Music in 2017

[D-Money]

As for rocking out live in a blast of testosterone-fueled sonic meyhem, there are lots of bands that continue to do that well. This example is a favorite of mine:

https://youtu.be/WuDP7c3Zd8II

...I think if Axel & co. had to go up against that, they'd drop their purses and run screaming.

[riffraff]

28 minutes ago, D-Money said:

Hahah...well said, riffraff.

But as much as you may not like the Strokes, their style, or their live act, Is This It is one of the best rock albums released since...well...Use Your Illusions. It just may not be your brand of rock.

I'll admit to "is this it" did receive some play time from me and I have some fond memories of girls who liked this band;)....

 

ftr im not even a big gnr fan though as a self taught guitar dabbler and a real lover of the instrument, slash was one of the guitar gods to me in my youth.

 

ive been trying to troll Glassjaw into saying that the strokes are more rock n roll than gnr which they just simply are not. And it's not close.  Appetite album is a classic album and the strikes don't and will not have an album that is comparable. They just don't have the talent.

 

rock n roll is my go to genre.  I've spent a lot of time and money listening to recordings and going to shows for this specific genre.  I've seen bands that were far better than the strokes based on soul, and stage presence alone that never went anywhere because they weren't as good looking basically.  As I said the strokes are benefactors of a revival that only happened because of bands like gnr.

[riffraff]

27 minutes ago, D-Money said:

As for rocking out live in a blast of testosterone-fueled sonic meyhem, there are lots of bands that continue to do that well. This example is a favorite of mine:

https://youtu.be/WuDP7c3Zd8II

...I think if Axel & co. had to go up against that, they'd drop their purses and run screaming.

In no way am I claiming that gnr is the be all an end all. That's crazy talk.  I like some of gnr. There are some great moments but you are right there are other ballsy bands out there. Though I wouldn't say many.

 

imho if you can't do it live you're not legit in the genre of rock n roll.

Edit:

anyways.  I've pumped axels tired enough.  An will not derail this thread any longer. 

[GLASSJAW]

4 hours ago, riffraff said:

Hey I'm just having a bit of a laugh. Don't get too worked up.  

 

But keep it real Glassjaw.  You said you like liked your rock dirty in some earlier posts - believe in a nirvana thread.

 

axl is axl but the guy had more stage presence than most frontmen of any band.  

Slash can do whatever he wants because he is recognized as one of the best guitarists in modern times.  He has more talent than the entire strokes lineup, their fashion consultants, photogs, their management team telling them how to pose as a "rock" band.  

 The strokes are and were riding the wave of "rock revival" in the early 2000's playing regurgitated garage noise meanwhile either trying to, or genuinely looking disinterested in doing so.  That video sums them up. Boring.  The crowd is boring.  The whole thing is a jerk off fashion school failure.  Seriously, smoking while singing? Wow. Too cool for school and that act is plaid out too.

 

tight pants? The strokes obviously are heavy dippers into their sisters closet.

 

Gnr came out with a bunch of talent, an F off attitude, and put out some great songs in a short time span as one big, ugly, offensive train wreck.  And then they imploded.

basically ask yourself who you would have paid to see in the hay day.  

 

I know I wouldnt want to sit with the rest of those banana republic office jockeys for any money.  Gimme drunken half wit long haired hesh heads and loose women named crystal and candy at a show any day all day.

long post time! i'm not worked up, i'm just saying by today's standards, that video is straight homoeroticism lol - and i wasn't trying to compare these two bands. obviously they are totally different and operate on entirely different levels.

i DO love dirty music, which is why i don't like GnR. their studio albums sound EXTREMELY clean and crisply produced, and their image is totally manicured too. didn't Slash try out for Poison? weren't all those GnR guys in hair metal, lipstick bands shortly before GnR? i guess that's neither here nor there, but it's just not my thing at all. they were involved with a scene that doesn't speak to any subsequent generation at all. the GnR hits are still popular, but i think the fact Nirvana almost single handedly killed that entire scene (and it still hasn't recovered) is pretty telling. OBVIOUSLY GnR were good at what they did, and obviously they still have fans, but *I* haven't been one of them since I was like 13 and watching Much Music. i just think they were a good version of a bad thing. I don't think they were one the last 'real' rock bands, as you said, I think rock just got more self conscious and better than hair bands and glam-y metal made it out to be in the 80s.

anyway, as for The Strokes, i think you're wrong about them

do you remember the state of rock music in 1999 and 2000? i was in, like, grade 10 at the time and even then i couldn't believe the horrible garbage everyone was listening to. it was Creed, Nickelback, P.O.D., The Offspring, Kid Rock, U2, Linkin Park, 3 Doors Down Limp Bizkit. i will go to the grave thinking mainstream music in 1998-2002 was some of the worst music in pop music history. f-cking garbage, up and down, and rock was leading the horrible pack. the bands were multi millionaires putting up trailer park airs and screaming platitudes about being sad and angry. it was music for angsty children or adults with white trash sensibilities. no style, no substance, nothing. that's what made The Strokes so great, they instantly and almost single handedly changed the mainstream of rock on a global level. it was music for people who weren't miserable and weren't sad and violent. it was introspective! Julian Casablancas is, or was, a brilliant songwriter. quick, catchy songs. i liked the style, and i thought they provided lots of emotion and attitude too, it just wasn't bravado.

and they weren't riding anything. Their album, Is This It, is the one that set it off. it changed the entire trajectory of the genre for almost 10 years by bringing that New York Heroin Junkie aspect back to rock. of course it's like 60s/70s garage/proto/post punk revivalism, but I don't care, it was still something completely fresh at the time. This isn't my opinion, there are loads of think pieces and a massive critical consensus about the importance and influence of that album: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_This_It#Influence  - here's another good article: http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/7925-this-is-it-ten-years-of-the-strokes/

The Strokes were a throwback to the New York/east coast sound that I loved growing up, and still love. I'll take The Ramones over Genesis, The Velvet Underground over The Beatles, Pixies over Motley Crue -- and I'll take Tom Verlaine over "Slash," I'll take young Iggy over Axl (even though there are probably some similarities here)

I wouldn't go see GnR then, or now, even if it were free. Not my scene at all. But for the record, that Strokes clip you posted was from a TV special - it was obviously orchestrated and arranged, why would you compare it to live club footage from GnR? I understand that they sorta just stand around, but that's what I like. i like standing around. i like jeans and a leather jacket. I don't like leather chaps and feather boas and screeching.

I remember, clear as day, sitting in bed eating a bag of chips watching Letterman waiting for this to come on. to this day, the sh-t just makes me feel gooooood, whereas other music at the time tried so hard to capitalize on cliched negativity. boring as it may have be to you, i still think it's a breath of fresh air!

 

 

[riffraff]

2 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

long post time! i'm not worked up, i'm just saying by today's standards, that video is straight homoeroticism lol - and i wasn't trying to compare these two bands. obviously they are totally different and operate on entirely different levels.

i DO love dirty music, which is why i don't like GnR. their studio albums sound EXTREMELY clean and crisply produced, and their image is totally manicured too. didn't Slash try out for Poison? weren't all those GnR guys in hair metal, lipstick bands shortly before GnR? i guess that's neither here nor there, but it's just not my thing at all. they were involved with a scene that doesn't speak to any subsequent generation at all. the GnR hits are still popular, but i think the fact Nirvana almost single handedly killed that entire scene (and it still hasn't recovered) is pretty telling. OBVIOUSLY GnR were good at what they did, and obviously they still have fans, but *I* haven't been one of them since I was like 13 and watching Much Music. i just think they were a good version of a bad thing. I don't think they were one the last 'real' rock bands, as you said, I think rock just got more self conscious and better than hair bands and glam-y metal made it out to be in the 80s.

anyway, as for The Strokes, i think you're wrong about them

do you remember the state of rock music in 1999 and 2000? i was in, like, grade 10 at the time and even then i couldn't believe the horrible garbage everyone was listening to. it was Creed, Nickelback, P.O.D., The Offspring, Kid Rock, U2, Linkin Park, 3 Doors Down Limp Bizkit. i will go to the grave thinking mainstream music in 1998-2002 was some of the worst music in pop music history. f-cking garbage, up and down, and rock was leading the horrible pack. the bands were multi millionaires putting up trailer park airs and screaming platitudes about being sad and angry. it was music for angsty children or adults with white trash sensibilities. no style, no substance, nothing. that's what made The Strokes so great, they instantly and almost single handedly changed the mainstream of rock on a global level. it was music for people who weren't miserable and weren't sad and violent. it was introspective! Julian Casablancas is, or was, a brilliant songwriter. quick, catchy songs. i liked the style, and i thought they provided lots of emotion and attitude too, it just wasn't bravado.

and they weren't riding anything. Their album, Is This It, is the one that set it off. it changed the entire trajectory of the genre for almost 10 years by bringing that New York Heroin Junkie aspect back to rock. of course it's like 60s/70s garage/proto/post punk revivalism, but I don't care, it was still something completely fresh at the time. This isn't my opinion, there are loads of think pieces and a massive critical consensus about the importance and influence of that album: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_This_It#Influence  - here's another good article: http://pitchfork.com/features/articles/7925-this-is-it-ten-years-of-the-strokes/

The Strokes were a throwback to the New York/east coast sound that I loved growing up, and still love. I'll take The Ramones over Genesis, The Velvet Underground over The Beatles, Pixies over Motley Crue -- and I'll take Tom Verlaine over "Slash," I'll take young Iggy over Axl (even though there are probably some similarities here)

I wouldn't go see GnR then, or now, even if it were free. Not my scene at all. But for the record, that Strokes clip you posted was from a TV special - it was obviously orchestrated and arranged, why would you compare it to live club footage from GnR? I understand that they sorta just stand around, but that's what I like. i like standing around. i like jeans and a leather jacket. I don't like leather chaps and feather boas and screeching.

I remember, clear as day, sitting in bed eating a bag of chips watching Letterman waiting for this to come on. to this day, the sh-t just makes me feel gooooood, whereas other music at the time tried so hard to capitalize on cliched negativity. boring as it may have be to you, i still think it's a breath of fresh air!

 

 

We agree and disagree on quite a bit.  I'd be able to handle a car ride with you and vice versa without wanting to open the door at high speed.

 

yes you're right about 1998-200#.....just painful.  I was in my early twenties.... And maybe because I was older than you and of legal age I was watching bands like the strokes live so they're nothing new to me.

 

im an old soul.  I was listening to jimi, the doors, Zeppelin and Lou reed by age 12.  Lou reed was like a mindopener to me. I bough a cassette in turkey, Europe at 19 and it's all I listened to while backpacking....

 

weve both enjoyed kurt vile and people always say sonic youth or whatever but really it's Lou reed and a bit of Jonathan richman...the street tough sound.

 

i don't put much stock into the modern reviewers. Why should I! Have they been in bands?  Probably not if all they do now is "critique"....in fact I can honestly say I've not made a single musical choice base on a pitchfork voucher....or whomever...:I search, I talk to real people who have expanded tastes or come on CDC off topic and accept 10-20% of what you have to say.

 

as well live shows make or break it for me.  I've been let down and surprised before.  Wrong and right.  But I'm always into being entertained by convincing acts.....and if a train wreck occurs, even better.  I've also played a couple shows myself so I have a bit of a grasp of the vibe from either side and yeah when it all boils down I'm a music snob/geek all at the same time.

 

i like bands that force something out of you especially in a live setting.  So if ye just want to stand around and look pretty I'm not interested.

 

edit

 

the mainstream bands that got me through that dark era you speak of were queens of the Stone Age, the burning brides, and BRMC.

 

otherwise I had to get my fix from metal(big fan and know you're not)....real metal though.....and then various rawk revivalists: gazza strippers, the catheters, the murder city Devils etc at the brick yard and places similar.

[Svengali]

14 hours ago, riffraff said:

...

i don't put much stock into the modern reviewers. Why should I! Have they been in bands?  Probably not if all they do now is "critique"....in fact I can honestly say I've not made a single musical choice base on a pitchfork voucher....or whomever...:I search, I talk to real people who have expanded tastes or come on CDC off topic and accept 10-20% of what you have to say.

...

Pitchfork does get mentioned a lot in these threads but hopefully no one here puts much stock into what they say.

One of the $&!#1est live bands I've seen received a 9.1 for one of their albums there. It was reviewed by a person in her 20s. So that sh1tty live band gets it's tires pumped and gets to go spread even more of it's sh1t on stage and on tv (they were also the worst band I've ever seen on Austin City Limits) because PF has some clout these days. That is a little harmful to new music overall. (this might be too dramatic, I've had a lot of coffee)

I like that Pitchfork streams festivals but reading things like "the rich sonic overtones ..." while they're reviewing a pop album is pretty damn embarrassing.

 

[GLASSJAW]

3 hours ago, Svengali said:

Pitchfork does get mentioned a lot in these threads but hopefully no one here puts much stock into what they say.

One of the $&!#1est live bands I've seen received a 9.1 for one of their albums there. It was reviewed by a person in her 20s. So that sh1tty live band gets it's tires pumped and gets to go spread even more of it's sh1t on stage and on tv (they were also the worst band I've ever seen on Austin City Limits) because PF has some clout these days. That is a little harmful to new music overall. (this might be too dramatic, I've had a lot of coffee)

I like that Pitchfork streams festivals but reading things like "the rich sonic overtones ..." while they're reviewing a pop album is pretty damn embarrassing.

 

that sucks that you had that bad concert experience and all, but does that have anything to do with an album review? i remember that was a common complaint in the 'indie boom' a few years back. MGMT, for example, was getting mega blog hype because of that Kids song, and whichever other one they had done at the time, and suddenly had arena-grade fanbase and festival slotting - but they had never even played live before lmao. their performances were, by all accounts, awful. Ariel Pink had that problem too - i think he still may have that problem actually lol

as for riff's comment, i don't see what playing in a band has to do with criticism or anything, that's totally retarded. did Harold Bloom ever write a novel? did Ebert ever make a movie? My fav movie critic is Richard Brody, some old jewish man who looks remarkably similar to indie rock legend Doug Martsch, or the Biblical Noah, I doubt he's made a movie - and if he has, I don't care. Did Rolling Stone's writers in the 70s play in bands? was the Village Voice staffed with seasoned musicians? I don't know or care, some people value criticism, others don't - I, personally, do. And when Pitchfork has the resume it does, with pumping the tires of bands and albums that are now amongst my all-time favs, it definitely has my attention. 

...unless it keeps pretending that R&B and Kendrick Lamar and RTJ are going to change the political landscape, because i'm so bored of that sh-t

[Svengali]

The album was also bad and that reviewer wasn't able to spot it. It's annoying because she's being paid for it (she works for several different places including the NY Times). And that's the problem: I think the difference between Roger Ebert/The Biblical Noah not being able to make a movie, and a young music critic who is not a musician, is that I know Ebert and Noah are not blind whereas the music critic can possibly be tone deaf, or at least a little off key. (a hell of a lot of people are, and I do believe she was) Or even just a person who is BSing their way through a career in music.

I'm also bashing Pitchfork for having too many orgasmic reviews of mediocre albums that end up wiping out entire herds of thesauruses. What happens when these guys listen to classical music? Do their heads explode and they're never heard from again? Harhar ...

"hopefully no one here [soaks up too much of] what they say"...  There.

Also Ariel Pink can get away with things due to being a glossy bag of nutbars.

 

 

[Fox Mulder]

Tool please. Metallica too. I thought vampire weekend had called it quits?

[D-Money]

Even though a good/bad live show can change your opinion of a band, I don't really worry about it when choosing music to listen to. (I have also played live shows.)

For instance, I've mentioned how much I like that Grimes album, but the few live clips I saw of her were total garbage. But I don't care - the album is still great. I will just never bother listening to anything live from her.

On the flip side, lots of bands put on fantastic shows, but their albums are boring. Saw Lake Street Fire at a festival this year, and they were incredible. DL'd the album...zzZzz... In my 20's my friends and I always tried to make Wide Mouth Mason shows, because they were fantastic, but we almost NEVER put on their albums.

Live music and recorded albums are often entirely different entertainment products to me. 

[DoughtysCheck]

Wasn't frank ocean supposed to release his album in June of 2015??

[Dedalus]

On 1/1/2016 at 6:08 AM, Svengali said:

Pitchfork does get mentioned a lot in these threads but hopefully no one here puts much stock into what they say.

One of the $&!#1est live bands I've seen received a 9.1 for one of their albums there. It was reviewed by a person in her 20s. So that sh1tty live band gets it's tires pumped and gets to go spread even more of it's sh1t on stage and on tv (they were also the worst band I've ever seen on Austin City Limits) because PF has some clout these days. That is a little harmful to new music overall. (this might be too dramatic, I've had a lot of coffee)

I like that Pitchfork streams festivals but reading things like "the rich sonic overtones ..." while they're reviewing a pop album is pretty damn embarrassing.

 

this is the weird thing about the music threads on this site.

i interact with a few music critics who don't write for pitchfork, but for the quietus, av club, the wire. some of those writers have written for pitchfork, sure, but when it was a higher esteemed publication. in my admittedly music snob circle, pitchfork is usually the butt of jokes. nobody really takes anything they say seriously and if your end of year list resembles a variant of theirs, well, it just looks like you only listen to the top indie hits, where "indie" now includes kendrick lamar, adele, and fka twigs.

sure, a couple of their top 20 albums are included in my list and in the list of others' i am interested in, but what's fun about making a list that is just like pitchdork's but in a different order. might as well link me to just their list in the first place.

having said that, music is a deeply personal thing. if you love p4k, knock yourself out.

[D-Money]

I don't mind Pitchfork's scores for guidance, but the actual review essays are usually god-awful. For instance, their review of Grimes' new album uses "f**k-off" as a noun...twice...in one review.

...Same for "Flesh Without Blood", which is the sweetest f**k-off of 2015...

...The album is an epic holiday buffet of tendentious feminist f**k-off...

(http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/21264-art-angels/)

 

That second line...

[Dedalus]

that's not even the most serious of offences.

their bad reputation is really because of their repeated factually incorrect writing, which is pretty embarrassing for a site like theirs

[GLASSJAW]

i love Pitchfork. lots of dud articles and questionable editorial choices (that Sun Kil Moon - Universal Themes drama still annoys me), but i cannot think of a single website that has a voice i routinely agree with, or is even consistent in their level of reviewing, writing, reporting, etc. - in fact, most of them are just really bad IMO.

most music blogs and websites just have no money or ad revenue or anything, so they just let young people do it for free. and nothing is more annoying than a kid trying to write. i think i may even agree with that idiot Armond White when he says no critic should be under the age of 30, lmao

[Dedalus]

58 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

i love Pitchfork. lots of dud articles and questionable editorial choices (that Sun Kil Moon - Universal Themes drama still annoys me), but i cannot think of a single website that has a voice i routinely agree with, or is even consistent in their level of reviewing, writing, reporting, etc. - in fact, most of them are just really bad IMO.

most music blogs and websites just have no money or ad revenue or anything, so they just let young people do it for free. and nothing is more annoying than a kid trying to write. i think i may even agree with that idiot Armond White when he says no critic should be under the age of 30, lmao

that's cute that you think p4k doesn't have slave interns.

a lot of their reviews of unknown bands are actually by individual writers/freelancers and/or interns who get paid less than major arts/culture/music sites. they play the "oh but you'll get exposure!" card well. there's strong editorial control and they decide what gets the most exposure, though. the big features about bigger bands and trends are written by your old men critics.

&^@# it. let me just give you the numbers:

awl: ~$50
atlantic: ~$125
village voice media: ~$50-75/blog post. 
pitchfork: ~$80/review, ~$100/concert review or interivew
complex: ~$200/750-word listicle
washington post (outlook/op): ~$250
ny times: ~$150 or ~$50/blogpost

last two aren't for music reviews, but on the higher end

spin pays more than p4k last i checked, which was admittedly a few years ago.

also p4k is about branding and a particular "style"/voice. it doesn't matter if you're talentless (like a lot of their writers). they could get new writers to replace the old ones and few of their readers would know the difference. compare with something like grantland.

a lot of writers, especially music writers (famous or not), get paid pennies, though. but you'll see alternative arts/culture/music sites compete with that p4k rate, i think.

[GLASSJAW]

lol, there is a major communication divide between us, Tsui, because i have absolutely no idea why you're quoting me freelance figures from the NY Times and the Awl right now. i have multiple English degrees, so i can assure you i'm familiar with the dreadful state of writing and criticism. and i've been reading, or at least browsing, Pitchfork since 2001 - i'm fully aware of its content and quality highs and lows, or at least my estimation of them. nobody here, of all places, is going to inform my opinion on this matter. but really, you don't have to call my comments cute - i never said Pitchfork doesn't have/use interns or freelance writers. i know they do. anyone who reads their website knows they do. they advertise it. but whether or not Pitchfork uses interns or slaves or slave interns to perpetuate a voice is irrelevant and far out of my jurisdiction of giving a f-ck. i only care that it has a voice i can enjoy.

my small, lone operative point wasn't that Pitchfork's writers are swimming in cash. it was that passion project type websites generally "employ" hobbyists who want to celebrate or sh-t on bands they love/hate, or people who are young/inexperienced writers with no guidance because the website is a hobby wherein fundamental elements of journalism, like actual editing or an editorial voice play third fiddle (cokemachineglow was a good example of this). in my lofty estimation of myself, these websites are not worth my time. and yeah, i am endorsing Pitchfork here too - because, by contrast, it is a "legitimate business" (by your figures, it probably pays its freelancers more in a month than CMG has paid its contributors in 10 years). as such, there is a degree of quality control to be expected for the sustainability or growth of that business. its interns are selected for slavery based on their ability to sustain readership by reflecting the orders of the first fiddle slave driver. there's accountability to match expectation(!)

in the real world a masthead exists for a reason. editorial voice and editorial control and style are what makes or breaks a publication. this isn't unique to Pitchfork at all, nor is it, in my opinion, a negative thing. branding has been a significant part of music criticism AT LEAST since Rolling Stone was considered a Bible decades ago.

[GLASSJAW]

anyway, i don't really care about that sort of thing - we all gravitate towards our own voices of choice, or none at all

but as for my voice: coachella's bold text sure looks lame this year. LCD Soundsystem is good and all,  but reuniting so soon after making a big deal about your FINAL SHOW EVER!!! makes me feel a bit cynical. GnR is a big fat who cares? Ice Cube and Rancid are sorta in that retirement tour category too. Can you imagine Sufjan singing his gut-wrenching songs about death in front of stoned ass Coachella? the rest is like EDM and straight up pop music

[Dedalus]

10 hours ago, GLASSJAW said:

lol, there is a major communication divide between us, Tsui, because i have absolutely no idea why you're quoting me freelance figures from the NY Times and the Awl right now.

i make a living as a writer. as in, i come to a mid-size company monday through friday, sit down at my desk and get paid to write. i've been doing it for quite a few years now. it's silly to get into an argument with you, but let me clarify a few things.

(1) i don't care how many degrees you have.

(2) i quote awl because awl has a music section where writers get paid to write about music. this is relevant because we are talking about music writers.

(3) i quote ny times because music writers don't live solely off music writing -- they expand into other cultural and arts related writing, such as the ones that appear in the ny times.

it's difficult to take someone serious when they laud pitchfork so much and discredit other high quality music sites, such as the quietus and, though small it may be, the wire. writers don't stick to one publication, anyway, and you'll find your favourite writer probably writes for another site, as well.

we can talk about hobbyist bloggers all you want, but that's like america comparing itself to third world countries to make itself feel better. let's make at least more valid comparisons.

and it's funny you call out hobbyists for $&!#ting/loving on bands, because this is exactly what p4k does still; e.g., the grimes review quoted above in this thread; calling her a human tumblr, if i recall correctly.

and let's at least get something straight, p4k doesn't do "quality control," their editors/proofreaders make changes so that there is a single tone/voice throughout the entire site. that has nothing to do with quality. this leads me to believe that they don't care for any individualistic thinking.

for me, p4k is great marketing and to get your name out there, from a band's perspective. but i don't read them to gain insight into music, unless i want to read gossip about musician's/artist's lives, which they tend to do.

[riffraff]

^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

play nice kids. It's music. Pretty personal stuff.