's hard to assess if the ratio of good to crap has decreased or increased. But certainly I think there is likely to be more good stuff than ever (and of course it's more available), it's just that more of it is little known than ever before too.