General catch-all music discussion

  1. This post has been removed.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from leafswin27. Show leafswin27's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to RogerTaylor's comment:

    For Pixies fan's! loudQUIETloud: A Film About the Pixies Feature Film | Not Rated | 1:25:30 | Released: 2006 "FREE" to watch on crackle.com.......Enjoy!




    thanks Roger

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

    I was somewhat kidding.  Half joke. Yeah, I don't think Bachman and Ted Nugent are at the top of the list of songwriters.  Limited, one dimensional styles, etc.   Hey, it's not rap, but I wouldn't remotely refernece either as great songwriters or musicians either.  What's next Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons? lol

     

    Yep, not a Zappa or Trower fan.  Would rather listen to John Denver after he ripped a doober.

    hehe

    Anyway, I just feel drugs/booze can actually help artists who already creative people, be more creative.    Not trying to promote drugs or alcohol, I just feel it's the truth after a ton of evidence.

     



    You say there is a "ton' of evidence. Tell me what this evidence is.

    Frank Zappa did not have a one dimensional stye of songwriting. You simply don't like him. That doesn't make him a less creative songwriter.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    You say there is a "ton' of evidence. Tell me what this evidence is.

     



    I tend to agree with his statement as long as its with the caveat that it's limited to only certain people.

    Though, with regard to what Matty suggested, I have to say "more creative" vs. "creative, but in a different way" doesn't cut a clear distinction for me.

     

    But, I don't think there can be "evidence" for him to give you. I don't think it makes any sense to say "well, let's look at what Keith Richards did when he was into coke and heroin. Then let's look at what he did when he was just a drunk. Oh, clearly coke and heroin improve creativity."

    The serious drugs stage was when he was between young and middle adulthood. Then he replaced hard drugs with large quantities of liquor (and apparently hasn't let up - "It's like breathing for me," he writes in his autobiography). But he aged. The band changed. He already wrote the Exile riffs, so, he's got to do something different. One cannot tease out a particular cause for changes in his playing.

    The only way you could develop such evidence is by an impossible controlled experiment: Watch what happens in two universes, one in which the person is sober through certain ages, the other in which they get high through the same ages.

     

     

     

    All I can say is when I was much younger and did a lot of painting and drawing, I felt that I did my most creative things when high. Sketches, pastels, less precise painting seemed to turn out better.

    However, it detracted from focus on detail so I would stay away from graphite or careful watercolor work. It really depended on what I was doing.

    (I sort of detect a difference like that between 1985 SRV and 1989-90 SRV live recordings)



    Maybe you felt you were more creative because you were younger, or maybe creativity is greater when you are younger.

    You make a great point about the impossible experiment. So why do so many persist in believing that drugs necessarily enhance creativity? I leave the question open. However, it is a fact that drugs affect our perception. Because of this, I can see how drugs can affect artistic output. That is all I can say with certainty.

     

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    All I can say is when I was much younger and did a lot of painting and drawing, I felt that I did my most creative things when high. Sketches, pastels, less precise painting seemed to turn out better.

    However, it detracted from focus on detail so I would stay away from graphite or careful watercolor work. It really depended on what I was doing.


    As someone who graduated from art school many moons ago, I can certainly relate.

    Yet, in your personal anecdote is an example of "more creative" vs. "differently creative".

    One of the most creative, accomplished artists I worked with back then was a total straight-edge and vegan, a personal lifestyle choice which may or may not have contributed to the success of his art.  (He's still at it today and still impressive.)

     

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    ibid.  "correlation without causation"

     

     

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    I think that certain substances may act as 'de-inhibitors' that, figuratively speaking, may open up blocked passages in the mind for some people.

    My only experience with this comes from writing prose.  And my first certifiable experience was pretty humorous.  In university I was taking some English courses and in one I had to write a paper on a Jane Austen novel.  It was horribly boring and I couldn't get motivated at all.  With just a couple of days before the deadline I had the paper about half written and what I had written was not very good.  So I go out and get a big smoke buzz on and when I come home I decide it's time to finish this paper.  I'm still having to force myself to do it but I find I'm starting to really think about the characters and get some insights and the words really start flowing.

    My mother was typing up my papers at the time.  As she was typing this one she kept commenting on how much better the second half of it was.  The professor said the same thing.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    I think that certain substances may act as 'de-inhibitors' that, figuratively speaking, may open up blocked passages in the mind for some people.

    My only experience with this comes from writing prose.  And my first certifiable experience was pretty humorous.  In university I was taking some English courses and in one I had to write a paper on a Jane Austen novel.  It was horribly boring and I couldn't get motivated at all.  With just a couple of days before the deadline I had the paper about half written and what I had written was not very good.  So I go out and get a big smoke buzz on and when I come home I decide it's time to finish this paper.  I'm still having to force myself to do it but I find I'm starting to really think about the characters and get some insights and the words really start flowing.

    My mother was typing up my papers at the time.  As she was typing this one she kept commenting on how much better the second half of it was.  The professor said the same thing.



    George Carlin said something to this effect.  In his mid-to-later years, he was mostly clean and sober, except for the occasional joint.  (At that age, it's no sin.)  He said he would be working, stuck on some word or phrase, then take one hit, and then zoom!...he was off to the races.

    He fully admitted his transgressions and addictive personality traits but also how and which 'enhancers' either helped or hurt his performances.  And given 40 years of performing live and on tv, that's a pretty big sample size.

     

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to WhatDoYouWantNow's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    For example, I think it was In Step in '89 for SRV. Very good album, but I am not sure it's that good. It's as good as anything he was doing before, but with a cleaner, slicker production.  I don't think anything was going to change how great of a guitar player he was anyway.  High or not high, he was that good.



    Definitely. I mainly had in my head live performances since that is what I prefer with SRV. To get TMI with it, I was mentally comparing the 1985 Montreaux with the 1989 Austin....

     


    Or the 1989ish live w/ Albert King CD.



    I was at one of his last shows in Detroit before he died.  It was life-changing.  

    I think I gave up trying to play guitar that same week.

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to RockScully's comment:

    In response to devildavid's comment:

     

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

     

     

    I was somewhat kidding.  Half joke. Yeah, I don't think Bachman and Ted Nugent are at the top of the list of songwriters.  Limited, one dimensional styles, etc.   Hey, it's not rap, but I wouldn't remotely refernece either as great songwriters or musicians either.  What's next Paul Stanley and Gene Simmons? lol

     

    Yep, not a Zappa or Trower fan.  Would rather listen to John Denver after he ripped a doober.

    hehe

    Anyway, I just feel drugs/booze can actually help artists who already creative people, be more creative.    Not trying to promote drugs or alcohol, I just feel it's the truth after a ton of evidence.

     

     



    You say there is a "ton' of evidence. Tell me what this evidence is.

     

    Frank Zappa did not have a one dimensional stye of songwriting. You simply don't like him. That doesn't make him a less creative songwriter.

     




    Do you have a problem? I didn't say Zappa did. I said Bachman and Nugent did. I am well aware of Zappa's quirky material.

     

    The evidence lies in examples like the Stones, the Allmans, the Dead, the Crowes, The Who, Zeppelin, etc, really any band that engaged in taking drugs and drinking a lot and when they went into rehab and stopped.

    Look at the material.

    It's night and day.  They go hand in hand.  They go overboard and lose their edge after dabbling excessively, have to go into a rehab, and when they come out, the music and creativity sounds neutered.

    Like I said, plenty of evidence.  It's always like that.  Elton John is another example.   Rehab in the late 1980s, what quality original material has he done since?

     



    Besides going into rehab they were also older. That is not evidence of the effects of lack of drug use so much as it is the effects of aging. Most musical artists creativity tends to dry up as they age. It is also evidence of the effects of drug abuse.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

    ibid.  "correlation without causation"

     

     




    It is easy to conflate correlation with causation.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    I can't bring myself to put a comment into the Boy Band thread.  I'm laughing too hard.  I don't know about you, since I didn't leave a snide comment, but I really am a bit of a mass**** and don't really care if someone accuses me of being one.    Not that making the statement was immature or anything ... hahahaha.   

    Anyhow, good job on the thread.   =)

    BTW, there is a truly good article in the Globe today (radical, I tell you) and I'd post the link, but if you don't have an online subscription, you won't be able to read it.   I'll follow up next week (it's too late now and my mind is mush).

    The article is on the current trend / high profile of American roots music (if you can believe it ... in light of the "Roots" thread), and the role that Mumford and Sons has played in terms of influence.   But the article leaves this nagging question regarding a backlash to the popularity of the "new" roots music, and the propensity and possibiity that it will (if it doesn't already)  all (Gulp -- sit down, friends) ultimately sound the SAME.  

    To be continued in a thread soon.  It's all part of the ultimate downfall of rock music ... only kidding.   All of our discussions here are right on pulse.  So great.  

    I'm going to call the thread: The Desecration of Rock.   

    Okay, all you mean old boy band dissers, have a nice weekend.  :D

     

     

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to yogafriend's comment:

    I can't bring myself to put a comment into the Boy Band thread.  I'm laughing too hard.  I don't know about you, since I didn't leave a snide comment, but I really am a bit of a mass**** and don't really care if someone accuses me of being one.    Not that making the statement was immature or anything ... hahahaha.   

    Anyhow, good job on the thread.   =)

    BTW, there is a truly good article in the Globe today (radical, I tell you) and I'd post the link, but if you don't have an online subscription, you won't be able to read it.   I'll follow up next week (it's too late now and my mind is mush).

    The article is on the current trend / high profile of American roots music (if you can believe it ... in light of the "Roots" thread), and the role that Mumford and Sons has played in terms of influence.   But the article leaves this nagging question regarding a backlash to the popularity of the "new" roots music, and the propensity and possibiity that it will (if it doesn't already)  all (Gulp -- sit down, friends) ultimately sound the SAME.  

    To be continued in a thread soon.  It's all part of the ultimate downfall of rock music ... only kidding.   All of our discussions here are right on pulse.  So great.  

    I'm going to call the thread: The Desecration of Rock.   

    Okay, all you mean old boy band dissers, have a nice weekend.  :D



    Can't wait.

    In particular because I'm not a fan of the Mumfords or their sons, and I have an idea where the argument is going...cue the "new sincerity" backlash.

    Have a great weekend!

     

     

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RogerTaylor. Show RogerTaylor's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    I thought my boy band post was polite....and sincere ;)

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    The 2013 nominations for the R and R Hall of Fame are out.  Rush is nominated for the first time, and lo and behold, so is...can you believe it...Deep Purple.



    Hf, I am 100% opposed to the concept of a Rock'n'Roll HoF.  It is the exact opposite of what Rock'n'Roll is supposed to represent.  What's next, a Nihilist Hall of Fame?  ;-)

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

    Say hello to the forum's newest Pixies fan.  I bought their Doolittle album based solely on the comments about them by forum members and I love it.  Hard to believe they totally escaped my attention until now.  I can honestly say if it wasn't for this forum I probably never would have heard them.  So that's pretty cool.



    Hf - Their "Purple Tape" is now available on YouTube:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv4GbdMOHX0

    It's the original 17 songs they did at Fort Apache....possibly the best new band first demo ever done.  The Gun Club might dispute that, though.  8 of them were used for Pilgrim, the rest were used on later albums though re-recorded.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Hfxsoxnut. Show Hfxsoxnut's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    My wife and I saw the Waterboys here in Halifax the other night.  Great show, better than I was expecting, frankly, because all I really knew of them was 'Fisherman's Blues' and a few other songs.  But they're a lot more than that.  Their most recent album consists entirely of Yeats poems set to music and has gotten rave reviews.  Biggest and most pleasant surprise for me - these guys can really rock when they want to, such as on 'Be My Enemy'.

    This band just shot way up on my list of favorites and I'll be buying some of their stuff soon.

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from yogafriend. Show yogafriend's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    There were some summary articles re: the Newport Folk Festival that took place over the weekend (26-28 July) and it looked as though a great time was had by all.   The articles also pointed out that the festival sold out faster and farther in advance than at any other time in its history (which I believe we discussed a few months ago at the time it was sold out ... hahah).

    I saw that an artist that I posted about a few months ago, Phosphorescent, headlined on Friday night.    Since the concert was posted on NPR (along with many of the concerts), I listened to most of it, and it was outstanding.  I am a fan of Phosphorescent, and glad to see he (they) are doing well; this was their first outing at Newport.

    Another band I noticed that played was a band I saw at the Boston Summer Arts Weekend last summer; their name is the Low Anthem.    From Providence, their star also seems to be on the rise, so that was nice to see as well.    What makes them distinctive (and what I witnessed from seeing them live), is the vast array of instruments they use, changing up the mix from song to song.   It seemed that no two songs had the same instruments in play; showcases their talent, and lots of fun to watch, too.   

    "I really didn't say everything I said."  Yogi Berra 

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to xXR3S1NXx's comment:

    You guys are way too old. Ive never heard of half these bands so it like impossible to know what your talkin about. Theres gotta be someone on here thats into metal, Now thats something i can talk about.



    So to clarify, mate,....you like metal.  And any other music or bands you are unaware of must mean that those that know of them and/or like them are old, boring gobshites or sad fans of the Eagles or the Carpenters.   Are you interested in rock'n'roll?  If so, you are obviously aware of:

    • The Sonics: From Tacoma, circa 1965.  While the best band ever, IMO, was singing "I Wanna Hold Your Hand", "I Wanna Be Your Man", and "I Saw Her Standing There".....the Sonics invented punk/metal/whatever.
    • The Monks:  5 discharged, disaffected American GIs in 1960s Germany wrote and released an astonishingly angry, brilliant album....then broke up.
    • Do I have to mention the Stooges, or the MC5?
    •  
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to devildavid's comment:

    In response to RockScully's comment:

     

    In response to Hfxsoxnut's comment:

     

    I should add that there are different schools of thought on this.  There are certain musicians who are or were adamantly opposed to drugs.  Randy Bachman of the Guess Who and BTO says he's never even had a drink in his life (he's a Mormon), and he has written and played some of the best songs in Canadian music history.  (Ironically, perhaps, he's a close friend of Neil Young.)

    Frank Zappa was militantly anti-drug.  He would kick you out of his house or his band if you did drugs.  Rory Gallagher didn't tolerate drugs around him either.  And again, these are two great musicians and songwriters.

    Whatever works, or doesn't work, I guess, is the bottom line.

     



    I think using the words Randy Bachman and "good" and tying it into never having a drink explains why Randy Bachman isn't that good. lol

     

    It's like Ted Nugent. The guy can't write a song to save his life and he's never had a drink, smoke, nothing. Yet, Nugent would mock Jerry Garcia, which is hilarious to me. 

    I am a firm believer in creative people using creative things to alter their minds a bit.  Obviously, losing your edge is another story.

     

     



    Just because you don't like Bachman's or Nugent's work does not mean they have not written good songs. And what about Zappa and Trower? No put downs for these two? If someone is already creative why do they need substances to alter their mind? What is gained in doing so? Be specific.

     




    DD - You and I have occasionally been at odds about different musical issues, respectfully and enjoyably, IMO....but nothing annoys me more than people that don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "I don't like it" and "I think it's low quality".

    I've disliked U2 intensely since around 1985.  Springsteen for most of his career.  Ad infinitum.  But I think those two are very talented....just not my thing.  On the flip side, I love the Mummies beyond all reason...and the Invisible Men....and many others that push all my buttons - all important to me - but I wouldn't try to claim they are Julliard magna cummm laude instrumentalists with Cohen lyrics written on their partner's bodies.

    Embarrassing that some can't understand and appreciate the difference.

    p.s. - I love the Guess Who and think their/Bachman's music was of an extremely high quality.....and I loathe Ted Nugent's music and, to paraphrase Saint Dorothy Parker of the pisstake....I don't see any there there.

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to SonicsMonksLyresVicars' comment:



     

    DD - You and I have occasionally been at odds about different musical issues, respectfully and enjoyably, IMO....but nothing annoys me more than people that don't seem to be able to understand the difference between "I don't like it" and "I think it's low quality".

    I've disliked U2 intensely since around 1985.  Springsteen for most of his career.  Ad infinitum.  But I think those two are very talented....just not my thing.  On the flip side, I love the Mummies beyond all reason...and the Invisible Men....and many others that push all my buttons - all important to me - but I wouldn't try to claim they are Julliard magna cummm laude instrumentalists with Cohen lyrics written on their partner's bodies.

    Embarrassing that some can't understand and appreciate the difference.

    p.s. - I love the Guess Who and think their/Bachman's music was of an extremely high quality.....and I loathe Ted Nugent's music and, to paraphrase Saint Dorothy Parker of the pisstake....I don't see any there there.



    I disagree strongly with many people in my life, some of whom I love with all my heart. My wife hates most of my music and she is the most important person in my life. The things she criticizes in my music are true; much of it is harsh sounding. She prefers pop music that is more soothing to the ears, but she does like it to have some pep to it. She doesn't like slow, draggy music which she refers to as "farty".

    All of us hear things in music that make us love it and often it is inexplicable to those who don't. To my ears, Howlin' Wolf is just as pop as The Archies, and I enjoy the music of both. But as I was trying to get at in my "Good music, Bad music" thread, I can't really put my finger on anything in the music itself that is bad or good or even "artistically" inferior or superior. If there is even a modicum of talent, skill, and personality involved, most musical performers can produce music that someone will enjoy.

    P.S. I must confess to enjoying Ted Nugent's guitar work with the Amboy Dukes and I like his song "Cat Scratch Fever".

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from SonicsMonksLyresVicars. Show SonicsMonksLyresVicars's posts

    Re: General catch-all music discussion

    In response to polar123's comment:

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

     

    Yea.

    "Rush's sales statistics place them third behind The Beatles and The Rolling Stones for the most consecutive gold or platinum studio albums by a rock band"

     




    Yup. Nominations for Rush and Deep Purple are long overdue.

     

    One other really interesting music item this week is the rumored Smiths Glastonbury reunion. I for one would like to see it, but Morrissey has been on record many times saying that it will never happen, and that a Smiths reunion would seem like a "shabby nostalgia act and money grab."  I don't know about that, and their are certainly many people who would shell out big bucks to hear them again. But It is probably wishful thinking --  then again, don't count it out, as we discussed, Morrissey will be (cough) retiring at the end of his current tour, and maybe one more shot at glory with Marr is in the works.



    I hope, and would bet, that Marr wouldn't touch that racist b***ard with a barge pole. 

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share