This is a pretty prevalent issue nowadays. Music formats: which to use, which to ignore, or what combination is the way to go? When I was first listening to music as a child, it was all about cassette tapes. I had a fairly small collection, though I also made recordings from radio and from my sisters' CDs (and I had a tape recorder at one point that I'd occasionally talk into!). I remember not liking CDs at first, probably just because I was orignally loyal to tapes and didn't want to change. But now I consider myself as being a part of the CD generation, as my most important, formative music-buying was on CDs, be it demos, compilations, or actual albums. I never bought vinyl and was always puzzled by the fetishization of it in the punk world and later in indierockdom (I mean, why would you want to use a clearly outdated and inferior technology? And records aren't even portable!). And then along came the Internet and the advent of digital music, completely transforming how we buy music, probably most greatly affecting buyers of popular music (they could buy singles again, no point in "buying the whole album that only has a few good songs," as the cliché goes). In this post, I consider a myriad of factors that has led me to switch over to buying digital, with a few exceptions.
(and I'm ignoring the illegal downloading phenomenon because I just don't do it and don't endorse it)
Album Artwork
I really like looking at album artwork and if the songs have lyrics, I like to have the liner notes so I can learn the lyrics, perhaps interpret them (I admittedly am not usually so concerned with lyrics, but on occasion, they matter). It's nice to be able to touch and open up the booklet that comes with a CD (and I'm sure it's even more fun for vinyl-ers). Artwork can give a band an image of a sort, or perhaps classify them as high-brow or low-brow. It contributes to the band's identity and certain bands are well-known for their iconic visuals (Converge, Iron Maiden, Björk, etc. -- this seems especially true for metal bands). Basically, I'm not going to say that visual art is meaningless or pointless for musical artists. However, I still think it's rather inessential. Sure, I love Isis' album covers and the photography in their liner notes, but I can look at them online if I want to (and find the lyrics online) and I'm not going to look at them every time I listen to their albums. I think the visual stuff that comes with tangible releases is a bonus and not an essential, though certain bands' visuals warrant me buying the tangible version of their music. It's important to mention that too often, buying a tangible version is nearly pointless because there are no liner notes, no lyrics, and no interesting visuals, further pushing me away from tangible formats.
Price
It's pretty much a fact that digital music is cheaper than tangible forms. And that's quite simply because album art, jewel cases, etc. cost money and then distribution of these tangibles also costs money. Without the physical form, a few steps in the manufacturing of albums is cut out and that creates the possibility of selling at a lower price. It seems that digital music distributors have wisely chosen not to hike prices up too high, setting the standard album price at about 10 bucks, perhaps in an effort to foster more digital purchases from the disgruntled tangible buyers ("$18 for a CD? No way!"). I really like this standard price and I think it's fair. There are times when the tangible is actually cheaper (I got Earth 2 on CD for like $8), but these occasions are pretty rare (when buying new, since I almost exclusively bought new CDs). So why pay a higher price for the same music?
Materialism
There's a problem in music fandom that I don't quite understand: the fetishization of the collection (especially vinyl). How could you say that collecting music in tangible formats isn't materialistic? And it isn't as silly or useless as collecting anything else, like Beanie Babies or action figures? It just seems like pointless consumerism of objects. Allow me to be a bit more specific: I'm complaining about music collecting when it gets to the point that one seeks out rare editions of some band's album, whether it be some colored vinyl or a first-edition CD that is no different from the edition currently in print (or it has even less music on it). What is the point of it? I personally equate fandom with liking the music a band makes, not collecting everything that the band puts its name on. Music is inherently intangible, so why materialize it when you don't have to?
Environmental Concerns
I'm not 100% on this, but I'm fairly sure that it's greener to buy digital because it eliminates the CD/vinyl manufacturing and materials (which often can't be recycled). With digital music, if you no longer want some music, you can just delete it from your computer, whereas with CDs and vinyl you can try to sell it, usually for less than what you paid, or throw it away and create more plastic waste currently damaging marine life. Maybe playing music on a computer uses less electricity than a stereo, but I'm not sure on that.
Portability
This factor obviously points to the superiority of digital music. You can take it and listen to it anywhere on a digital music player or computer and even send it via e-mail. CDs are fairly portable, but having a lot of them makes it heavy to lug around (especially in jewel cases). Vinyl is the least portable, since the records are so large and the record player is a bit bulky (not to mention speakers). Some may say that portability isn't that important, even I listen to music mostly at home, but when I'm walking somewhere or waiting around somewhere, it's great that I can listen to a song or too (or an album if there's time). It's a convenience that isn't always necessary, but occasionally useful. I'm sure some people use their iPods more than I do.
Space
Having a lot of music takes up a lot of space. You need good shelves or some other rectangular caddy to house and organize your music collection. Obviously, digital gets rid of this problem, though you still need to be cognizant of hard drive space, and it's a good idea to have backups of your music (I acutally use CDs as backups, I ought to get a separate hard drive).
Sound Quality
Some people seem to have a real problem with digital sound quality. I'm not entirely dissenting, but it seems to depend on bitrate and how good of computer speakers/headphones you have. Really low bitrates make certain types of music sound horrible (metal for sure sounds like crap at less than 100 kbps) and if your speakers are really cheap and crappy (or you only have the speakers on a laptop), your sound quality can be horribly diminished (really low bass frequencies don't always sound awesome with my speakers). So, what you must do is only buy music at high bitrates (and encode CDs at high rates if you must buy them) and it's worth your money to invest in a pretty decent set of speakers for your computer. Now, this is one area where CDs are sometimes better, since a really good stereo always makes everything sound great and CD audio quality is uniformly excellent. I can't say much in the way of vinyl since I just don't use it on a regular basis, but past experiences with vinyl have never been good for me (always too many scratches on records, the "warm" crackling thing annoys me).
Availability
It sucks when you discover some band, mostly older ones or from somewhere outside the USA, and it's hard to get their music. Digital music is helping to rectify this problem, because now out-of-print stuff can just be issued in digital form, more cheaply, and become more accessible to anyone in the world. Sometimes it's actually easier to find music digitally than tangibly. Also, if you're buying a CD, it takes more time to actually obtain the disc, whether you go to a store or buy online. Some people really enjoy going to record stores and browsing, but you can waste time looking through the world of music, in addition to getting others' opinions in the form of lists and reviews, all online. So why not just download? You get the music immediately. When I'm anticipating a new release for a long time, it makes me much happier that I can just make a few clicks and BAM, I have the music to listen to forever. It's nice to shorten the waiting time.
Distributors
What store to buy from? I rely heavily on iTunes and Amazon for buying digital music, though occasionally there are smaller distributors with cheaper prices and high bitrates, though I'm not exactly one to seek them out (I guess I could be saving some money). I like the convenience and excellent selection of the above services and I've already talked about prices. I don't care that you need specific programs to download music from them, since I already use iTunes to organize my music and the Amazon program is perfectly simple and functional. Whatever service you use, it's still going to be quicker than buying tangibles (as long as you're not on dial-up!).
Bands In Vans
Bands sell CDs/records to make money, period. When a band you like comes to town peddling their music and merch, it's nice of a fan to buy something to help support the touring bands. This obviously means not buying digitally, but this is a different circumstance. Prices are usually reasonable (of course I'm not talking about stadium bands), though often still more than digital. I do endorse buying tangibles at shows to help touring bands, but I would only buy them if I didn't already have them (if you do, just buy some merch instead!) However, it's happened to me, that when I intended to buy a CD from a certain band at their show, they didn't have it; it was sold out. I was irritated, and that makes me think that buying at shows is not always the most reliable way to get music tangibly (but this has only happened to me once and isn't enough to deter me from buying from bands in the future).
I was originally very reluctant to switch to digital music, but that's probably because of a general, somewhat unreasonable resistance to change. Weighing all the factors, digital seems to be the better option. I'm not one to really hold on to tradition, so after I got over my initial fear, I've hopped on board with the current way of purchasing music. Every now and then, I do pick up a release on CD, though I can't say I really miss the format.
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Old bands that are actually good.
This list was much more difficult to assemble than the last one (the one where I dump on every important band in rock music). I suppose that's due to about 75% of music being medicore-to-absolute-garbage and me being jaded and cynical (am I too young for that?). Looking over this list, I think it says that I am definitely a fan of sort of stripped-down rock and roll type music. Nothing too fancy, rather things that are immediate and fun, though not lacking in memorable riffs, and compositions that are interesting enough. I don't know why I just seem to like this stuff better than whiny blues vocals courtesy of Robert Plant or Kurt Cobain's retarded lyrics. Things are just as they are sometimes when it comes to liking and disliking stuff.
Bob Dylan
I actually have a Dylan album in my iTunes (Blood On The Tracks) and have listened to it many times. I wouldn't mind buying another one, or several more. I'm not about to turn into some Dylan super-fan and attempt to collect the complete discography, but I don't think I'd turn off or complain about hearing a Bob Dylan song if it comes on the radio or something. I'm sure he's made plenty of uninteresting music, the guy's a dinosaur and has more albums than a shoe store has shoes, so probability dictates that something must not be so good. I'll just avoid that album(s).
the Rolling Stones
How is it possible to hate the Rolling Stones? Do they just have too much rock and roll swagger? Have they written too may excellent rock and roll gems? I don't know what could drive someone to dislike this band. Everyone knows they haven't made any interesting music for a few decades, but no one cares. The Stones can rest on their laurels all they want, 'cause those laurels are pretty awesome. Truth be told, I only own a few singles by the band, but that's probably due to such a vast catalogue. I wouldn't mind owning a few albums at least, but it's not a really high priority for me. I'm fairly content to listen to the hits and some random other songs that I know and like for the time being.
Iron Maiden
Another band whose albums I have yet to purchase. I'll admit that Iron Maiden is not a band that I fully take seriously, but how can you? The sometimes over-the-top vocals, the fantasy lyrics, the guitar solos, etc. make Maiden easy fodder for mocking (especially in this decade, where artiness and ultra-seriousness in metal is common). But the fact that they've always had a certain edginess and ruggedness draws me to this band. As polished and accomplished and even proggy/tech-y as their music can be, their music manages to not lose the rock and roll edge. And every now and then, it's good to just listen to something fun and less intellectual.
the Clash
I've heard London Calling a few times, but I'm not a serious adherent to the Clash. There's some great songs, and overall, it's a pleasant album, but not necessarily something I'm a huge fan of. They make this list mostly because I like them and have respect for them. I'd put a few songs of theirs in my iTunes, but I'm not about to purchase the complete discography. I'd probably buy Joe Strummer's solo stuff instead. The Clash was and continues to be an important band in rock and especially punk history, but that doesn't matter unless their music is good and luckily, it is.
AC/DC
This band's music (both Bon Scott and Brian Johnson eras) is too much fun. There's too many random AC/DC songs/hits that I like. It's all just straight-up rock and roll, no pretense, nothing arty, no embellishments, and it's been that way since forever. I would buy a few albums from this band, but not all of it is necessary since the band has barely changed at all since their inception (gross generalization much?). I really don't have a preference for either vocalist, though I'm actually more familiar with Johnson-era stuff. I don't know if I'd ever go see them live, if presented with the opportunity. I've never been to a stadium-style show and I'm afraid it would lose the atmosphere and intimacy of a club/bar-type show. Though maybe AC/DC's rock power could fill a stadium well? I'd hope so.
So, what is it that makes me enjoy these dinosaur bands vs. the host of others that I don't like (some of which are dinosaurs and some of which aren't)? Aside from just subjectivity, I'm sure it comes down to my "musical upbringing." I've heard stories of people listening to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or whatever when they were in high school or as some bonding experience with a family member, and I don't share that experience. I don't relate to the almost stereotype of having a group of friends who got you into "classic rock," which ended up shaping your musical views for the rest of your life. Growing up, I was listening to punk of various sorts and then ended up branching off into a bunch of different genres (it's punk to like new and different things!), most notably, metal. My whole musical taste is at least partially shaped and informed by punk. When I go back and listen to these bands that are often labeled as founders and innovators in rock, I'm not impressed or interested perhaps because the punk aesthetic makes me think they sound inauthentic, bloated, and bombastic, something I've come to realize I really don't like in music in general. So I guess, really, that the punk roots shaped my taste, being sort of my main basis or criteria to judge or compare music and my sense of subjectivity to music is derived from these roots (still doesn't explain my dislike for Sonic Youth!). Will I ever end up liking the bands I trashed in the last post? Who knows. Maybe it'll never happen.
Bob Dylan
I actually have a Dylan album in my iTunes (Blood On The Tracks) and have listened to it many times. I wouldn't mind buying another one, or several more. I'm not about to turn into some Dylan super-fan and attempt to collect the complete discography, but I don't think I'd turn off or complain about hearing a Bob Dylan song if it comes on the radio or something. I'm sure he's made plenty of uninteresting music, the guy's a dinosaur and has more albums than a shoe store has shoes, so probability dictates that something must not be so good. I'll just avoid that album(s).
the Rolling Stones
How is it possible to hate the Rolling Stones? Do they just have too much rock and roll swagger? Have they written too may excellent rock and roll gems? I don't know what could drive someone to dislike this band. Everyone knows they haven't made any interesting music for a few decades, but no one cares. The Stones can rest on their laurels all they want, 'cause those laurels are pretty awesome. Truth be told, I only own a few singles by the band, but that's probably due to such a vast catalogue. I wouldn't mind owning a few albums at least, but it's not a really high priority for me. I'm fairly content to listen to the hits and some random other songs that I know and like for the time being.
Iron Maiden
Another band whose albums I have yet to purchase. I'll admit that Iron Maiden is not a band that I fully take seriously, but how can you? The sometimes over-the-top vocals, the fantasy lyrics, the guitar solos, etc. make Maiden easy fodder for mocking (especially in this decade, where artiness and ultra-seriousness in metal is common). But the fact that they've always had a certain edginess and ruggedness draws me to this band. As polished and accomplished and even proggy/tech-y as their music can be, their music manages to not lose the rock and roll edge. And every now and then, it's good to just listen to something fun and less intellectual.
the Clash
I've heard London Calling a few times, but I'm not a serious adherent to the Clash. There's some great songs, and overall, it's a pleasant album, but not necessarily something I'm a huge fan of. They make this list mostly because I like them and have respect for them. I'd put a few songs of theirs in my iTunes, but I'm not about to purchase the complete discography. I'd probably buy Joe Strummer's solo stuff instead. The Clash was and continues to be an important band in rock and especially punk history, but that doesn't matter unless their music is good and luckily, it is.
AC/DC
This band's music (both Bon Scott and Brian Johnson eras) is too much fun. There's too many random AC/DC songs/hits that I like. It's all just straight-up rock and roll, no pretense, nothing arty, no embellishments, and it's been that way since forever. I would buy a few albums from this band, but not all of it is necessary since the band has barely changed at all since their inception (gross generalization much?). I really don't have a preference for either vocalist, though I'm actually more familiar with Johnson-era stuff. I don't know if I'd ever go see them live, if presented with the opportunity. I've never been to a stadium-style show and I'm afraid it would lose the atmosphere and intimacy of a club/bar-type show. Though maybe AC/DC's rock power could fill a stadium well? I'd hope so.
So, what is it that makes me enjoy these dinosaur bands vs. the host of others that I don't like (some of which are dinosaurs and some of which aren't)? Aside from just subjectivity, I'm sure it comes down to my "musical upbringing." I've heard stories of people listening to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or whatever when they were in high school or as some bonding experience with a family member, and I don't share that experience. I don't relate to the almost stereotype of having a group of friends who got you into "classic rock," which ended up shaping your musical views for the rest of your life. Growing up, I was listening to punk of various sorts and then ended up branching off into a bunch of different genres (it's punk to like new and different things!), most notably, metal. My whole musical taste is at least partially shaped and informed by punk. When I go back and listen to these bands that are often labeled as founders and innovators in rock, I'm not impressed or interested perhaps because the punk aesthetic makes me think they sound inauthentic, bloated, and bombastic, something I've come to realize I really don't like in music in general. So I guess, really, that the punk roots shaped my taste, being sort of my main basis or criteria to judge or compare music and my sense of subjectivity to music is derived from these roots (still doesn't explain my dislike for Sonic Youth!). Will I ever end up liking the bands I trashed in the last post? Who knows. Maybe it'll never happen.
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Another Video and Krallice Update
As I was thinking even more about Led Zeppelin, I was reminded of this other scene from Wayne's World:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHolxXWLho8
And, I must say, I would definitely prefer to listen to the Bee Gees (I can't believe there's an official BGs channel on Youtube).
Since writing a while back about not having bought Krallice's Dimensional Bleedthrough, I've finally made the purchase. And I'm not disappointed at all. I expected it to be a tiring listen, being longer than Tago Mago at 77 minutes and being that it a has a tech-metal bent, but upon first listen, I was more mesmerized than tired (though by album closer "Monolith Of Possession", I was a wee bit dizzy). Overall, it was everything I wanted it to be and I look forward to delving deeper into the sounds of Krallice through repeat listens. I'll probably get the first album, eventually. Now, I'm anxious to see this band live. I think it's official that I must see live one band in which Mick Barr plays guitar before I die, preferably Krallice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JHolxXWLho8
And, I must say, I would definitely prefer to listen to the Bee Gees (I can't believe there's an official BGs channel on Youtube).
Since writing a while back about not having bought Krallice's Dimensional Bleedthrough, I've finally made the purchase. And I'm not disappointed at all. I expected it to be a tiring listen, being longer than Tago Mago at 77 minutes and being that it a has a tech-metal bent, but upon first listen, I was more mesmerized than tired (though by album closer "Monolith Of Possession", I was a wee bit dizzy). Overall, it was everything I wanted it to be and I look forward to delving deeper into the sounds of Krallice through repeat listens. I'll probably get the first album, eventually. Now, I'm anxious to see this band live. I think it's official that I must see live one band in which Mick Barr plays guitar before I die, preferably Krallice.
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Coming Out Of The Closet: Highly influential, extremely popular, and/or overrated bands that I could do without
This is a list I've been thinking about for a long time. Mostly because I don't like the following bands, am absolutely puzzled by their popularity, and have an intense yearning to express my disdain. Undoubtedly, some of the reason behind my disdain is the fact that I simply don't understand their popularity. Maybe that's just the way it goes, taste being subjective and all, that I'm not going to like every massively-important-to-rock-and-roll-history band (read: dinosaurs). And to prove this point, my next post will be another highly subjective list of dinosaurs that I enjoy the music of!
Since the list was getting a bit too long, I'm only going to go in-depth with 5 major ones and then I'll just mention the "dishonorable mentions."
The Beatles
I can't stand the Beatles. I've heard a few albums and countless songs over the years (how could one not hear a million Beatles songs in his/her life, since they have penetrated every layer of the mediaverse in various forms?), but none of them are enjoyable. I will admit to being slightly charmed by their old poppy numbers, like "Twist And Shout" or "Can't Buy Me Love," but I would never put them on my iPod or dance to them at a party. I don't like anything about the Beatles -- the harmonies, the timbres of Lenon and McCartney's voices, the sunny hippie lyrics, their incorporation of "exotic" instrumentation on some songs, etc. The music of the Beatles bores me, it does not provoke emotions (or imagery or anything, really) in me at all. The proliferation of phony Beatlemania through merchandise and commercials makes the phenomenon that much worse. I'm constantly reminded of their presence and thus their music, and I am thus annoyed.
Led Zeppelin
My disdain for Led Zep runs deep. Now, it's particularly odd for me to hate them since their innovations eventually spawned so much great music, many a good genre. But, you know what, if Zep hadn't have done it, someone else would have. And maybe I would like that band. Alas, I'm not compelled by the music of this group. It's not that I don't like the bluesy stuff, stuff that is overly histrionic, or the EPIC guitar playing (the only element of this band that I fancy is the guitarage), or the STOCK rhythm section, it just doesn't seem to gel for me with Zeppelin. It's inexplicable. Though one thing I know for sure à propos de Led Zeppelin, is that "Stairway To Heaven" is one of the most boring and overrated rock jams, ever.
NO STAIRWAY! DENIED!
Ozzy Osbourne
Who cares about Ozzy? I'm not really a Sabbath fan either, but the thing that really keeps me away from liking Sabbath is Ozzy's vocals, which is why I decided to list him only, rather than penalize the band as a whole (and then, why penalize Dio, as well?). Ozzy is possibly the most annoying vocalist in the history of rock and roll (Steven Tyler from Aerosmith edges him out a bit), so I find it extremely surprising that he is so legendary. Sure, his antics and non-musical persona are sometimes interesting and the Osbournes didn't get terrible until it penetrated every sphere of the mediaverse, but I couldn't care less, since I'm much more concerned with the music. And Ozzy's music is garbage. I can't name one song that this guy sings that I actually enjoy or care about. Perhaps it's an acquired taste, his (awful) voice? Or is that just what people say when they want to justify liking something terrible?
Nirvana
BUT THEY INVENTED GRUNGE AND ALT ROCK!!! That's absolutely untrue. Nirvana's actually kind of derivative, when you think about it. Take some elements of Pixies and Melvins, and voilà, Nirvana. Nirvana is probably (partially) regarded so highly because their mainstream success ushered in a new era in popular music, where bands that a few years before would have been laughed off in favor of cock rock could now make money. So I dispute their musical importance (importance to popular culture though is indisputable). But then there is the subjective factor. I can honestly say Nirvana's songs don't appeal to me. I'm not familiar with their first studio album, Bleach, but Nevermind and In Utero bore me. It's honest music, undoubtedly, but it doesn't move me, nor am I enticed by their "uniqueness." I think Nevermind is way too polished, and even Kurt Cobain agreed with me (according to a book about Nirvana, as cited on Wikipedia, he said "Looking back on the production of Nevermind, I'm embarrassed by it now. It's closer to a Mötley Crüe record than it is a punk rock record."), so, in a way, it's not surprising that it was a mainstream hit. In Utero is better than Nevermind, it has more texture and rawness (produced by Steve Albini, no wonder!), though the songs still don't jump out at me, with their catchy choruses and all. They stick in my head, but not in a good way. I don't want them there (the STIs of music). I actually prefer to listen to "La Bamba." At least I can dance to it.
Sonic Youth
This may be the biggest "SHOCKER" of the list since, on paper, Sonic Youth should be my favorite band ever. Post-punk New Yorkers? Check. '80s? Check. Noisy? Check. Co-ed vocalizing? Check. Non-pop song structures? Check. And they were and continue to be a hugely influential band. Though, I think by now, their music has gotten less interesting and more same-y. They have an extensive discography, so naturally, I've not heard all their songs, but why would I want to? I've heard so many random songs over the years and the entirety of the Daydream Nation album (has it been remastered? the version I heard sounded like garbage, not in a good way), but they never catch my attention. It just fades into the background for me. No little detail stands out, no song moves me. I keep thinking I need to give SY another chance, but everytime I hear one of their songs, I'm driven away from hearing more. I just don't have the patience for their music (but I will spend hours listening to Sunn O)))!)
Here's some other bands that I think aren't as great as everyone says they are, mostly because I'm simply not enticed by their offerings: Pink Floyd (The Wall is an awesome movie, though), Jimi Hendrix ("Voodoo Chile" blows), Tupac (I prefer B.I.G.), Metallica (yeah, not a big thrash fan, and their 90s output needs no explanation -- truthfully, I debated putting Metallica on this list), U2 (YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH), the Sex Pistols (pre-fab punk solely meant to provoke: boring!)
Since the list was getting a bit too long, I'm only going to go in-depth with 5 major ones and then I'll just mention the "dishonorable mentions."
The Beatles
I can't stand the Beatles. I've heard a few albums and countless songs over the years (how could one not hear a million Beatles songs in his/her life, since they have penetrated every layer of the mediaverse in various forms?), but none of them are enjoyable. I will admit to being slightly charmed by their old poppy numbers, like "Twist And Shout" or "Can't Buy Me Love," but I would never put them on my iPod or dance to them at a party. I don't like anything about the Beatles -- the harmonies, the timbres of Lenon and McCartney's voices, the sunny hippie lyrics, their incorporation of "exotic" instrumentation on some songs, etc. The music of the Beatles bores me, it does not provoke emotions (or imagery or anything, really) in me at all. The proliferation of phony Beatlemania through merchandise and commercials makes the phenomenon that much worse. I'm constantly reminded of their presence and thus their music, and I am thus annoyed.
Led Zeppelin
My disdain for Led Zep runs deep. Now, it's particularly odd for me to hate them since their innovations eventually spawned so much great music, many a good genre. But, you know what, if Zep hadn't have done it, someone else would have. And maybe I would like that band. Alas, I'm not compelled by the music of this group. It's not that I don't like the bluesy stuff, stuff that is overly histrionic, or the EPIC guitar playing (the only element of this band that I fancy is the guitarage), or the STOCK rhythm section, it just doesn't seem to gel for me with Zeppelin. It's inexplicable. Though one thing I know for sure à propos de Led Zeppelin, is that "Stairway To Heaven" is one of the most boring and overrated rock jams, ever.
NO STAIRWAY! DENIED!
Ozzy Osbourne
Who cares about Ozzy? I'm not really a Sabbath fan either, but the thing that really keeps me away from liking Sabbath is Ozzy's vocals, which is why I decided to list him only, rather than penalize the band as a whole (and then, why penalize Dio, as well?). Ozzy is possibly the most annoying vocalist in the history of rock and roll (Steven Tyler from Aerosmith edges him out a bit), so I find it extremely surprising that he is so legendary. Sure, his antics and non-musical persona are sometimes interesting and the Osbournes didn't get terrible until it penetrated every sphere of the mediaverse, but I couldn't care less, since I'm much more concerned with the music. And Ozzy's music is garbage. I can't name one song that this guy sings that I actually enjoy or care about. Perhaps it's an acquired taste, his (awful) voice? Or is that just what people say when they want to justify liking something terrible?
Nirvana
BUT THEY INVENTED GRUNGE AND ALT ROCK!!! That's absolutely untrue. Nirvana's actually kind of derivative, when you think about it. Take some elements of Pixies and Melvins, and voilà, Nirvana. Nirvana is probably (partially) regarded so highly because their mainstream success ushered in a new era in popular music, where bands that a few years before would have been laughed off in favor of cock rock could now make money. So I dispute their musical importance (importance to popular culture though is indisputable). But then there is the subjective factor. I can honestly say Nirvana's songs don't appeal to me. I'm not familiar with their first studio album, Bleach, but Nevermind and In Utero bore me. It's honest music, undoubtedly, but it doesn't move me, nor am I enticed by their "uniqueness." I think Nevermind is way too polished, and even Kurt Cobain agreed with me (according to a book about Nirvana, as cited on Wikipedia, he said "Looking back on the production of Nevermind, I'm embarrassed by it now. It's closer to a Mötley Crüe record than it is a punk rock record."), so, in a way, it's not surprising that it was a mainstream hit. In Utero is better than Nevermind, it has more texture and rawness (produced by Steve Albini, no wonder!), though the songs still don't jump out at me, with their catchy choruses and all. They stick in my head, but not in a good way. I don't want them there (the STIs of music). I actually prefer to listen to "La Bamba." At least I can dance to it.
Sonic Youth
This may be the biggest "SHOCKER" of the list since, on paper, Sonic Youth should be my favorite band ever. Post-punk New Yorkers? Check. '80s? Check. Noisy? Check. Co-ed vocalizing? Check. Non-pop song structures? Check. And they were and continue to be a hugely influential band. Though, I think by now, their music has gotten less interesting and more same-y. They have an extensive discography, so naturally, I've not heard all their songs, but why would I want to? I've heard so many random songs over the years and the entirety of the Daydream Nation album (has it been remastered? the version I heard sounded like garbage, not in a good way), but they never catch my attention. It just fades into the background for me. No little detail stands out, no song moves me. I keep thinking I need to give SY another chance, but everytime I hear one of their songs, I'm driven away from hearing more. I just don't have the patience for their music (but I will spend hours listening to Sunn O)))!)
Here's some other bands that I think aren't as great as everyone says they are, mostly because I'm simply not enticed by their offerings: Pink Floyd (The Wall is an awesome movie, though), Jimi Hendrix ("Voodoo Chile" blows), Tupac (I prefer B.I.G.), Metallica (yeah, not a big thrash fan, and their 90s output needs no explanation -- truthfully, I debated putting Metallica on this list), U2 (YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH YEAH), the Sex Pistols (pre-fab punk solely meant to provoke: boring!)
Friday, 15 January 2010
New Music: Salome
I was reading the new Decibel about the most anticipated releases of 2010 and came across a name I've never heard: Salome. This band has a female vocalist, so naturally, as a lady who likes metal, I'm interested in hearing their musical offerings. And I like what I hear! It's doomy fun for the whole family! Their songs don't seem to be too long, which can sometimes be a problem with this genre, though I have some tendency to enjoy loooooong songs.
What caught my attention first on their Myspace page was the list of influences because it included so many bands that I like (Isis, Khanate, Electric Wizard, Kyuss, etc.). What caught my attention furthermore is the fact that there is a FUGAZI cover. And I looked at the word "Blueprint," debating if I should give it a listen, half in disbelief. So I took the plunge and listened to it. It's about 5 and half minutes long, which adds about a minute and a half to the Repeater classic. Unfortunately, it kind of ruins what I like about the original: the melodic, yet raw vocal stylings of Guy Picciotto, the simple, but memorable guitar lines, and the driving rhythms. I posted a long time ago about how I usually hate cover songs, but in this instance, I can at least appreciate that a band chooses such a great band (and song) to cover and let their less-than-stellar interpretation slide. That, and their original songs are freakin' sweet. I'll probably be buying their new album, whenever it comes out this year.
Here's a link to their Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/salomedoom
What caught my attention first on their Myspace page was the list of influences because it included so many bands that I like (Isis, Khanate, Electric Wizard, Kyuss, etc.). What caught my attention furthermore is the fact that there is a FUGAZI cover. And I looked at the word "Blueprint," debating if I should give it a listen, half in disbelief. So I took the plunge and listened to it. It's about 5 and half minutes long, which adds about a minute and a half to the Repeater classic. Unfortunately, it kind of ruins what I like about the original: the melodic, yet raw vocal stylings of Guy Picciotto, the simple, but memorable guitar lines, and the driving rhythms. I posted a long time ago about how I usually hate cover songs, but in this instance, I can at least appreciate that a band chooses such a great band (and song) to cover and let their less-than-stellar interpretation slide. That, and their original songs are freakin' sweet. I'll probably be buying their new album, whenever it comes out this year.
Here's a link to their Myspace: http://www.myspace.com/salomedoom
Saturday, 9 January 2010
2009 - The Music I Missed
These are the albums that I didn't get around to, for reasons stated below. Hopefully, I'll find time for them in '10, amongst the usual onslaught of new releases.
Obscura - Cosmogenesis
I'm pretty sure I first heard about this band on the Requiem Metal Podcast (link on the side) and I was instantly impressed by their stylings. It's tech death metal, which I am usually a fan of, but the songwriting on the songs I've heard is particularly good. They really have a lot of soul and are surprisingly accessible and catchy. The main reason for my not getting this record is lack of funds, though I'm a little afraid that I listen to too much tech death. Maybe I just need to embrace the fact that I really dig the genre and stop giving subpar non-tech death metal bands attention that is often unwarranted.
Tombs - Winter Hours
I read about Tombs in Decibel a while back and promptly checked them out on the 'net. On the first listen, I really wasn't feeling it. Then, once again, I was listen to Requiem, and the songs really won me over. This band is difficult to classify, but their melding is an exciting one. I definitely need to keep this album on my list and pick it up in the future.
Lightning Bolt - Earthly Delights
I've kind of fallen out of touch with the Bolt. As can be seen by my best of the decade list, I really loved Wonderful Rainbow (and Ride The Skies, for that matter), but when I heard Hypermagic Mountain, I pretty much just shrugged it off. It was different from the ones I liked and I wasn't sure I liked the direction they were heading in. I really haven't listened to it much, hence why I haven't gotten LB's 2009 effort. I heard a song from this album online, but it didn't get me hyped up to buy the album. I think somewhere down the line I'll end up giving Hypermagic Mountain some more time and then possibly picking up this album, but only time will tell.
Dälek - Gutter Tactics
I really dug the previous Dälek album, Abandoned Language, but this group has so many albums that I don't have that I thought it would be kind of pointless to follow them as the new albums come out. I have to catch up on the catalogue before buying their newer albums. Also, this album got some moderate reviews, so I'm not convinced that it's an urgent buy.
Krallice - Dimensional Bleedthrough
I should own this album. Really ought to. I'm a fan of Mick Barr's Orthrelm and Ocrilim bands and I also enjoy the current wave of American black metal, so why haven't I picked this up (and Krallice's self-titled album from last year)? Pretty much an issue of money. I can only buy so many albums and I've spent all my iTunes gift card money from the holidays. This album is pretty high on my list to buy. Every time I read about this band, or hear one of their songs, I immediately think "I NEED TO BUY THIS NOW," but I'm still hesitant since..... I don't quite know why I hesitate at all. I just need to get this record ASAP.
Millions - Gather Scatter
Another band I heard about in Decibel. I actually listened to this whole album online in the summer (legally!), but I didn't buy the album because I already had so many others that I wanted to buy and thought "oh, I'll get it later or something, I have half a year." And then I lost some enthusiasm for the band. And now I regret not buying it, because it's good, simple, well-made rock music. And I need some more rock music, nothing too extreme or outrageous. Just some good rock.
Moss - Tombs Of The Blind Drugged
I think I may have stumbled across this band from some other band's Myspace page, or from Rise Above records or something like that. So, I like doom metal stuff and this band is pretty cool. The release is only an EP, but it's like 40 minutes long and the last song is a cover that has been stretched out to like 8-10 minutes or something like that. This band has some other albums that I'm also interested in, but I thought an EP might be a good place to start. This band does greatly ressemble Electric Wizard, but I don't care because I dig the Wiz and if I'm going to like another doom band, it's no surprise that something similar also appeals to me.
Jesu - Infinity
I got the Opiate Sun EP and it's really good, but some weird fascination with Justin Broadrick's Jesu project makes me want to buy this other release from this year. It's a 40 minute song, but somehow, I really think I'll like it. It'll probably take me a while to pick this one up, but I'm convinced that it's worth my time.
Mastodon - Crack The Skye
Mastodon is a very good and also very important band in the metal world. They've made a few bona fide classics of the early 2000s and they've made a career for themselves, signing to a major label and all, but without sacrificing their integrity or their artistry. However, I'm just not into their new direction. I would never accuse the band of selling out, and if you hear anything from this era of the band and you're familiar with their history, you'd know this is a logical step for them. I just can't dig it. Mostly because I really hate the vocals. I'm not a fan of clean vocals in the metal realm, though there are some exceptions, but this is too much for me. I even heard a bunch of these songs live and wasn't won over. I just prefer the older stuff. I still greatly respect the band, but I just won't be buying their musics much anymore.
Obscura - Cosmogenesis
I'm pretty sure I first heard about this band on the Requiem Metal Podcast (link on the side) and I was instantly impressed by their stylings. It's tech death metal, which I am usually a fan of, but the songwriting on the songs I've heard is particularly good. They really have a lot of soul and are surprisingly accessible and catchy. The main reason for my not getting this record is lack of funds, though I'm a little afraid that I listen to too much tech death. Maybe I just need to embrace the fact that I really dig the genre and stop giving subpar non-tech death metal bands attention that is often unwarranted.
Tombs - Winter Hours
I read about Tombs in Decibel a while back and promptly checked them out on the 'net. On the first listen, I really wasn't feeling it. Then, once again, I was listen to Requiem, and the songs really won me over. This band is difficult to classify, but their melding is an exciting one. I definitely need to keep this album on my list and pick it up in the future.
Lightning Bolt - Earthly Delights
I've kind of fallen out of touch with the Bolt. As can be seen by my best of the decade list, I really loved Wonderful Rainbow (and Ride The Skies, for that matter), but when I heard Hypermagic Mountain, I pretty much just shrugged it off. It was different from the ones I liked and I wasn't sure I liked the direction they were heading in. I really haven't listened to it much, hence why I haven't gotten LB's 2009 effort. I heard a song from this album online, but it didn't get me hyped up to buy the album. I think somewhere down the line I'll end up giving Hypermagic Mountain some more time and then possibly picking up this album, but only time will tell.
Dälek - Gutter Tactics
I really dug the previous Dälek album, Abandoned Language, but this group has so many albums that I don't have that I thought it would be kind of pointless to follow them as the new albums come out. I have to catch up on the catalogue before buying their newer albums. Also, this album got some moderate reviews, so I'm not convinced that it's an urgent buy.
Krallice - Dimensional Bleedthrough
I should own this album. Really ought to. I'm a fan of Mick Barr's Orthrelm and Ocrilim bands and I also enjoy the current wave of American black metal, so why haven't I picked this up (and Krallice's self-titled album from last year)? Pretty much an issue of money. I can only buy so many albums and I've spent all my iTunes gift card money from the holidays. This album is pretty high on my list to buy. Every time I read about this band, or hear one of their songs, I immediately think "I NEED TO BUY THIS NOW," but I'm still hesitant since..... I don't quite know why I hesitate at all. I just need to get this record ASAP.
Millions - Gather Scatter
Another band I heard about in Decibel. I actually listened to this whole album online in the summer (legally!), but I didn't buy the album because I already had so many others that I wanted to buy and thought "oh, I'll get it later or something, I have half a year." And then I lost some enthusiasm for the band. And now I regret not buying it, because it's good, simple, well-made rock music. And I need some more rock music, nothing too extreme or outrageous. Just some good rock.
Moss - Tombs Of The Blind Drugged
I think I may have stumbled across this band from some other band's Myspace page, or from Rise Above records or something like that. So, I like doom metal stuff and this band is pretty cool. The release is only an EP, but it's like 40 minutes long and the last song is a cover that has been stretched out to like 8-10 minutes or something like that. This band has some other albums that I'm also interested in, but I thought an EP might be a good place to start. This band does greatly ressemble Electric Wizard, but I don't care because I dig the Wiz and if I'm going to like another doom band, it's no surprise that something similar also appeals to me.
Jesu - Infinity
I got the Opiate Sun EP and it's really good, but some weird fascination with Justin Broadrick's Jesu project makes me want to buy this other release from this year. It's a 40 minute song, but somehow, I really think I'll like it. It'll probably take me a while to pick this one up, but I'm convinced that it's worth my time.
Mastodon - Crack The Skye
Mastodon is a very good and also very important band in the metal world. They've made a few bona fide classics of the early 2000s and they've made a career for themselves, signing to a major label and all, but without sacrificing their integrity or their artistry. However, I'm just not into their new direction. I would never accuse the band of selling out, and if you hear anything from this era of the band and you're familiar with their history, you'd know this is a logical step for them. I just can't dig it. Mostly because I really hate the vocals. I'm not a fan of clean vocals in the metal realm, though there are some exceptions, but this is too much for me. I even heard a bunch of these songs live and wasn't won over. I just prefer the older stuff. I still greatly respect the band, but I just won't be buying their musics much anymore.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
2009 Part 4
Today's the last part of the "albums I bought" portion of my 2009 stuff. Tomorrow or maybe later in the week, I'll have a post about stuff I didn't get around to.
This is the more general metal section.
Much attention has been payed to Baroness' newest album, Blue Record. The first time I heard this, I kept asking myself ARE YOU READY TO ROCK??!! because I haven't heard a band rock this hard in a long time. Each time a new song came on, I expected it to be the "chill-out" tune, but no, the ROCK doesn't stop, save a couple of short transitional tracks. I was really impressed by how fun and interesting the record was and I regretted that I procrastinated buying it for quite a long time.
If I was doing a traditional list, it would be impossible to leave off Converge's latest masterpiece, Axe To Fall. The band's other releases this decade have all been great, and ATF continues the legacy. I think Converge has officially become the Fugazi of metalcore, always finding a new direction and never putting out a boring album. They're a band that accomplishes the feat of remaining true to, and expanding their sound. This time around, there's possibly their most out-there tracks ever "Cruel Bloom" and "Wretched World." The former is total bluesy-folk that erupts in rock power and the latter is a layered, swirling droner that stretches past seven minutes, and neither prominently feature one of Converge's signature elements, Jacob Bannon's shrieking yowl. The branching out isn't confined to those two tracks, though. There's more double-bass and an increased focus on rock and roll riffery, particularly in the first 4 tracks. And I thought Baroness had a monopoly on the ROCK. Guess not.
Probably my favorite live band this year was Kylesa. I saw them with Mastodon in the summertime, and no disrespect to the 'don, but Kylesa was fun, exciting, and hypnotic. Their difficult-to-peg sound plays quite well live, and I regret that I missed them when they came back to my neighborhood in the fall. I bought Static Tensions at the show, and was initially disappointed. I could tell the band had stepped up their songwriting and were utilizing their two drummers setup better than before, but the album wasn't as good as the live experience. I've written about this before and my opinion hasn't changed. However, as I listened more and got some distance from the live show, Static Tensions has really grown on me. It seems to me that Kylesa is just getting better and better, and I'm hoping the next album will continue the trend. Until then, I'll be listening to "Said And Done" and "Unknown Awareness" a million or so times.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what to say about Burnt By The Sun's alleged final album, Heart Of Darkness. I've always considered the band to be on the second tier of the metalcore genre, and this album doesn't really elevate them. I like this album, but I thought their 2003 album, The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good, was better. It felt more like an album, with transitions and breaks. HOD is a little more consistent, but that makes it a little boring in comparison. What originally interested me about this band was the cool riffs and the dynamic drumming (it's not all blinding speed all the time) and both of those elements are present on this album, though I don't find the songs as memorable. I probably need some more time to listen to this album, but I just wish it had a few more surprises. I enjoy listening to it, but it's missing something.
This is the more general metal section.
Much attention has been payed to Baroness' newest album, Blue Record. The first time I heard this, I kept asking myself ARE YOU READY TO ROCK??!! because I haven't heard a band rock this hard in a long time. Each time a new song came on, I expected it to be the "chill-out" tune, but no, the ROCK doesn't stop, save a couple of short transitional tracks. I was really impressed by how fun and interesting the record was and I regretted that I procrastinated buying it for quite a long time.
If I was doing a traditional list, it would be impossible to leave off Converge's latest masterpiece, Axe To Fall. The band's other releases this decade have all been great, and ATF continues the legacy. I think Converge has officially become the Fugazi of metalcore, always finding a new direction and never putting out a boring album. They're a band that accomplishes the feat of remaining true to, and expanding their sound. This time around, there's possibly their most out-there tracks ever "Cruel Bloom" and "Wretched World." The former is total bluesy-folk that erupts in rock power and the latter is a layered, swirling droner that stretches past seven minutes, and neither prominently feature one of Converge's signature elements, Jacob Bannon's shrieking yowl. The branching out isn't confined to those two tracks, though. There's more double-bass and an increased focus on rock and roll riffery, particularly in the first 4 tracks. And I thought Baroness had a monopoly on the ROCK. Guess not.
Probably my favorite live band this year was Kylesa. I saw them with Mastodon in the summertime, and no disrespect to the 'don, but Kylesa was fun, exciting, and hypnotic. Their difficult-to-peg sound plays quite well live, and I regret that I missed them when they came back to my neighborhood in the fall. I bought Static Tensions at the show, and was initially disappointed. I could tell the band had stepped up their songwriting and were utilizing their two drummers setup better than before, but the album wasn't as good as the live experience. I've written about this before and my opinion hasn't changed. However, as I listened more and got some distance from the live show, Static Tensions has really grown on me. It seems to me that Kylesa is just getting better and better, and I'm hoping the next album will continue the trend. Until then, I'll be listening to "Said And Done" and "Unknown Awareness" a million or so times.
I'm having a hard time figuring out what to say about Burnt By The Sun's alleged final album, Heart Of Darkness. I've always considered the band to be on the second tier of the metalcore genre, and this album doesn't really elevate them. I like this album, but I thought their 2003 album, The Perfect Is The Enemy Of The Good, was better. It felt more like an album, with transitions and breaks. HOD is a little more consistent, but that makes it a little boring in comparison. What originally interested me about this band was the cool riffs and the dynamic drumming (it's not all blinding speed all the time) and both of those elements are present on this album, though I don't find the songs as memorable. I probably need some more time to listen to this album, but I just wish it had a few more surprises. I enjoy listening to it, but it's missing something.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
