What MUSIC are you listening to? ARCHIVE

One Fall song has got pretty famous in the UK. It is Touch Sensitive. It was on an advert but now it is the go to song if you have a feature on say hyperactive kids. Great song.

JonJacob wrote:

Funny because listening to the Fall is kind of like listening to someone throw all their dishes down the stairs... it's their all right, but man where is the aesthetic appeal?

That's cool that you don't admire The Fall. But since they have been my favorite band for 20 years now I had to say something. Because a lot of bands have come and gone in my life but the Fall have had a longevity for me that is largely unparalleled. So, I do strongly feel that there IS something of quality in this highly overlooked "non-supergroup".

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk... cool ideas but awfull playing. The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

I can't share this point of view. No offense, but sounds like a bunch of musician's musician elitist crap.
Good songwriting and having a distinctive sound is always going to win over "technically proficient" music or guitar wanking for me. Musicianship doesn't matter if the material is fucking boring. I don't care how well someone plays a shit song.

They're just afraid of having a musical vocabluary of more then four words.

Nobody out there sounds remotely like the Fall that aren't trying. Their catalogue of songs is actually quite diverse and the tone or style tends to shift or evolve on each record. And music aside, Mark E. Smith is a totally brilliant lyricist and delivery-man to boot. Practically inimitable in style and content. Truly legendary in my opinion!

Hex Sinister wrote:

JonJacob wrote:

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk... cool ideas but awfull playing. The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

I can't share this point of view. No offense, but sounds like a bunch of musician's musician elitist crap.
Good songwriting and having a distinctive sound is always going to win over "technically proficient" music or guitar wanking for me. Musicianship doesn't matter if the material is fucking boring. I don't care how well someone plays a shit song.

That's, uh, exactly the opposite of what he said. Bold for emphasis.

The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

Just unclench about The Fall and realize he's got a strong point. Pretend we're talking about Sid Vicious or something. If you can't play well enough to do your material justice, you just suck. Go get a job.

(spoken as a non-musician, who has a job. And no opinion about The Fall in particular, but strong agreement about punk's "bad-on-purpose" bullshit.)

Maybe I'm completely missing the point JJ was making and am just totally confused now. I think the way that was phrased is causing me the confusion. God I need a nap.

That's cool that you don't admire The Fall. But since they have been my favorite band for 20 years now I had to say something. Because a lot of bands have come and gone in my life but the Fall have had a longevity for me that is largely unparalleled. So, I do strongly feel that there IS something of quality in this highly overlooked "non-supergroup".

I've only been into The Fall for about 8 years, but when I came to them- after trying to get into them for years and years- something finally clicked and I suddenly "got" The Fall.

Part of it was because I was so burned out on just about all music. Nothing sound new and fresh, nothing sounded daring and really creative anymore.

In The Fall, you've got a band that is so outrageously singular and defiant of all other music. Yes, The Fall is in a sense anti-everything. And the fact that for 30 years they've released an incredibly consistent body of work with probably the most amazing combination of absurdity, surrealism, intellect, and raw rock n' roll. There's an albatross-like quality of awkwardness to The Fall that is really rather fearless- one of my favorite Fall moments is from a live show and the announcer says all this fist-pumping rock n' roll stuff to introduce they band...and they come on with a kazoo solo.

If you can't play well enough to do your material justice, you just suck. Go get a job.

Well, when The Ramones came out, everybody assumed that they were untalented hacks playing one chord. You _still_ hear that. But if you see END OF THE CENTURY in particular, you really see how much deliberate artistry was a part of The Ramones. Johnny Ramone had a very distinct vision and statement about rock n' roll, and it comes blazing through their entire career. "Bad on purpose"? Is "Rock n' Roll High School" bad on purpose or is it just stripped down to the core of what rock n' roll is supposed to be?

You hear the same crap about the New York Dolls, but come to find out those guys- particularly Johnny Thunders- were great songwriters and musicians. Just because they were coming at from the gutter rather than some uptown music school doesn't make their music any less great or sophisticated.

It strikes me that this is kind of like the argument a lot of people have against modern art. Anybody can look at a Rembrandt and recognize the art and talent because he was technically proficient in the extreme. But a lot of people will look at a Rothko or Pollock and think "crap" and cite how the Rothko is just a square of paint or the Pollock is just a bunch of paint splatters. The Rothko and the Pollock are every bit as significant and artistic, but the technique to get there is different and what is expressed is different. It's the same thing when a Joe Satriani fan throws off on punk- who's being unsophisticated there?

Moss_icon said: "the strange boys - www.myspace.com/thestrangeboys

this is incredible. these guys look way too young to be playing this kind of thing. blues / garage rock / 50s, slack jawed vocals and all very dumb and good fun."

Wow! they sound good and they're playing in my town at the end of July! I have to go see them play!

Barnes, you are reminding me of this awesome review of Transformers 2 that I read yesterday:

io9.com/5301898/michael-bay-finally-made-an-art-movie

"...the movie's id overload reaches such crazy levels that the fabric of reality itself starts to break down. Michael Bay has boasted about how every single shot in the movie has so much stuff going on in it, it would take your PC since the dawn of time to render one frame. After a few hours of this assault, you feel the chair melt and the floor of the movie theater becomes an angry mirror into your soul. Nothing is solid, nothing is real, everything Transforms."

Michael Barnes wrote:

It strikes me that this is kind of like the argument a lot of people have against modern art. Anybody can look at a Rembrandt and recognize the art and talent because he was technically proficient in the extreme. But a lot of people will look at a Rothko or Pollock and think "crap" and cite how the Rothko is just a square of paint or the Pollock is just a bunch of paint splatters. The Rothko and the Pollock are every bit as significant and artistic, but the technique to get there is different and what is expressed is different. It's the same thing when a Joe Satriani fan throws off on punk- who's being unsophisticated there?[/quote]

And yet you criticize Mastodon for being "too good" and therefore losing their "hunger" it's a pretty abstract arguement and certainly sounds to me like your giving them flack for being technically proficient. If your a great songwriter then that's another matter, I listen to a number of only o.k. musicians because they are great songwriters and if I saw that in punk I'd call it.

But when musicians suck ON PURPOSE, that is a different matter entirely.

I'd much rather listen to solo's from Dean Ween or Neil Young then Joe Satriani... but even more so I'd rather listen to solo's from Lenny Breau because he is cool, emotive, and talented. It does push you up a notch because the more you can do the less limited you are. I'm perfectly willing to give bands like the Fall a chance IF the songwriting is good enough to overcome the obvious musical limitations.

And yet you criticize Mastodon for being "too good" and therefore losing their "hunger" it's a pretty abstract arguement and certainly sounds to me like your giving them flack for being technically proficient.

They were technically proficient to begin with. Those guys were awesome to begin with. It is an abstract argument, and it's something that isn't really quantifiable.

A friend of mine was lamenting once how you never really hear "last chance" records any more, like these instances where a young and hungry band finally got into a studio and wound up making a classic.

I do think some bands can be "too good" for their own good, though. When you lose impact in favor of proficiency, and you're a metal band...I dunno.

listen to a number of only o.k. musicians because they are great songwriters and if I saw that in punk I'd call it.

Have you not ever listened to The Buzzcocks, Television, or the Clash? Incredible songwriting, across the board. The Sex Pistols had some amazing songs. Just because they're not trad rock doesn't mean they're not great songs.

But when musicians suck ON PURPOSE, that is a different matter entirely.

I'm not sure there's such a thing as a musician who willfully, intentionally sucks. I wonder if you're not confusing musicians with limited talent who are really straining against what they can accomplish with.

One of the most incredible records I own is a black metal release, Ulver's "Nattens Madrigals". These guys are actually very, very talented musicians and they've since gone on to film scores, ambient work, and some quite sophisticated instrumental music. But the record is incredibly raw, violent, harsh, and totally minimalist. It sounds like it was recorded over the phone in a tin can floating in a toilet somewhere in Norway. A "classic rock" fan would hear it and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, the artistic intent was to capture a particular atmosphere, force, and emotion that proficient guitar solos and studied songwriting never could. It's a total artistic success as far as I'm concerned, and it's one of the records (along with Darkthrone's "Transilvanian Hunger") that really created this really raw, ambient, and minimalist style of music.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that you can't assume that all musicians have the same artistic goals. It's not always about songwriting, chord progressions, phrasings, and aesthetic qualities. Some times it's about more by being about less.

JonJacob wrote:

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk... cool ideas but awfull playing. The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

technical proficiency is the most boring thing in the world. OOH LOOK AT ME I CAN PLAY GUITAR WELL. well good for you, you tedious bastard! i don't listen to music to hear someone who is good at stuff, i listen to music to hear people who are fucking rubbish at stuff, like me, so i can relate to them. they are people like me, they don't have time to learn how to play an instrument properly as they have no money, or drink too much, or are cunts, or don't give a shit. that's good stuff, that's what i want, failure, miserable failure. for ever and ever and ever.

maka wrote:

Moss_icon said: "the strange boys - www.myspace.com/thestrangeboys

this is incredible. these guys look way too young to be playing this kind of thing. blues / garage rock / 50s, slack jawed vocals and all very dumb and good fun."

Wow! they sound good and they're playing in my town at the end of July! I have to go see them play!

awesome, i am glad at least one person got something out of my rather ill directed post!

You do if you listen to The Fall. They've covered a couple of Monks songs and there's a track called "Black Monk Theme" that's awful Monks-ish.

I've listened to some of their stuff. They're OK. I'm not crazy about Smith's "singing." For me, it kind of kills the punk energy to have your frontman just talking.

That's just me. Maybe you could recommend one of their albums where he doesn't sound like shit.

Anti-msucianship for the sake of itself is the hallmark of punk

No, snobbishness is, the anti-musicianship is just a symptom, not the disease. Sounding too polished will get you thrown out of the club, too. That's why bands like The Jam have always had to take so much shit.

The notion that you can't be technically proficient and emotional is an anti-intellectual load of garbage.

That's great, but if you make music where the emotional aspects are only evident to people who are actually interested in the technical nuts n' bolts of music, don't expect this attitude to change. Moreover, since you're in the minority, and a musician yourself which is going to skew your opinion, you may want to think about whether or not you're on the correct side of that divide.

When non-guitar players start outnumbering the guitar players at Satriani's shows, I'll be more inclined to agree with you.

"Bad on purpose"? Is "Rock n' Roll High School" bad on purpose or is it just stripped down to the core of what rock n' roll is supposed to be?

For all this bullshit about nonconformity being a big part of punk, I sure do hear a hell of a lot about what music is SUPPOSED TO be coming from those fans and bands.

But, yes, I totally agree with you here.

That was one of many great things about 60s and 70s punk...it showed kids that they could pick up a guitar and say something with it without going to some upper middle class music school and learning a bunch of fucking scales and the "right" way of doing things.

When I took guitar lessons, I hated because I didn't want to learn to play scales and keys and fucking dated ass Jimmy Page licks. I wanted to learn how to play with the speed and aggression of Dr. Know from the Bad Brains or with the dull power of Tony Iommi. I was going to lessons around the time Satriani, Steve Vai, and all these "guitar god" clowns were the big thing. My teacher looked at me like I was crazy when I bought in a Fugazi record because I wanted to learn how to play "Margin Walker". I didn't- and still don't- give a flying fuck about learning all those worn out Van Halen techniques.

But hey, I respect that people like that...not when it's used as an apologia though, like when people try to justify listening to unlistenable ear sewage like the Dave Matthews Band or Phish with "they're really great musicians". SFW!

That's just me. Maybe you could recommend one of their albums where he doesn't sound like shit.

I can't. He's sounded the same for about 30 records now. Either you like his anti-style style or you don't. My recommendation? Don't listen to The Fall.

Why not? Wouldn't want one of us lame ass Rush fans taking all the cool off of it?