Music Thread

[FlaSoxxJim]

No, I'm saying that if Nirvana hadn't come along, someone else would have "killed hair metal".

That crap had run its course, so Nirvana didn't kill it, Nirvana was just the next band people took to.

There are still bands out there playing that hair metal drivel for 50 people in barns and "spectaculars" like Rocklahoma, but I'm talking about mainstream acceptance.

That s*** was so awful and played out that it was bound to fade away, it was just a matter of who got latched onto next.

 

I agree if not Nirvana, it would have been someone else. The historic fact remains that it was Nirvana that sped the demise. Right place right time.

 

The Beach Boys/Beatles situation is similar. By late 1963/early 1964, the Beach Boys sound was largely played out, and a post-JFK assassination America was ready for a new direction. It could have and would have been some lesser band, but fortunately for music it was the Beatles. They were astounding and fresh and different, but there certainly is a right time/right place component there as well.

[The Critic]

I agree if not Nirvana, it would have been someone else. The historic fact remains that it was Nirvana that sped the demise. Right place right time.

 

The Beach Boys/Beatles situation is similar. By late 1963/early 1964, the Beach Boys sound was largely played out, and a post-JFK assassination America was ready for a new direction. It could have and would have been some lesser band, but fortunately for music it was the Beatles. They were astounding and fresh and different, but there certainly is a right time/right place component there as well.

Oh yeah, I agree completely. A lesser band (or album) wouldn't have caused the same stir, but sooner than later another band or album would have captured the attention of music fans who were fed up with hair metal.

My main point, I guess, is that I place more blame on bad hair metal causing its own demise than I give credit to Nirvana for being the next band to hit big and therefore "kill hair metal". I liked Nirvana a lot, and I still think Nevermind is a really good album, but I don't buy the idea that hair metal would have dominated the charts for any longer had Nirvana never happened. People were tiring of that crap anyway.

[bmags]

You are confusing something, with music there is a heavy sentimental value that can make music you normally wouldn't find as good to be much better. But I don't think there is the same for historical significance. I really don't think about how the Beatles saved America from the Beach boys in 63, or what it was like to have a band that big at the time. I think, man, this music is pretty good.

 

I don't think I could ever like Pavement as much as someone who was around in 89 when slanted and enchanted dropped, but I really enjoy their music now, one of my favorite bands. But with Nirvana, I wasn't there (in a way) and I don't really care that much about their music, I'm not saying it's bad and I'm embarrassed it existed, but I don't have nirvana on my computer and I won't listen to it. Historical appreciation doesn't lend itself to music well. In fact, I kind of resent them more because that whole generation allowed their youth culture to get so easily packaged up and sold back to them. Like if Urban outfitters was Walmart.

 

 

 

[Milkman delivers]

Who?

 

I think you're joking, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that you're not. He's the guitarist and main lyricist for The Who. He basically went insane trying to find a single note that would unite all the people of the world (or something to that end).

[farmteam]

I think you're joking, but I'm going to operate on the assumption that you're not. He's the guitarist and main lyricist for The Who. He basically went insane trying to find a single note that would unite all the people of the world (or something to that end).

 

Yeah I was going for the "Who's on First" type joke there. Apparently I failed.

[FlaSoxxJim]

You are confusing something, with music there is a heavy sentimental value that can make music you normally wouldn't find as good to be much better. But I don't think there is the same for historical significance.

 

I don't agree with that. I definitely will preferentially view certain bands, musical trends or forms, etc. in a different light if they represent an historical antecedent to something of musical significance or something I connect with. That's probably not a great thing to admit from the standpoint of unbiased listening, but curiosity over those historical precursors has led me to some really wonderful things.

 

Let me try to give an example. As a teenager listening to and reading all things Hendrix, I kept running into references to an early electric jazz guitarist named Charlie Christian and it made me seek out his stuff which I ended up loving. Now I could have randomly encountered Barney Kessel or Tal Farlow without knowing about Christian or that their styles were very much predicated on that of Charlie. And the stuff I've heard from them is quite good, but because Christian was the pioneer I hold him in higher esteem even if they are all technical near-equals and even though I wasn't around to experience any of this first-hand. So, here's a case where history is really what dictates hoe I view Christian relative to the others.

 

Years later I became aware that Christian was really one of the pioneers that help forged the style that became bepop, so I feel entirely vindicated by letting an established historical significance guide a lot of my digging into music that predates me.

Edited March 3, 2009 by FlaSoxxJim

[shipps]

Just now listened to Thom Yorke's(from Radiohead) solo album from a couple years back. Holy s*** what a suckfest that is. Never do solo again...ever.

[DukeNukeEm]

You are confusing something, with music there is a heavy sentimental value that can make music you normally wouldn't find as good to be much better. But I don't think there is the same for historical significance. I really don't think about how the Beatles saved America from the Beach boys in 63, or what it was like to have a band that big at the time. I think, man, this music is pretty good.

 

I don't think I could ever like Pavement as much as someone who was around in 89 when slanted and enchanted dropped, but I really enjoy their music now, one of my favorite bands. But with Nirvana, I wasn't there (in a way) and I don't really care that much about their music, I'm not saying it's bad and I'm embarrassed it existed, but I don't have nirvana on my computer and I won't listen to it. Historical appreciation doesn't lend itself to music well. In fact, I kind of resent them more because that whole generation allowed their youth culture to get so easily packaged up and sold back to them. Like if Urban outfitters was Walmart.

To be fair Terror Twilight came out in 1999, which is a lot more recent than In Utero.

 

I liked The Eraser by Thom, not as good as the Radiohead stuff but I enjoyed it.

[bmags]

To be fair Terror Twilight came out in 1999, which is a lot more recent than In Utero.

 

I liked The Eraser by Thom, not as good as the Radiohead stuff but I enjoyed it.

 

I was off on my dates anyways, I don't think S&E dropped until 92, crcr 94? wowee zowee 95

[bmags]

I don't agree with that. I definitely will preferentially view certain bands, musical trends or forms, etc. in a different light if they represent an historical antecedent to something of musical significance or something I connect with. That's probably not a great thing to admit from the standpoint of unbiased listening, but curiosity over those historical precursors has led me to some really wonderful things.

 

Let me try to give an example. As a teenager listening to and reading all things Hendrix, I kept running into references to an early electric jazz guitarist named Charlie Christian and it made me seek out his stuff which I ended up loving. Now I could have randomly encountered Barney Kessel or Tal Farlow without knowing about Christian or that their styles were very much predicated on that of Charlie. And the stuff I've heard from them is quite good, but because Christian was the pioneer I hold him in higher esteem even if they are all technical near-equals and even though I wasn't around to experience any of this first-hand. So, here's a case where history is really what dictates hoe I view Christian relative to the others.

 

Years later I became aware that Christian was really one of the pioneers that help forged the style that became bepop, so I feel entirely vindicated by letting an established historical significance guide a lot of my digging into music that predates me.

 

but that's leading you to discovery, not enjoyment. I probably found the beatles because of their significance, but I don't think you can trick your mind into enjoying something just because of that. I may have *found* woody guthrie because of his influence on other musical acts I've enjoyed, but I couldn't trick myself into liking him, I just did. Though I'm well aware of can and neu's influence on LCD soundsystem's sound of silver, I can't listen to neu!, i just don't have it in me. I can hear the correlation, I can, just don't enjoy it all that much.

 

I know robert johnson had quite an influence on everyone, but I never want to put on robert johnson. I can understand its importance, but it's not like i'm gonna throw it on just for significance. Music is about its affect on my life, and the bands that have affected me, not who have affected them.

[DukeNukeEm]

Pavement's Watery Domestic EP is so good I can barely keep my pants on listening to it.

[Milkman delivers]

Yeah I was going for the "Who's on First" type joke there. Apparently I failed.

 

Like I said, I figured you were joking. There are just a lot of idiots on the internet, though, so I figured an explanation would be useful.

[FlaSoxxJim]

but that's leading you to discovery, not enjoyment. I probably found the beatles because of their significance, but I don't think you can trick your mind into enjoying something just because of that. I may have *found* woody guthrie because of his influence on other musical acts I've enjoyed, but I couldn't trick myself into liking him, I just did. Though I'm well aware of can and neu's influence on LCD soundsystem's sound of silver, I can't listen to neu!, i just don't have it in me. I can hear the correlation, I can, just don't enjoy it all that much.

 

I know robert johnson had quite an influence on everyone, but I never want to put on robert johnson. I can understand its importance, but it's not like i'm gonna throw it on just for significance. Music is about its affect on my life, and the bands that have affected me, not who have affected them.

 

That's fair enough. I'm only questioning the validity of accepting that you can value a piece music more than you should because of a personal significance (prom song, first kiss song, etc.) while not accepting you can do the same based on historical significance. It's not a dichotomy I can say I share.

[bmags]

That's fair enough. I'm only questioning the validity of accepting that you can value a piece music more than you should because of a personal significance (prom song, first kiss song, etc.) while not accepting you can do the same based on historical significance. It's not a dichotomy I can say I share.

 

It can, but only if that historical significance means something to you... I don't really care about the early 90s problems because it has no reference point for me. If I used to always listened to the Stones with my dad and he'd tell me about how he went to monterey and stuff, then that historical significance might lead to a sentimental significance.

[longshot7]

Christ, there's a lot to reply to here.

 

You can like or dislike Nirvana's music, HOWEVER there are probably like 10 artists that changed "rock and roll" music in earth-shattering, fundamental ways, and they are one of them. To deny this (whether you were there or not - and if you weren't, and don't know how important they were, I'm sorry for you) is to not know the history of rock music in the US. I'm sorry if this offends, but it's true.

 

It's OK to not like Nirvana. If there is an end-all-be-all to music they certainly aren't it.

 

Again. There was Elvis, then the Beatles, and then Nirvana. That about sums it up.

 

Let me guess, it's the Hold Steady, right?

 

LOL - or TV on the Radio. Blehhhh.

 

Nirvana isn't a bad band the same way Pearl Jam isn't a bad band, but I'll still take the Cocteau Twins or the Pixies before any 90's grunge band.

 

Nirvana wasn't grunge. They sounded nothing like Pearl Jam, Mudhoney, early Soundgarden, and the like.

 

The Beach Boys could have put it on autopilot and mailed it in for several more years if the Beatles hadn't come along when they did and give pop music an alternative.

 

the Beach Boys & The Beatles were contemporaries. If anything, they were both extremely popular in the US until the Sgt Pepper album and the Smile abortion.

 

The Beach Boys/Beatles situation is similar. By late 1963/early 1964, the Beach Boys sound was largely played out, and a post-JFK assassination America was ready for a new direction. It could have and would have been some lesser band, but fortunately for music it was the Beatles. They were astounding and fresh and different, but there certainly is a right time/right place component there as well.

 

This just isn't true. The Beach Boys were still insanely popular through 63, 64, 65, and the year that their universally-lauded masterpiece, Pet Sounds, was released, in 1966.

 

It wasn't until 1967/68 that the Beach Boys' popularity started to decline, and this was because of the rise of the counterculture movement, not necessarily because of the Beatles, although they benefitted.

[FlaSoxxJim]

the Beach Boys & The Beatles were contemporaries. If anything, they were both extremely popular in the US until the Sgt Pepper album and the Smile abortion.

 

This just isn't true. The Beach Boys were still insanely popular through 63, 64, 65, and the year that their universally-lauded masterpiece, Pet Sounds, was released, in 1966.

 

It wasn't until 1967/68 that the Beach Boys' popularity started to decline, and this was because of the rise of the counterculture movement, not necessarily because of the Beatles, although they benefited.

 

This side of The Pond, the Beach Boys and the Beatles were not contemporaries in terms of when they emerged. The Beach Boys had already released 4 albums and were recording number 5 in January 1964 when Introducing the Beatles and meet the Beatles were released. Sure, they continued to record, and yes they sold, but there is no disputing that the Beatles won the battle or rock and roll superiority and eclipsed the Beach Boys.

 

As to the late 1960s decline of the Beach Boys being a product of the counterculture but not because of the Beatles. . . what album release ushered in the Summer of Love?

 

I'm a Beach Boys fan, mind you. I'm only pointing out an historical fact, that the Beatles knocked them from the top spot and they never took it back.

Edited March 3, 2009 by FlaSoxxJim

[Steve9347]

Chris Cornell's new album is available for streaming on his myspace page.

 

link

 

As with everything else he does, I think it's terrific. However, I'm in love with everything Chris Cornell produces. Timbaland's influence on the album only makes it better as well.

[The Critic]

Chris Cornell's new album is available for streaming on his myspace page.

 

link

 

As with everything else he does, I think it's terrific. However, I'm in love with everything Chris Cornell produces. Timbaland's influence on the album only makes it better as well.

My wife loves Chris Cornell, but she was very disappointed when I played the songs for her.

She said it sounded like a Justin Timberlake CD. It's actually got her a little bummed out about seeing him in concert next month.

I've never been that much of a Cornell fan so my reaction was not as severe. I thought the music didn't fit his voice that well, but it was interesting to hear him branch out and try something new.

[Cali]

Euphoria Morning will never be topped.

 

This new stuff is AWFUL. I listened to about 30 seconds of this bland r&b bulls***. That is NOT Chris Cornell.

[Steve9347]

She said it sounded like a Justin Timberlake CD.

Well, Timbaland tends to do that, but I really didn't think so. I thought it was the perfect mix of Cornell and Timbaland.

[bmags]

Christ, there's a lot to reply to here.

 

You can like or dislike Nirvana's music, HOWEVER there are probably like 10 artists that changed "rock and roll" music in earth-shattering, fundamental ways, and they are one of them. To deny this (whether you were there or not - and if you weren't, and don't know how important they were, I'm sorry for you) is to not know the history of rock music in the US. I'm sorry if this offends, but it's true.

 

and, again, I just think it says a lot about that generation that they let an average rock band change the face of music.

[Steve9347]

and, again, I just think it says a lot about that generation that they let an average rock band change the face of music.

It's your opinion that Nirvana is an average rock band.

 

I do not agree with that opinion one bit.

[iWiN4PreP]

Shad K What what!!!

[shipps]

U2 is ultra pop and pretty much old news but their new album is such a good listen. I enjoy it even more than All That You Left Behind.

[greasywheels121]

I've been looping the videos from Kanye's storytellers non-stop lately.