Slipkid42 wrote:I think it's the desert island aspect of the question that would give me pause. If I could only choose one or the other to listen to for the rest of my life, I too would choose the Band. This is not the same as me saying that I think the Band is better than Dylan (which of course, no one in rock is). It's about what I would rather hear if I could only pick one.
Smitty's Waits vs. Morrison challenge is similar. I think Tom Waits is utterly brilliant (more so, even than Van); but if I only could pick one or the other to listen to. it would be Van Morrison.
I can see that line of thought regarding the Band/Dylan debate but when I looked at the numbers I listen to eleven Dylan records on a regular basis and with The Band it's three and one includes Dylan (Before The Flood). The sheer enormity of his catalog, much like Neil Young and The Rolling Stones, guarantees him (and those others) the winning slot in such debates.
But you wouldn't have any Stones on the island after say...1981?
Matt playing like an evil motherfucker w/ rhythm with a capital MPLAEMWR.
The best description I've heard for Nickelback (and various other pop rock bands) is that its music for people who don't like music.
In other words, not any if us here. It's music for people who are content humming along to whatever's on the radio but never buy albums (outside if the occasional greatest hits compilation). It's music for people who go to shows to drink and socialize, not to listen to the band. It's hard rock as background noise
And I knew when I woke up Rock N Roll would be here forever
Smitty wrote:I think any energy you spend insulting a pop artist (Nickelback qualify) could be better spent promoting <insert great band who's not popular here>.
It goes without saying but turning someone on to some band I like is going to receive a warmer reception amongst people that share my tastes. The chances of me introducing a Buffett fan to Chris Knight, Tim Easton, Hayes Carll, etc. is going to over about as well as them trying to turn me onto Jason Aldean or Tim McGraw. That doesn't excuse either party from insulting the others' music tastes but very rarely does the twain meet. Those with very vanilla tastes in music seem to have no interest in anything outside of their comfort zone. There are exceptions but they're very rare. At least that's been my experience. Some Skynyrd fans interpreted Southern Rock Opera as an insult. There is never going to be any getting through to those kind of people.
Zip City wrote:The best description I've heard for Nickelback (and various other pop rock bands) is that its music for people who don't like music.
Considering the Big Star discussion currently taking place, this article is right on time. It also reminds me of the story I related recently about getting into a car full of friends circa 1986, firing up a fatty and cranking "Anyway You Want It" by Journey. Seems the older I get, the less I care what people think of what my music tastes are or once were.
Ok, I loved that piece. There is no question that songs can be tied to memories and sometimes those songs were bad. I can remember being with a bunch of friends pushing my oft broke down AMC Pacer down the road and then running after it as we lost it down the hill. The soundtrack to that misadventure was Gary Numans Cars which seemed be very important at the time but also a very bad song. Sometimes the music was good though. In 1980 we seemingly drove constantly without ever, you know, going anywhere and when I think of those days the music I hear is the Clash London Calling. If we listened to anything else that summer I don't recall it and given the fact it's my second favorite record of all time that's a good thing. The summer of 1984, however, wasn't so good as the soundtrack of that summer was "Ghostbusters" the song and nobody wants that. Seemingly that one played everywhere all the time. Who ya gonna call?
Someone told me once that it's ok to enjoy bad music for whatever reason as long as you admitted to yourself it was bad. I mean who can blame me for remembering hearing Blue Swede Hooked on a feeling while I copped a feel of boobies off Molly McClintock at church camp? The thing to remember though is that boobies are good but any song with ooga chaka in it is bad no matter what and lets not forget that the band was called Blue Swede. Bob Dylan they were not. Seriously though I like the philosophy that you can like whatever you want just be honest about the reasons. Hell boobs could make Kansas Dust In The Wind seem like a good song... ok maybe not even boobs could redeem that one.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
Plus, having just read the article, it almost doesn't matter what else she wrote since she leaped to the defense of "oooh child". Obviously a woman of taste and good judgment.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
I know it's popular to slam Mumford and Sons and the Lumineers at present but I'm not so sure I buy into Alice's argument here. Yes, they both get referred to as "rock n' roll" bands but so did the Band, Dylan, the Byrds, R.E.M. and tons of others that were influenced by folk and old timey music. He also doesn't help his case any by referencing Green Day. Strikes me more as someone that's out of touch and that's coming from someone that's an Alice Cooper fan. I wonder if he'd slam The Band as not being "rock n' roll" if they were to release their first album in 2013?
I know it's popular to slam Mumford and Sons and the Lumineers at present but I'm not so sure I buy into Alice's argument here. Yes, they both get referred to as "rock n' roll" bands but so did the Band, Dylan, the Byrds, R.E.M. and tons of others that were influenced by folk and old timey music. He also doesn't help his case any by referencing Green Day. Strikes me more as someone that's out of touch and that's coming from someone that's an Alice Cooper fan. I wonder if he'd slam The Band as not being "rock n' roll" if they were to release their first album in 2013?
I think every generation has their Lumineers or Mumford.. In the 90's it was Blues Traveler/Hootie and so on and to me its almost like a popular rebellion against whats popular at the time. People want a healthy alternative from the Nicki Minaj's of the world something that brings music back to to its stripped down roots. I don't think the Americana fad will pass (like some claim) because it will always be there and always has. What will pass though is this shit ton of TV Reality shows focusing on the southern part of the US. Thats a different story though..
I would love to think that if The Band were new and they released The Weight to radio and VH1 it would get air play, I mean if Alabama Shakes can pull it off certainly The Band could. But people like Dr. John who played on The Last Waltz are still making great music and probably nobody outside Top 40 knows it(Unless you consider Dan Auerbach from The Black Keys who produced Dr. Johns last record in the Top 40 circle). I think the way people identify things these days is changing. The "Me" generation hates labels and just want to be "them" what ever that may be. It doesn't help with whole sites like Facebook that people use to define their existence. So labeling music in the next few years is about to get a kick in the ass. We here in the blogosphere music forum wouldn't call the Lumineers true roots/americana music or rock, but to the kids who listen it to it they don't give shit. They just "like" it, in that facebook type of way.
With that said Alice Cooper is quite the character still. I still think today he could kick Gene Simmons ass in a fight, maybe not 30 years ago though.
I know it's popular to slam Mumford and Sons and the Lumineers at present but I'm not so sure I buy into Alice's argument here. Yes, they both get referred to as "rock n' roll" bands but so did the Band, Dylan, the Byrds, R.E.M. and tons of others that were influenced by folk and old timey music. He also doesn't help his case any by referencing Green Day. Strikes me more as someone that's out of touch and that's coming from someone that's an Alice Cooper fan. I wonder if he'd slam The Band as not being "rock n' roll" if they were to release their first album in 2013?
I think every generation has their Lumineers or Mumford.. In the 90's it was Blues Traveler/Hootie and so on and to me its almost like a popular rebellion against whats popular at the time. People want a healthy alternative from the Nicki Minaj's of the world something that brings music back to to its stripped down roots. I don't think the Americana fad will pass (like some claim) because it will always be there and always has. What will pass though is this shit ton of TV Reality shows focusing on the southern part of the US. Thats a different story though..
I would love to think that if The Band were new and they released The Weight to radio and VH1 it would get air play, I mean if Alabama Shakes can pull it off certainly The Band could. But people like Dr. John who played on The Last Waltz are still making great music and probably nobody outside Top 40 knows it(Unless you consider Dan Auerbach from The Black Keys who produced Dr. Johns last record in the Top 40 circle). I think the way people identify things these days is changing. The "Me" generation hates labels and just want to be "them" what ever that may be. It doesn't help with whole sites like Facebook that people use to define their existence. So labeling music in the next few years is about to get a kick in the ass. We here in the blogosphere music forum wouldn't call the Lumineers true roots/americana music or rock, but to the kids who listen it to it they don't give shit. They just "like" it, in that facebook type of way.
With that said Alice Cooper is quite the character still. I still think today he could kick Gene Simmons ass in a fight, maybe not 30 years ago though.
From what I've seen and read, a lot of people believe the Lumineers and Mumford and Sons have capitalized on a sound popularized by the Avett Brothers. I have no idea if that's true or not as I never really got into the Avett Brothers but the more I listen, the more I hear the resemblance. Whether it's intentional or not is another discussion entirely. This particular aspect of Americana (or whatever you want to call it) definitely seems to be a trend as of late though. Like everything else it'll eventually run it's course. Still, I believe folk influenced bands like the Lumineers and Mumford and Sons have a place in rock n' roll. Rock n' roll is a mixture of styles and it just so happens that folk is a big part of it and always has been. I understand Alice's rant, I just don't agree with it.
“In England as a kid, you listen to three bands: the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Led Zeppelin,” Marshall says. “Maybe the Kinks as well. But all of those bands have a sound rooted in traditional music of the U.S. Then the O Brother, Where Art Thou? sound track, Old Crow Medicine Show, and Alison Krauss were huge for us.”
Alice Cooper doesn't like change or hippies, he votes republican. So it doesn't surprise me that he doesn't accept some folk singers turning down his amp.
I don't know that Alice doesn't like change (I remember him adapting to new wave and hair metal, not always with the best results) and I really don't care how he votes, I just don't see eye to eye with him on how he believes bands like Mumford and Sons shouldn't be classified as "rock n' roll". Despite how the video is labeled, he doesn't actually slam them, it's the categorization he has an issue with.
I have a longer post coming down the pipeline when I get back from a trip tomorrow, but here's a thought: You know the uncanny valley, the concept that as robots become more and more human-like, there will always be something about them that just seems off, 'uncanny'? I think how we judge music like Mumford, Lumineers, etc, is like that. Because it's, in a sense, closer to what we like, we're going to judge it much more harshly than music that is nothing like what we enjoy, because we either a) have a metric for saying it's bad or b)it doesn't achieve what we're used to in the genre.
StormandStatic wrote:I have a longer post coming down the pipeline when I get back from a trip tomorrow, but here's a thought: You know the uncanny valley, the concept that as robots become more and more human-like, there will always be something about them that just seems off, 'uncanny'? I think how we judge music like Mumford, Lumineers, etc, is like that. Because it's, in a sense, closer to what we like, we're going to judge it much more harshly than music that is nothing like what we enjoy, because we either a) have a metric for saying it's bad or b)it doesn't achieve what we're used to in the genre.
I think I'm basically agreeing with this. Or at least this post made me think of it:
Back in the day, one reached an age, somewhere between 12 and 15, when you discovered FM radio. The next day, the scorn you heaped on top 40 or bubblegum music was exactly like what the lumineers and mumford are subject to today.
Also consider someone like Billy Joel. Viewed as a "rocker" any hipster couldn't even say his name w/out it dripping w/ scorn. But viewed as a songwriter out of the Brill Building tradition he's either a genius or something close to it.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
The first time I heard a song by Mumford and Sons, they were virtually unknown. It was on a NPR interview with Rock n' Roll Will Save Your Life author Steve Almond. Someone called in raving about their song "Little Lion Man" during which they played a snippet on the air. The song and the caller's enthusiasm coupled with some early praise from other fans inspired me to pick up Sigh No More. Within the next few months I saw them go from "buzz" band status to becoming immensely popular. Shortly thereafter is when the backlash set in. Ever since then, they've become nearly everyone's favorite whipping boy for no other reason than becoming too popular too fast, at least that's my take on it. Sure, they and the Lumineers do share a certain sound with the Avetts but sounding similar to other artists isn't really a crime worthy of the hate I've seen heaped on them.
So I was a judge this past weekend at a "battle of the bands" held in Mississippi where the prize was $250 and a slot at a music festival. The event, and the music for the festival, was planned by a dear friend and significant other of Bourbon Cowboy who some of you may remember as being around these parts some years back. Anyway I was happy to do it and shared the judges table with two other musically knowledgeable individuals. One was a musician who had opened for DBT a few times in years past and the other was a radio veteran and Clear Channel talent scout. Of course my background is as a fan, musician and former record store owner. Obviously we all brought different things to the table. I hadn't judged in one of these for a very, very long time so it was an interesting exercise in trying to put aside personal taste and be as objective as possible. The artists ranged from cover bands to singer songwriters (including the son of the late author Larry Brown playing his daddy's guitar) and even a blues guitarist playing to a backing track. Two of the performers really stood out to me, one was a young country crooner who ultimately won and the other was a young woman who played piano and sang mostly her own material. Even though neither of them were exactly in my usual wheelhouse I could absolutely see the talent shine through. The odds on favorite for the event was a local cover band with a huge following that sang crowd favorites ranging from Charlie Daniels to the ubiquitous Wagon Wheel. The crowd was dancing, whoopin it up and clearly enjoying themselves immensely. The judge with the radio experience judged them very highly and told me how fun it was to see a band "with all the elements". I didn't see it that way. Listen even though I'm not a huge fan of Wagon Wheel or some of the other songs they played I can certainly appreciate their appeal, the things is for that crowd they were pretty low hanging fruit. They could have farted the melody to Wagon Wheel and the crowd would have gone nuts. I expect more. The drummer and bassist were out of sync all night, the singer was often off key (slightly but still) and the overall performance, while executed with confidence, was lacking. I gave them high marks for stage presence, fan reaction and things of that ilk but judged them harshly on the actual performance. I guess they were pretty pissed when it all cam down and they got beat by a 19 year old with an acoustic guitar.
What the experience did for me was show me that I am more than capable of judging talent, whether it's my thing or not. Are we ever wholly objective? Of course not, but it is possible to take a step back and view art from a different vantage point. Another thing it pointed out to me was something I spoke about it a Jason Isbell thread a while back and that's that the genre you choose as an artist does matter and if you choose to do the singer songwriter thing you've chosen a pretty tough playground to work your magic in. The two younger performers got high marks from me, not because what they did was so unique, but rather because it wasn't and they stood out anyway. The same can be said for writing a three chord pop or punk song. There are literally thousands of these but when someone pulls it off you know it immediately. Also what's more important how you sell something or what you sell? In most things I probably lean towards the "what you sell" side of the argument but someone, like my fellow judge, whose job is to make money off art would certainly see it differently. Obviously a combination of the two is the best possible outcome.
Anyway sorry for the rambling post. I'm always interested in figuring out the genesis of what I like, what other like and related things and I started this thread way back when for exactly that. My night as a judge brought some new insight and I though I'd share. Carry on.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
I don't know where this fits in the discussion, but am I the only one who finds the Lumineers considerably less contrived, more original, and ultimately much more listenable than Mumford & Sons?
Real nice read from Rob Sheffield. I think a lot of what he says speaks to how I was finally able to listen to an old Boston song recently without feeling the need to change the station, Classic Rock radio burnout. Then again, I can probably understand how a lot of folks simply aren't able to get beyond Geddy Lee's voice. For me, it was never an issue.
Kudzu Guillotine wrote:Real nice read from Rob Sheffield. I think a lot of what he says speaks to how I was finally able to listen to an old Boston song recently without feeling the need to change the station, Classic Rock radio burnout. Then again, I can probably understand how a lot of folks simply aren't able to get beyond Geddy Lee's voice. For me, it was never an issue.
So singing in choir has been making my life so much better I can hardly stand it, and it's given me an appreciation for a song I've never (consciously) heard by an artist I've never (consciously) heard: "Born This Way", by Lady Gaga.
Has anyone else had that experience, learning a song making you dig it in a way you otherwise wouldn't have? It's not the first time for me. I've never heard, I don't think, "Nature's Way", by Spirit, but I played it and loved it (in the same 1982 band that played "White Light White Heat", by the way).
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be
Lurleen and I were talking with Cary Hudson last night, just before his fantastic solo set opening up for Jason Isbell, and James Taylor's You've Got a Friend came on the sound system. Lurleen asked Cary if he remembered a time twenty some odd years ago when they were driving together and the same song came on and he dismissed it as drivel. He said no he did not remember it and that James Taylor was great but Lurleen insisted that he did indeed say that. He laughed and admitted that he was probably trying to be a hipster that day. I related to that quite well. I can't tell you how much good music I turned my back on because I was supposed to. Hell I didn't listen to Bruce Springsteen for over twenty years for just that reason. I don't think I listened to Fleetwood Mac Rumours for thirty. The thing is we get older and none of that matters. If it's good it's good hipsters be damned. Plus it's hard to be a hipster at 52, it's much easier to just like what I like and revel in it.
We call him Scooby Do, but Scooby doesn’t do. Scooby, is not involved
Tequila Cowboy wrote:Lurleen and I were talking with Cary Hudson last night, just before his fantastic solo set opening up for Jason Isbell, and James Taylor's You've Got a Friend came on the sound system. Lurleen asked Cary if he remembered a time twenty some odd years ago when they were driving together and the same song came on and he dismissed it as drivel. He said no he did not remember it and that James Taylor was great but Lurleen insisted that he did indeed say that. He laughed and admitted that he was probably trying to be a hipster that day. I related to that quite well. I can't tell you how much good music I turned my back on because I was supposed to. Hell I didn't listen to Bruce Springsteen for over twenty years for just that reason. I don't think I listened to Fleetwood Mac Rumours for thirty. The thing is we get older and none of that matters. If it's good it's good hipsters be damned. Plus it's hard to be a hipster at 52, it's much easier to just like what like and revel in it.
I'm so glad I came around on Fleetwood Mac, but James Taylor still sucks.
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be
John A Arkansawyer wrote: I'm so glad I came around on Fleetwood Mac, but James Taylor still sucks.
That may be, but if I had written "Fire and Rain" I'd consider it a life well lived. Plus I don't see how Sweet Baby James and JT are anything other than first-rate albums. I'm not familiar w/ much of the rest and what i do know my life is just fine w/out and i for sure can do w/out the laid back folkie hippy el lay hipster w/ rich white people problems thing, but the first 2 sentences describe a pretty damn good career I think. And the third sentence may be my greatest run-on sentence ever, which is why i'm not going to fix it.
What used to be is gone and what ought to be ought not to be so hard
Tequila Cowboy wrote:The thing is we get older and none of that matters. If it's good it's good hipsters be damned. Plus it's hard to be a hipster at 52, it's much easier to just like what I like and revel in it.
My sentiments exactly, though I've never shied away from the fact that I like less than popular artists like Buffett, Rush, etc. I've got a friend who's a few years older than me that still looks down their nose at people that like stuff that they may consider to be arena rock. Back in the 70's when I was growing up and still forming my own musical tastes there was plenty of Prine, Dead, Goose Creek Symphony, Jerry Jeff, New Riders, Commander Cody and other stuff that was off the beaten path that was mixed in with the Rush, Kiss, Nuge, Zeppelin, etc. I'm convinced folks like that must have musical skeletons in the closet that they'd die to keep hidden (to paraphrase a certain someone). I think it's more fun to be open and honest in music discussions when it comes to our likes and dislikes. As for James Taylor, I've never been his biggest fan but I like a good bit of his material and own several of his records.
John A Arkansawyer wrote: I'm so glad I came around on Fleetwood Mac, but James Taylor still sucks.
That may be, but if I had written "Fire and Rain" I'd consider it a life well lived. Plus I don't see how Sweet Baby James and JT are anything other than first-rate albums.
I suppose you're right. I don't like Sylvia Plath or T. S. Eliot or Wallace Stevens, either. But around 27:00 mark here you can get all the James Taylor you need:
The sooner we put those assholes in the grave&piss on the dirt above it, the better off we'll be
The first thing I thought when I saw the results of NPR's Most Loved albums poll was that there was too much Beatles (and I love the Beatles) and no female artists. However, a lot of folks commenting on this on FB evidently didn't understand the concept, nor had they taken the time to actually read the article (which contains some lists that are much more varied) before saying anything. Still, I do agree that it's a very safe list but that would kind of be what I would expect out of a list such as this. Here's a link to the accompanying article.
Is it possible to come up with a list of top ten albums that everyone can agree upon? It's harder said than done -- but after a summer of polling, the All Songs crew has released a series of lists -- of the most-loved, least-loved, most-heard, and least-heard albums.
