| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Shiv 
"What a Wonderful World"
|
 Posted - 03/12/2007 : 14:09:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
And as for the period late 60s/early 70s, yes there were some great bands around. You'll have gathered that getting my vote does nothing for a band's reputation, so mention in the following list will not please their fans, but I had a whale of a time listening to Hendrix, The Who, Rolling Stones, Black Sabbath, Deep Purple, PF, Queen (their best stuff is on their first two albums IMHO), LZ (Physical Graffiti's one of my all-time favourite albums) and - rarely mentioned these days but some terrific stuff - Supertramp.
Supertramp, great. Black Sabbath yes, and for sure Queen's first two albums are the best. Genesis was something else in the early years too - what happened there? Deep Purple, only Smoke on the Water played endlessly now it seems. Also David Bowie's music of that time - up to Aladdin Sane and Diamond Dogs.
My dad was an eclectic music fan - his collection of vinyl is in the thousands and he's into the CDs now and still collecting. When I was growing up I had all this music as background (along with BB King, John Lee Hooker, Billie Holliday and others). My teen years were the early 80s and on and I HATED the music that was coming out at that time (at least the music all my peers were listening to. The only saving grace was John Peel's radio show.). Funny thing is my dad is a very straight bloke, was never a hippy, never did anything remotely experimental with mind-altering drugs. Maybe if he had I'd be the straight one and raving on about Duran Duran and all that ****
He was never into punk, funny that! |
 |
|
|
ChocolateLady 
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 14:24:40
|
quote:
Originally posted by Koli
and - rarely mentioned these days but some terrific stuff - Supertramp.
Ah, but Supertramp was progressive rock. Something about progressive that doesn't die easily. Chicago, ELO, Focus, Genesis, Tull, Renaissance, Pink Floyd - much of their music still sounds great today. That, and Folk-Rock seem to have a longer shelf-life than pure Punk for me. |
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:16:25
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
Obviously some strong feelings here. The Clash definitely emerged out of the punk scene. It was all about attitude and antidisestablishmentarianism - their songs certainly socked it to the 'man'. But I still feel that they are different because of their musical direction. Look at the Beatles - how many incarnations did they go through. For a while there they were the dreaded POP band, oh yes they were! Now they are hailed as changing the course of music with Sgt Pepper.
Punk is not called 'punk rock' for nothing. The basis of the music was raw rock and roll. Where some of the bands took that afterwards is something different, IMHO.
I'm assuming you meant "anti-establishment," because antidesestablishmentarianism means being against the separation of Church and State.
Anyway, I don't associate that with punk, but rather with rock 'n' roll and pop music in general, which have always been based on the idea of driving your parents crazy and defying whatever it is their generation stands for. This has been the case at least since kids were dancing to jazz music in the 20s. I don't think anyone would call Woodstock a "punk" festival, but it was all about (among other things) protest and defying the establishment.
I also reject the notion that there is any such thing as a "punk sound," and by extension that incorporating that sound is evidence that a band is punk. This also explains my irritation with bands like Green Day and Rancid, that copied a style that people decided "punk is supposed to sound like" and so everyone started calling those bands punk, too. The reason a lot of punk bands sound similar is very very simple: when you only know a couple chords, most of your songs are going to end up sounding pretty much the same.
And that highlights what punk "is," or at least the musical aspect of it (I could go on for ages about punk culture). It's about accessability. Punk means you can go ahead and start a band even if you don't really know how to play or write music or even sing. Punk is about getting right up to the stage or even climbing on it and singing the next verse with the band, something that would get you tackled and arrested at a rock 'n' roll stadium concert. I just don't think 60,000 seat stadium concerts and punk can go together. I hate using words like "selling out" because it implies there's something wrong an artist making money off their art, but when you graduate to that level, you're just not a punk band anymore. It has nothing to do with how you sound. There are bands that chose to become pop megastars like the Clash, the Talking Heads, Blondie, et al, and that's fine. There are other groups that chose to stay punk, like Fugazi, which have made a conscious choice to not promote themselves outside the small venues where you can get in for $7 a head, even though they were positioned perfectly to ride the "punk fad" of the 90s (maybe it's because Ian MacKaye is already making plenty of money with his record label, but that's not important). The Ramones probably got well paid for "Rock 'n' Roll High School," but they were still playing the sunday matinees at CBGBs and still hanging out on St. Marks. They remained accessible. |
|
|
|
shoon 
"Five(ish?) years as a fwiffer"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:19:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
quote:
Originally posted by shoon
I'm also listening to Andrea Boccelli, the Dreamgirls soundtrack, death metal and Eric Clapton, so take my musical tastes with a pinch of salt. 
Boccelli? Oy Vey! I say, listen to classical singers singing classical music, or pop singers singing pop music, but the cross-overs are unbearable.
(At least he didn't say Emma Shapplin!)
I like it. His voice isn't as suited to Operatic blasting as, say, Pavarotti's is/was, and when he sings softer songs I like it. I'm no opera aficionado, so I'm not in sync with what a lot of people say about Boccelli's supposedly 'poperatic' voice. Then again, I like Pavarotti too, so I guess it doesn't really matter that much. As I said, I like songs that make me feel good, whether that be a soppy songs that makes me feel fuzzy inside to a rocking song that exhilarates me. Boccelli makes me happy.  |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 16:19:48
|
| I'm not offended by those who don't like the Rolling Stones. I feel sorry for them, especially since they've probably decided they don't like them without ever having the benefit of hearing the best examples of their music. I guess you have to love Blues to really love the Stones...but I feel sorry for anybody that doesn't love Blues, too. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 23:33:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I'm not offended by those who don't like the Rolling Stones. I feel sorry for them, especially since they've probably decided they don't like them without ever having the benefit of hearing the best examples of their music. I guess you have to love Blues to really love the Stones...but I feel sorry for anybody that doesn't love Blues, too.
If you read my other posting you will see that I do love the Blues.
Yes early Stones is good but it isn't like listening to Hendrix or even The Animals, in my opinion.
Saying you 'feel sorry for someone' who doesn't like a particular band or type of music is, well, a bit sad. I have friends that can't sit through a whole Jimi Hendrix album with me and who just cannot get off on Bonham on drums and JP Jones on bass. But well, they are my friends. One of said friends listens to Cat Stevens - but hell, not when I'm around.
|
Edited by - Shiv on 03/12/2007 23:43:00 |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/12/2007 : 23:42:15
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I'm assuming you meant "anti-establishment," because antidesestablishmentarianism means being against the separation of Church and State.
Yes, technically - private joke - it is no longer used in every day speech and it SURE sounds punk. (And if you want to get pedantic you carried over my typo old chap )
It was the longest word in the English language created by valid morphological processes until the arrival of floccinaucinihilipilification in 1992. Sounds like you are practicing a bit of floccinaucinihilipilification on our musical views. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 00:15:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
The reason a lot of punk bands sound similar is very very simple: when you only know a couple chords, most of your songs are going to end up sounding pretty much the same.
Same for the Blues dude. The music that was out around the time the Stones were playing Blues all sounded the same - like them but not as good. Like with any genre of music, real musical talent and a desire to explore take bands out of the 'musical gene pool'. The Stones moved on from the Blues, The Beatles from rock and roll. The Clash were brilliant because they were punk - plus some.
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 02:12:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
...but I feel sorry for anybody that doesn't love Blues, too.
Saying you 'feel sorry for someone' who doesn't like a particular band or type of music is, well, a bit sad.
I can understand DT's sentiment. If somone is incapable of appreciating something you absolutely love and get mega-enjoyment from, then isn't it natural to think that they're missing out on something? I feel sorry for anyone who doesn't like black metal for example, yet most don't.
I used to know a vegetarian.... who didn't like vegetables. There was little that he could would eat. I felt sorry for him, too.  |
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 02:25:05
|
What punker would give a shit if anyone thought they were legit?  (Remembering Candy Slice, LOL!) |
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 03:52:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shiv
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
The reason a lot of punk bands sound similar is very very simple: when you only know a couple chords, most of your songs are going to end up sounding pretty much the same.
Same for the Blues dude. The music that was out around the time the Stones were playing Blues all sounded the same - like them but not as good. Like with any genre of music, real musical talent and a desire to explore take bands out of the 'musical gene pool'. The Stones moved on from the Blues, The Beatles from rock and roll. The Clash were brilliant because they were punk - plus some.
Ah, but the Stones really didn't move on from blues. What they moved on from was relying exclusively on blues covers, most of which came out sounding really poppie anyway, because in their early days they were heavily influenced by blues but they weren't exactly good at them yet. They also started incorporating a lot of country, which isn't so much "moving on" because it's rather logical when you're coming from a background of delta blues and other forms of country blues. Their best album Exile on Main Street isn't a fantastic psychedelic experiment like the Beatles' Sgt Pepper, it's a collection of delta blues, swamp blues, Chicago blues, r&b, soul, country, and maybe a tiny bit of jazz. It's like starting in New Orleans and taking a backroads musical journey north to Chicago.
Blues really isn't as repetitive and simple as you think, it's just that popular culture tends to focus on the particular brand of Chicago blues popularized by Muddy Waters, which is great but it is a little simple and repetitive. I could play some old delta blues for you where it's very hard to believe that you're only hearing a single guitar being played.
Anyway, don't confuse my poor attempt at humorous false condescension for the real thing. Musical tastes are even more particular than movies, and there are all kinds of music I don't get that people feel are the best thing since cream cheese, and that's okay. I don't feel sorry for people that don't like the Stones or blues, but I really do think they're missing something.  |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 06:35:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by shoon
I like it. His voice isn't as suited to Operatic blasting as, say, Pavarotti's is/was, and when he sings softer songs I like it. I'm no opera aficionado, so I'm not in sync with what a lot of people say about Boccelli's supposedly 'poperatic' voice. Then again, I like Pavarotti too, so I guess it doesn't really matter that much. As I said, I like songs that make me feel good, whether that be a soppy songs that makes me feel fuzzy inside to a rocking song that exhilarates me. Boccelli makes me happy.
Pavarotti actually has a beautiful voice - a true, natural tenor that can hit all the high notes with ease and without sounding pinched. His lower register is fading these days, but it still sounds good and unforced. Unfortunately, due to his size and poor acting abilities (and his age), he isn't a very popular stage opera singer anymore. People want not just good voices but good actors as well when they see opera these days. But if you're not into opera...
Okay, I can see where Boccelli and Pavarotti's 'poperatic' stuff has its place, and perhaps I should be glad that they're out there, getting the younger generation exposed and wanting to listen to classical music. But for people like me who grew up listening to and loving opera, it does rub me the wrong way.
But I don't just listen to opera and classical music. My car right now has the following CDs (partial list):
Steve Goodman - Hot Spot
KT Tunstall - Eye to the Telescope
Avenue Q - Original Broadway Cast soundtrack
Steely Dan - Two Against Nature
Paul Simon - Surprise
Alan Parsons - two disc 'best of' collection
Rickie Lee Jones - Pirates
Crosby, Stills & Nash - Crosby, Stills & Nash
De-Lovely - movie soundtrack
Sting - Sacred Love
Seal - Seal
and
Mozart's Cosi Fan Tutte
|
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 07:55:16
|
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
My car right now has the following CDs (partial list):
...
Here's my car list:-
Enthroned - Carnage in World's Beyond (Belgian black metal)
Deicide - Stench of Redemption (US Satanic death metal)
Dimmu Borgir - Stormbl�st (Norwegian symphonic black metal)
Arch Enemy - Wages of Sin (Swedish death metal)
Children of Bodom - Something Wild (Finnish melodic death metal)
In Flames - The Jester Race (Swedish melodic death metal)
Satyricon - Nemesis Divina (Norwegian black metal)
Cradle of Filth - Cruelty and the Beast (UK operatic black metal)
all of which I bought last week. And when I'm not in the car they're in the house. As you can see I'm in a metal mood. I've listened to 98% metal (mostly Scandinavian) for the last year or so, with the occasional break e.g., for the local jazz festival after Xmas, and for some Xmassy music over Xmas, and Arvo P�rt's brilliant Tabula Rasa (do you classical lovers know this one? It's my favourite 'classical' album of all  ).*
I never listen to classical music in the car, I find the engine/road noise kills the subtlety, even if it's very loud.
* Tabula Rasa is so delicate I simply refuse to listen to it if there is anyone else in the house. When I'm going to listen to it, I unplug the phone, lock the door, turn off the fridge in the kitchen, move the clock into another room (it ticks), turn the lights off and lie back and enter musical heaven. It's so delicate you can hear stuff like orchestra members turning pages of their music, the occasional accidental tap of a violin bow against a music stand, and can almost hear the players breathing. It really is awesome. It absolutely has to be dark though, and best late at night in the hour before I go to sleep. |
|
|
|
Shiv
"What a Wonderful World"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 08:33:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
Blues really isn't as repetitive and simple as you think,
I don't think that. There you go again assuming I don't know anything about blues. Stop it
quote:
Anyway, don't confuse my poor attempt at humorous false condescension for the real thing. Musical tastes are even more particular than movies, and there are all kinds of music I don't get that people feel are the best thing since cream cheese, and that's okay. I don't feel sorry for people that don't like the Stones or blues, but I really do think they're missing something.
But of course. I don't take anything you say seriously  Joke- nothing you have said has upset me in any shape or form. You must also not have picked up my tongue in cheek tone
We basically agree about agreeing to disagree - cool.
The general problem I find is that when someone wishes to not bow down in awe to The Stones or The Beatles they are beaten around the head for being ignorant - rather than just a minority. It is much harder for me to argue that Jethro Tull aren't just some twee folk rock band since theren't aren't millions of JT fans out there. But the same principle applies - you crowd are tooootally missing out.
I don't dislike either of those bands and I appreciate their musical contribution to the world's music culture. Yes, I've listened to them, yes there are some tracks I really like - but when it comes down to it they are simply not in my record collection.
Captain Beefheart is though - anyone a fan of Don van Vliet? |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 03/13/2007 : 08:42:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by Se�n
I never listen to classical music in the car, I find the engine/road noise kills the subtlety, even if it's very loud.
I don't often myself, as you can see from the list. I do listen to the classical radio station on the way to work, though. They don't always have the "good stuff" on, and I found I need something in the background that keeps me calm when I have to buck idiot drivers (who, for some reason, are worse drivers in the mornings then the early evenings when I'm going home). I save the opera CD for longer drives on the faster roads, later at night.
(That's when people are less apt to see me singing along!)
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Punk Rock
