MUSIC: the official thread.

I would like to touch her breasts.

 

I worked security at one of her gigs years ago at the Barrowlands and during every song she'd climb onto the pit barrier to interact with the crowd, wearing an all in one catsuit complete with tail. The pit boss Stevie's job was to hold her up by the arse to stop her falling backwards off the rail. No delegation. athetic: Good a really nice view though.

 

:laughing:

 

No, it wouldn't! Are you mad?

So he'd have to compromise greatly in order to "make the charts"... there's the issue right there... in order to fill the niche', he would need to make shittier music in order to get airplay and a music video

"There was more overlap" ... in other words, a better artistic landscape where people who made unique music could still get a record deal and promotion?

 

only worthwhile thing about her

she's a despicable phenomenon

 

Would you put your peenus into her vagina?

 

with significant protection

 

you know what is one of the most hideous trends in the last 10 years? the faux-R&Bish, quasi-jammy white guy singer/songwriter, younger, cuter version of Dave "Worst music ever" Matthews thing

John Mayer is a perfect example

The worst, by far, is Jason Mraz... Unbearable faggotry

 

What makes it all the worse is how pretentious the fans of such shit are.

 

Cdogg, do you like Radiohead?

 

No idea who any of those people are.

 

That's not my interpretation. I don't necessarily deny it, but it's not the main factor. I'd say good indie was simply closer to being commercial sounding. There are exceptions today of bands who've made music as commercial as Talking Heads while still being good and they've been very successful.....I already mentioned the first MGMT album, Arcade Fire, Radiohead & Bon Iver are others, there are probably a couple more who fit the bill. They're just rarer - the indie scene is more experimental & fragmented into niches as a rule.

 

really?

you are very fortunate

give Jason Mraz a listen... deeply offensive "flirt with your girlfriend" type of shit

 

INDEED

 

No, exactly the opposite - it's more fragmented because almost everything has been done so to try and do something new, bands with any artistic intentions are increasingly skirting the peripheries. There was still allot more fertile ground in Talking Heads' time. A young Byrne today just wouldn't be making music as commercial as he did in the early 80s because he'd be trying to do new things.

 

I've got friends who fucking ADORE Radiohead

I can't stand them... Affected, bleak nonsense... It's not as bad as Tool, for example, but it's a similar type of vibe... Tool is depressing mood music for guys who can bench 350, while Radiohead is depressing mood music for guys who get needlessly picked on by guys who can bench 350::

Occasionally, the two camps overlap, which is always nice to see...

What bothers me about Radiohead is that there is so much "mood" that people tend to mistaken it for actual songs or content... Ok, let's use a weird tuning on the guitar for every song while Thom Yorke moans... Their drummer is terrible, as well...

Listen, it's all relative... I'd listen to Radiohead for the rest of my life before I'd sit through shit like Jason Mraz or Dave Matthews (although, in fairness, his drummer is outstanding and the only remotely positive thing about him) ... it's not the worst thing in the world by any stretch... however, it is fucking FAR more critically acclaimed than any of that stuff, which means it is given more respect, which means it's put upon you as something that needs to be taken seriously... I'm not concerned enough with Thom Yorke's well-being, nor am I easily swayed by moody noise enough to care about Radiohead

They are the band where basically everyone gets incredibly offended if you aren't a believer. I thought "Creep", while silly and melodramatic, was cathy enough when it came out and there was a song or two on "Ok Computer" that I thought was solid, but I've never understood the fuss. Countless listens to "Kid A", "Hail To The Thief", etc. surrounded by enthusiastic friends failed to convince me in any way.

As moody, kill yourself pop music goes, it's a lot better than Depeche Mode or Yaz, but I still have no use for it

Still, better than most anything on top 40 the last 10 years, in fairness

 

Don't really like Radiohead, myself. Kid A & Rainbows had some really outstanding moments, but Thom Yorke's voice really makes my dick spongy.

 

I disagree with this... it would seem to indicate that some sort of evolution has occurred... If anything, mainstream art has de-volved. The Talking Heads sound far more out there and "artsy" than anything of comparable popularity right now... 30 years after the fact

 

::

Read what I said again, please.

 

I also disagree on "everything's been done" for two reasons A) It's not true and B) formulas are inevitable in art and always have been... using the formulas is not a bad thing, it's which ones and HOW you use them

 

you always say this, and I still can't quite figure out what you mean:l2:

 

Allot has been done within the 4 minute verse/chorus recognizable sing-along-melody pop song format.

 

Pipe DOON!

I will punch ye so hard in the nuts, your favorite footballer will be Kris Boyd

 

A lot more can still be done

In 1968, we might have said "that's it!... no mas... all of the good songs have been written"

 

Sure and plenty is being done. You just don't like it.::

 

that's just it, though... it isn't

remove the gloss, the auto-tune, the various sound effects... strip it down to just the song... play it on an unaccompanied piano or guitar... the same cynical tendencies of the worst pop music are still in use... only the lingo is updated...

from a musician's perspective, the only difference is that there isn't even the pleasure of hearing great session guys playing these stupid songs like you had with the worst pop music of the 60s and 70s... that was the one saving grace of that time... Sonny and Cher were dreadful, but the "Wrecking Crew" were great musicians... musicianship doesn't exist in bubblegum music any more... the songs are the same, though

 

Every time I'm talking about actual modern music you're talking about shite that 13 year olds buy. Who cares that shite music is shite? There's always been shite music that was shite. I stand by why I think it's less often supplemented (in the singles charts) with the odd half decent thing than it once was.

To give an example of what I mean - imagine David Bowie was 25 right now. Same guy, same predilection to experiment and push boundaries. Would he make something which sounded anything like Hunky Dory today? 4 minutes, vanilla production, verse/chorus, sing along melody. I sincerely doubt it.

 

You seem to be missing that 4 minutes, verse/chorus, sing-along is the norm in pop music, indie music, rock music, etc... that hasn't changed at all... the difference is that the influences aren't as rich (to me) ... Bowie would likely make much shittier music now if he were 25 than he did when he actually was 25, unless someone with a really great record collection steered him away from the charts for the first 20 years of his life... I guess, what I would say is WHAT'S YOUR POINT, CALLER? ... If someone experiments with, I don't know, 5 sources that I hate to begin with, why would I like what they come up with?

If some guy says "my band is a sort of Roxy Music/Heart/Sex Pistols/U2/Pearl Jam hybrid", why the fuck would I like that? Just because the guy is experimenting?:l2:

 

That guy wouldn't be experimenting. He'd just be making the modern version of middle of the road shite of the sort which has always existed.

 

:drl:

You mean, like "Arcade Fire"? :dunno: