930 Forums

=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: Justin Tonation on July 22, 2012, 08:41:42 pm

Title: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 22, 2012, 08:41:42 pm
New thread to keep other on topic. And we needed this, anyway.

The G4S Corporate Theme Song....

http://www.thestoolpigeon.co.uk/features/g4s-corporate-song-securing-your-world.html

Yeah  it's as bad you think...

I've said to others that if you want to hear what mainstream rock sounded like 20 years ago, listen to country radio today. Jon Bon Jovi knew exactly what he was doing.

(http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_606w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2012/07/16/Style/Images/143581023.jpg)

For rock and pop stars, including Staind?s Aaron Lewis, country isn?t an easy genre to crack (http://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/for-rock-and-pop-stars-including-stainds-aaron-lewis-country-isnt-an-easy-genre-to-crack/2012/07/19/gJQAlkxPwW_story.html)

Because Darius Rucker already beat them there?  And isn't Bon Jovi's current stuff sounding more and more Country Rock these days, so is that because Country Rock caught up with them?

Bon Jovi's core fans from his hair metal salad days are now well into their 40s (and a few beyond). Many probably listen to country because indie, alternative, classic rock, and CHR ignore them. But they like radio and country is the only format that appeals to them. New stuff from Bon Jovi didn't stand a chance on any rock or hit format so he subtly retooled his sound to satisfy his core fans' current sensibilities. That change meshed in well with current country.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on July 23, 2012, 11:07:44 am
Good interview just posted on Mother Jones with Ketch Secor from Old Crow Medicine Show.
http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/07/interview-old-crow-medicine-show (http://www.motherjones.com/media/2012/07/interview-old-crow-medicine-show)

I bet he'd agree with you on Bon Jovi.

"That stuff coming out of Nashville now wants to see a woman looking good in the kitchen whipping up some biscuits. A woman who knows how to handle her minivan at the mall. It's a concrete jungle out there, darlin'. Turn up your radio and get into a bubble bath kind of thing."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: evilizac on July 23, 2012, 01:28:23 pm
The fact of the matter is that the mainstream is entirely populated with highly calculated low risk acts regardless of genre. Any country that isn't in the strict vein of its set type is quickly picked up by some "indie" community.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 23, 2012, 02:29:18 pm
though i know most venues hate the jam band scene due to all those crazy kids wanting to smoke pot . . . but damn you know they love the amount of alcohol they sell at those shows.  i went to see coldplay and the wall, was a ghost town at the lines; kiss/motley crue, yeah they were buying but not in waves of good god how long do i have to wait in this line.  now at any jam show (phish/moe/widespread/furthur/dso/disco) you have people fighting hand over fist to get beer.  beer lines at jam shows are sure ways to miss a bunch of songs.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 07, 2012, 10:39:09 am
EDM RIP 2012- First Brostep and now this - Mark Foster (of Foster the people) has a forthcoming Electronic Dance music side project. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on August 07, 2012, 01:18:46 pm
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13054841-wtf-is-this-the-millennial-generations-woodstock?lite

this seems like for people WLM (With Lots or Loads of Money) where everything and anything there would cost insane amounts of money.  like what they were charging for booklets and t shirts at the verizon roger waters the wall show.  and lines not worth waiting in at each booth.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on August 07, 2012, 01:37:47 pm
I don't like country music, but I'm glad my girlfriend does.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 07, 2012, 02:08:14 pm
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13054841-wtf-is-this-the-millennial-generations-woodstock?lite

this seems like for people WLM (With Lots or Loads of Money) where everything and anything there would cost insane amounts of money.  like what they were charging for booklets and t shirts at the verizon roger waters the wall show.  and lines not worth waiting in at each booth.

what do think is driving all this monster boxset and deluxe releases at this point.  i'm sure that bands that still have even a small but very loyal fanbase, know they are doing already well enought to cough up premium dollars for a well put together re-release.  also, look at the success of some of those kickstarter campaigns where even the premiums in the hundreds of dollars are snapped up.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 07, 2012, 02:46:52 pm
http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/07/13054841-wtf-is-this-the-millennial-generations-woodstock?lite

this seems like for people WLM (With Lots or Loads of Money) where everything and anything there would cost insane amounts of money.  like what they were charging for booklets and t shirts at the verizon roger waters the wall show.  and lines not worth waiting in at each booth.

what do think is driving all this monster boxset and deluxe releases at this point.  i'm sure that bands that still have even a small but very loyal fanbase, know they are doing already well enought to cough up premium dollars for a well put together re-release.  also, look at the success of some of those kickstarter campaigns where even the premiums in the hundreds of dollars are snapped up.

short version of this nerds/geeks have lots of disposable cash
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 07, 2012, 09:21:47 pm
I hope everyone has enjoyed seeing M83 in more intimate venues as a track of that group has now appeared on a Now That's What I Call Music compilation. Kind wanted a Skrillex track to show on one of those to continue with the death of EDM in 2012.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 09, 2012, 07:23:57 pm
Beck's next album on pre-Edison format only (http://gawker.com/5933398/becks-new-album-consists-solely-of-paper-sheet-music-that-you-the-listener-must-play)

Seeking an even less user-friendly alternative to vinyl, singer Beck has announced that his upcoming album will be released solely as individual pieces of sheet music, placing the onus of "playing music that can be heard" on consumers themselves.

According to the musician's website, Beck Handsen's Song Reader will consist of twenty songs' worth of sheet music, assembled into twenty individual song booklets, each decorated with "full-color, heyday-of- home-play-inspired art," and stored in a "lavishly produced hardcover carrying case."

The full package is reportedly "as visually absorbing as a dozen gatefold LPs put together," or, in layman's terms, as visually absorbing as a dozen foldout pictures.

But what of the music itself? Beck's website assures readers that the songs are really quite good, particularly for musicians who have been trained to play them, like Beck.


cont.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on August 09, 2012, 09:21:55 pm
Translation: Beck Hasn't done anything worthwhile in almost a decade and wants to get his name in the press again.

I still say it was downhill after One Foot in the Grave.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 19, 2012, 09:17:58 pm
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/8/18/18/enhanced-buzz-20652-1345330514-0.jpg)


MUSIC MAP OF GREAT BRITISH BANDS

http://www.pello.co.uk/art/best-of-british/music-map-great-british-bands/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 20, 2012, 10:04:14 pm
Just found the most awesome website ever...

http://musichistoryingifs.com/
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m96vv20O9g1rbgzizo1_500.gif)(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m8cwg8EjOF1rbgzizo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on September 21, 2012, 04:17:47 pm
Just found the most awesome website ever...

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7odpc4lfy1rbgzizo1_500.gif)

"1965.  bob dylan plays his first electric set at the newport folk festival.  his dumb acoustic fans are all “booooo”
 
later they realize they were dumb."


Perhaps the fans weren't booing because Dylan went electric...maybe they were booing because he can't sing.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on January 31, 2013, 01:31:33 am
Kraftwerk: the most influential group in pop history? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9837423/Kraftwerk-the-most-influential-group-in-pop-history.html)

Andy McCluskey: "When you listen to pop now, do you hear the Beatles, or do you hear electronic, synthetic, computer-based grooves?"
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 01, 2013, 06:12:13 pm
I don't know why they don't just rename "All Things Music" to "All Things Indie Rock" and be done with it.   
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 01, 2013, 11:35:02 pm
I don't know why they don't just rename "All Things Music" to "All Things Indie Rock" and be done with it.  

woah looks like evilsanta doesn't take dictation well...

what I meant to say was "I don't know why they don't just rename "All Songs Considered" to "All Indie Rock Consider" and be done with it." 

of course that doesn't work either so i'm going to bed... 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 07, 2013, 02:43:42 pm
I'm interested to see what comes next from Kylie Minogue now that's she's assigned to Jay-Z's Roc Nation label. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 12, 2013, 04:02:21 pm
Since I already posted this in the "Hey Seth" thread, I hope he can make the Daptone Records Super Soul Review happen at Merrieweather.  Especially now that it's happening at SXSW.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 12, 2013, 11:36:17 pm
Today I got a digital download for a Kickstarter project and instead of usinka Bandcamp to fulfill the digital files which gives FLAC as an option.  The artist sent along the AIFFs of the tracks.  That's a first for a digital distribution from at Kickstarter.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 25, 2013, 09:49:40 pm
Snoopy Dogg or is it Lion is doing a guest verse on the new Fitz and Tantrums album, talk about a band desperate to make it big... Wonder if Fitz and his guitaristless indie rock band disguised as a soul group, will discover that guitar was a bigger part of soul then he claims.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on February 26, 2013, 10:52:21 am
Kraftwerk: the most influential group in pop history? (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/rockandpopfeatures/9837423/Kraftwerk-the-most-influential-group-in-pop-history.html)

Andy McCluskey: "When you listen to pop now, do you hear the Beatles, or do you hear electronic, synthetic, computer-based grooves?"

Those 2 Kraftwerk shows at the 9:30 Club were incredible. That tour was phenomenal.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: StoneTheCrow on February 26, 2013, 11:52:44 am
Fitz and his guitaristless indie rock band disguised as a soul group

They're awful.  Tho I thought they were more like a guitar-less bubblegum pop/soul band.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 26, 2013, 07:48:02 pm
Fitz and his guitaristless indie rock band disguised as a soul group

They're awful.  Tho I thought they were more like a guitar-less bubblegum pop/soul band.

I'm being mild facetious about them being an indie rock band disguised, but that's a pretty much sums them up.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 26, 2013, 07:51:37 pm
Obviously this isn't the first time an offspring has taken over for a parent in a band but this would be good show to see...  I had no idea about the BRMC/The Call connection until after Micheal Been had passed away, he served as the bands soundman for several years.

*****

It gives us great pleasure to announce to you all that the seminal rock group 'The Call' will be reuniting with B.R.M.C.'.s Robert Been for two select shows!!!

Disbanded in 1990 The Call's original members Scott Musick, Tom Ferrier, and Jim Goodwin will be taking the stage with Robert Been, taking over the role of bass and vocals in honor of his father, the late Michael Been - twenty years since their last live show!

But now for the really exciting news - Tickets go on sale on Friday March 1st from www.the-call-band.com

April 18th: San Francisco, CA / Slim's

April 19th: Los Angeles, CA / The Troubadour
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on February 26, 2013, 09:50:23 pm
Why is it that we only hear about these things after the fact? Heard that it was fairly good.

The Bayou Documentary (http://www.mtitv.com/BayouBlog/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Bombay Chutney on February 27, 2013, 10:46:52 am
Why is it that we only hear about these things after the fact? Heard that it was fairly good.

The Bayou Documentary (http://www.mtitv.com/BayouBlog/)

I saw this a couple months ago and enjoyed it quite a bit.  It's got a nice background on the very early days of the club, which I had no clue about.  It was also nice to confirm my memories of why I hated going there in the end (Lois, the bouncers, etc.)    Worth checking out, if they show it again.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: wml7 on February 27, 2013, 01:25:01 pm
It's official now Scott Weiland fired from Stone Temple Pilots
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/stone-temple-pilots-fire-scott-weiland-20130227
 ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on February 27, 2013, 01:26:48 pm
It's official now Scott Weiland fired from Stone Temple Pilots
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/stone-temple-pilots-fire-scott-weiland-20130227
 ;D
He needs to start a band with Dave Navarro.  That would be the perfect match. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 28, 2013, 01:53:40 pm
Not only does the lead singer of the High Strung have an 2 solo records out including an epic double solo album out with 36 tracks on it  :o  http://joshmalerman.bandcamp.com/

he also has a book, "Bird Box", he's written that's set to be published and been already been optioned as a movie. 

Talk about a renaissance man, next thing you know he'll be painting as well...

I wonder what the dynamic in a band is when one of members suddenly has a six figure deal for a movie/book deal.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on February 28, 2013, 02:36:49 pm
For any fans of AIR, here's a great version of "Dirty Trip": http://soundcloud.com/astralwerks/air-dirty-trip-live-in-los
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 12, 2013, 05:28:26 am
 ;D

Mumford and Sons vs The Lumineers - Funny or Die weighs in

http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/321558bb86/mumford-sons-vs-the-lumineers-which-is-the-better-band?playlist=featured_pictures_and_words
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 14, 2013, 06:32:53 pm
Can anyone explain CHVRCHES?  I'm finding it pretty un-listenable too...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on March 14, 2013, 11:12:04 pm
;D

Mumford and Sons vs The Lumineers - Funny or Die weighs in

http://www.funnyordie.com/articles/321558bb86/mumford-sons-vs-the-lumineers-which-is-the-better-band?playlist=featured_pictures_and_words

you are like a broken record. we get it you don't like music that came out in the last 20 years.  You don't have to posting the same thing over and over again.  it is boring.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 16, 2013, 11:57:49 am
Johnny Marr is doing both Electronic and Smiths songs in the UK.

http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/johnny-marr/2013/o2-academy-oxford-oxford-england-23db5cc7.html1.

The Right Thing Right 
Stop Me If You Think You've Heard This One Before  (The Smiths song)
Upstarts 
Sun & Moon 
Forbidden City  (Electronic song)
European Me 
London  (The Smiths song)
Lockdown
The Messenger 
Generate! Generate! 
Say Demesne 
Bigmouth Strikes Again  (The Smiths song)
Word Starts Attack 
New Town Velocity 
I Want the Heartbeat 

Encore:
16.
Getting Away With It  (Electronic song)
How Soon Is Now?  (The Smiths song)
There Is A Light That Never Goes Out (The Smiths song)






Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on March 16, 2013, 12:17:24 pm
on the one hand its exciting that Marr is going to be performing Smiths/Electronic songs he co-wrote...seems only fair too


on the other hand hearing anyone other than Bernard Sumner and Morrissey singing these songs seems so wrong....but I probably feel like that because those are two of my favorite voices


from the youtube clips i saw it seemed quite good but did have a bit of a karaoke feel...

and lets face it. makes me more likely to attend.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 25, 2013, 09:01:12 pm
http://bargainbinblasphemy.tumblr.com/

Bargin Bin album covers turned into fake Death Metal bands.  All kinds of win \m/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on March 26, 2013, 09:30:21 am
http://bargainbinblasphemy.tumblr.com/

Bargin Bin album covers turned into fake Death Metal bands.  All kinds of win \m/

Thank you...thank you.  These are really quite delightful :)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 27, 2013, 10:43:11 am
Sweet that Reigning Sound is recording at Daptone Records for their new record.  Eight track goodness...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 28, 2013, 11:35:56 am
Foxygen cancel Eurpoean Tour due to "creative health of the band"  ?????

http://www.clashmusic.com/news/foxygen-cancel-european-tour

Is that code for we went out on whirlwind tours to soon in our careers, when we should have been honing our live chops on a local/regional level first?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on March 28, 2013, 11:45:55 am
Foxygen cancel Eurpoean Tour due to "creative health of the band"  ?????

http://www.clashmusic.com/news/foxygen-cancel-european-tour

Is that code for we went out on whirlwind tours to soon in our careers, when we should have been honing our live chops on a local/regional level first?

They just played the Golden West Cafe.. I don't think is ever too early in your career to play there.  I heard from someone who went to the show that they were awful live.  It probably comes down to not practicing enough before touring.

Foxygen have been around a lot longer than Of Monsters and Men and when I saw them live last year they put on probably  one of the ten best shows I have seen in my life.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on March 30, 2013, 12:39:08 am
If we are talking suck ass bands again let's not forget...

U2
Rush
Dave Mathews
Boston (for you old fucks)
Journey (for you semi-old fucks)

I love Boston's first and like their second. The funny thing about Boston's first is that it was more indie than most well-known indie bands. Most of it was played by Tom Scholz himself and recorded on 12-track in his own basement and on his own dime. It wasn't "corporate" rock; the sound he invented was copied by everyone else and that became corporate rock.

Journey is actually older than Boston and started as a jazz-rock spinoff of Santana. They went nowhere, so they hired a candyass singer and invented Glee.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on April 12, 2013, 05:49:15 pm
I could easily nit pick and tear this article to death but I won't bother.

Shoegaze: the genre that could not be killed
Formerly a UK music press term of abuse for hapless Thames Valley indie types who hid behind their fringes, now everyone's glad to be 'gaze (http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/apr/12/shoegazing-back-in-fashion)

-Edit-
Just got a look at the Spotify list with the article and it looks amazingly like what I've been airing on Air Atlantic Underground Radio (http://www.live365.com/stations/airatlantic) for all these years.  8)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on April 12, 2013, 06:38:31 pm
A good list for your next trip into NYC:

Vinyl Sale: NYC Music Stores (http://www.nycgo.com/articles/vinyl-sale-nyc-music-stores/?a=1&b=1&pid=hp-hero-drgbl-9)

(http://www.nycgo.com/images/460x285/KimsVideoAndMusic_V1_460x285_1.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on April 16, 2013, 09:52:36 am
I would love to have these (http://www.sundazed.com/shop/product_info.php?products_id=2394), but alas, I must be a responsible human being.  :(


(http://www.sundazed.com/shop/images/LP5178-color-vinyl-mini.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 07, 2013, 02:58:27 pm
(http://bandcampblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tapes-600.jpg?w=900&h=350)

Rewind! The Cassette is Back. (http://blog.bandcamp.com/2013/05/07/rewind-the-cassette-is-back/)

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry released their report of 2 million cassette tapes sold worldwide? Sales in the UK alone tripled last year.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on May 07, 2013, 03:17:58 pm
(http://bandcampblog.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/tapes-600.jpg?w=900&h=350)

Rewind! The Cassette is Back. (http://blog.bandcamp.com/2013/05/07/rewind-the-cassette-is-back/)

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry released their report of 2 million cassette tapes sold worldwide? Sales in the UK alone tripled last year.



Cassettes suck.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on May 07, 2013, 03:28:03 pm
^ I agree and refuse to fall for the hype.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on May 07, 2013, 03:59:51 pm
Yeah, that's just retro with the intention of being contrary.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on May 07, 2013, 04:26:15 pm
I love Boston's first and like their second. The funny thing about Boston's first is that it was more indie than most well-known indie bands. Most of it was played by Tom Scholz himself and recorded on 12-track in his own basement and on his own dime. It wasn't "corporate" rock; the sound he invented was copied by everyone else and that became corporate rock.

Journey is actually older than Boston and started as a jazz-rock spinoff of Santana. They went nowhere, so they hired a candyass singer and invented Glee.

I somehow missed these comments when they were posted.  They are both spot on.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on May 07, 2013, 06:17:39 pm
An interesting family tree:

(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/270853_610336538996201_230057969_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on May 07, 2013, 08:26:08 pm
Jeez, I never thought about their 'family tree' but it is indeed impressive.

Sober, I can think of a few more they could've included:
Dead Meadow
The Triffids
The Church
The Clientele
The Wild Swans
Dilettantes
The Rebel Drones
Mellow Drunk
Freelovebabies
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 07, 2013, 10:08:02 pm
i think i know like three bands on that page.  and who is bjm?  not everybody knows every band and i hate when people cant just spell out whole band names . . . has it gotten that bad.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on May 07, 2013, 10:26:23 pm
Brian Jonestown Massacre and I'm a bit flabbergasted about this tree, having no idea so many of Anton Newcombe band mates went on to so many projects.  Anton BTW is a totally trip on twitter...

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_The_Brian_Jonestown_Massacre_members
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 07, 2013, 10:34:21 pm
oh yeah . . . i remember some time ago i made fun of their name, and came up with some other like minded silly band names.  i wish i could remember them.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Jaguar on May 07, 2013, 11:04:10 pm
Slappy, Mellow Drunk is on there. ;) Good band that just never seemed to make it beyond the various musical social media sites. Gotta say that you certainly know your BJM and their history! I would have never realized that there were so many spawns.

Where's Sparx when we need him?

If I'm not mistaken, Daydream Nation are another missing branch.

Don't know when this was created but it is interesting.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 08, 2013, 06:50:54 am
Whoa Anton is on Twitter?


BRB

There he is!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on May 08, 2013, 07:53:01 am
weird anton has disappeared from twitter recently... watching him work on remixes with Tim Burgess over twitter and banter with Andy Partridge was fun.  he's a bit like walkie on twitter (conspiracy theories and the like)   but there are no cat pictures involved.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 08, 2013, 09:05:08 am
Yeah the last post was on 4/23.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 09, 2013, 12:08:00 pm
http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/05/06/reinventing-the-album-keeping-releases-relevant-in-the-21st-century/
This article is worth reading, if you are interested in the current state of music releases.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 09, 2013, 12:18:16 pm
Also this wiki of Digital vs Analog format myths is worth a read.  I see way too much "vinyl is better" talk, with anything to back it up; except "it sounds better."

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on May 09, 2013, 01:06:22 pm
Also this wiki of Digital vs Analog format myths is worth a read.  I see way too much "vinyl is better" talk, with anything to back it up; except "it sounds better."

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29

pure awesomeness.  neither side is right, both CDs and vinyl have their merits and detractions... but the self-delusion and self-importance that vinyl jukies speak with is beyond annoying.  it's insulting.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on May 09, 2013, 01:09:37 pm
The most annoying self-delusion comes from people who think that MP3 files sound good.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 09, 2013, 01:14:11 pm
Also this wiki of Digital vs Analog format myths is worth a read.  I see way too much "vinyl is better" talk, with anything to back it up; except "it sounds better."

http://wiki.hydrogenaudio.org/index.php?title=Myths_%28Vinyl%29

pure awesomeness.  neither side is right, both CDs and vinyl have their merits and detractions... but the self-delusion and self-importance that vinyl jukies speak with is beyond annoying.  it's insulting.

It was never about sound. It was instead about differentiation. As indie mainstreamed, elitists had to find something to separate themselves from the hoi polloi. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on May 09, 2013, 01:15:23 pm
Can anyone explain CHVRCHES?  I'm finding it pretty un-listenable too...

heinous.

Along with Haim.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on May 09, 2013, 01:48:31 pm
The most annoying self-delusion comes from people who think that MP3 files sound good.

MP3 files *do* sound good when listening to music through disposable white earbuds - which is how most music is consumed these days.

i can't find it at the moment, but there is an awesome image that made the rounds a while ago who's message was: $3,000 guitar --> $5,000 microphone --> $8,000 preamp --> $50,000 signal chain --> $1.5M mixing desk --> 99 cent earphones.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 09, 2013, 02:27:23 pm
http://blog.iso50.com/31794/radiohead-on-a-wood-record/
There you go! Two things everyone loves, together! Records and Radiohead! Damn the sound!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 09, 2013, 03:23:57 pm
The most annoying self-delusion comes from people who think that MP3 files sound good.

MP3 files *do* sound good when listening to music through disposable white earbuds - which is how most music is consumed these days.

i can't find it at the moment, but there is an awesome image that made the rounds a while ago who's message was: $3,000 guitar --> $5,000 microphone --> $8,000 preamp --> $50,000 signal chain --> $1.5M mixing desk --> 99 cent earphones.

MP3 files sounding good? What the mix is no longer brickwalled?  what kind of magic is this you speak of??? voodoo music?

I'm sorry but that is not possible... not only do MP3s of modern music tend to sound like crap but they make it so the records and cds for those of us that , you know, still buy albums also sound like crap

its disgusting.. the new phoenix is almost ruined due to brickwalling so people can think their "mp3s sound good" cause they blast out or something

cause you know its only music so why should how it sounds matter...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 09, 2013, 03:26:15 pm
Also this wiki of Digital vs Analog format myths is worth a read.  I see way too much "vinyl is better" talk, with anything to back it up; except "it sounds better."



umm cause it fuckin' does sound better...

now modern vinyl mastered from shit mixes made for mp3s often does suck.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 09, 2013, 03:28:35 pm
and if you think it sucks to hear how vinyl sounds better how much do you think it sucked for over a decade to hear people asking "ummm.. why  would you possibly buy records??"


I just couldn't get people to understand that records, you know, tended to sound better than CDs...forget about MP3s which are the biggest con yet... yeah bigger than getting everyone to throw away their records and buy CDs cause they "sounded better"...some of those early CD issues sound atrocious because they hardly spent a second on mastering them.. so eager was the industry to get the product to the racks so that the chumps would buy their 15.99$ reissues..

lucky for me i had some time to stock up on vinyl....

but , yeah, listen to vinyl like Miles Davis and tell me the CD sounds better.. no fuckin way.

no fuckin' way the cd sounds anywhere close to as good as the original six eye....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on May 09, 2013, 04:27:55 pm
and if you think it sucks to hear how vinyl sounds better how much do you think it sucked for over a decade to hear people asking "ummm.. why  would you possibly buy records??"


I just couldn't get people to understand that records, you know, tended to sound better than CDs...forget about MP3s which are the biggest con yet... yeah bigger than getting everyone to throw away their records and buy CDs cause they "sounded better"...some of those early CD issues sound atrocious because they hardly spent a second on mastering them.. so eager was the industry to get the product to the racks so that the chumps would buy their 15.99$ reissues..

lucky for me i had some time to stock up on vinyl....

but , yeah, listen to vinyl like Miles Davis and tell me the CD sounds better.. no fuckin way.

no fuckin' way the cd sounds anywhere close to as good as the original six eye....

hutch, deal with it: vinyl has its pluses, and it has some serious minuses.  your assertion that "vinyl sounds better than CDs" is not a fact, it's an opinion.  vinyl has pops, hiss, wow & flutter... all distortions that are not found on the original master. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on May 09, 2013, 04:28:30 pm
The most annoying self-delusion comes from people who think that MP3 files sound good.

MP3 files *do* sound good when listening to music through disposable white earbuds - which is how most music is consumed these days.

i can't find it at the moment, but there is an awesome image that made the rounds a while ago who's message was: $3,000 guitar --> $5,000 microphone --> $8,000 preamp --> $50,000 signal chain --> $1.5M mixing desk --> 99 cent earphones.

MP3 files sounding good? What the mix is no longer brickwalled?  what kind of magic is this you speak of??? voodoo music?

i take it your sarcasm meter is broken today ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 09, 2013, 04:29:54 pm
Vinyl sucked when CDs were introduced (unless you were buying audiophile pressings at twice the price). Between the warpage, off-centeredness, stitching, orange-peel, factory scratches, mangled sleeves, and other defects, you were more than lucky to get a good copy. Nowadays, vinyl is mostly pressed with tender loving care and on heavier discs. Colored vinyl is much more common now. But the capacity for present plants has pretty much been reached and QC is reportedly declining. Replacement parts for presses are getting hard to come by. The need for more capacity is obvious but the cost of investing in new machinery is enormous. While sales for vinyl have gone up for several years now, the rate of increase is plateauing. This means that investing in new capacity is even riskier.

When CDs were introduced cassettes were already outselling LPs nearly two to one (because of the Walkman) and the difference was expanding. So it was an obviously correct business decision to reduce LPs to make way for CDs.

Early CDs suffered from a dearth of engineers familiar with digital audio. Yet record companies quickly issued their catalogs on the format to take advantage of its exploding sales. This led to many releases suffering from bad sound because shoddy later generation masters were used and they were not properly mastered for the format. By the mid 90s there were many more engineers properly trained in digital audio and the technology had vastly improved. Many remasters sounded much better than their initial releases. But the loudness war was gearing up, as well as MP3/Napster and the vinyl revival.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on May 10, 2013, 07:58:31 am
Can anyone explain CHVRCHES?  I'm finding it pretty un-listenable too...

heinous.

Along with Haim.

This whole "indie disco" movement is producing some un-listenable stuff..  And it's a far away from real disco as it can get.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 10, 2013, 08:40:05 am
purchasing new LPs is a crapshoot... a very high percentage is warped for some reason...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 10, 2013, 10:35:03 am
The warping adds to the fidelity. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on May 10, 2013, 10:44:20 am
The warping adds to the fidelity. 

I think they added that vintage "warped" sound to the digital versions of the new MBV album.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 10, 2013, 06:44:55 pm
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=2484010
A nice article on "Finite difference-based sound synthesis using graphics processors."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 10, 2013, 09:57:37 pm
Has anyone hear anything about this HR "Finding Joseph I" kickstarter?

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hrdocumentary/hr-finding-joseph-i (http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hrdocumentary/hr-finding-joseph-i)

if done right this could be very watchable!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 12, 2013, 02:51:40 pm
Because "men" are stupid: The Ultimate Workout Song of 2013 (http://news.menshealth.com/the-ultimate-workout-song-of-2013/2013/05/03/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 13, 2013, 11:43:02 am
when i work out, i listen to . . . oh who am i kidding, i havent worked out in over a year, except for my right hand every other day.  and when i do that i listen to online sex.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 13, 2013, 01:20:46 pm
A nice read on tips to perfect your mix:
http://blog.indabamusic.com/2011/01/12785-tutorial-12-common-mixing-mistakes/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 14, 2013, 04:56:59 pm
(http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr06/2013/5/14/12/enhanced-buzz-24548-1368547950-10.jpg)

26 Signs You Were A College Radio DJ (http://www.buzzfeed.com/mariasherm/26-signs-you-were-a-college-radio-dj)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 20, 2013, 09:18:23 pm
http://www.facebook.com/m8pls
(http://sphotos-f.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/529178_493968267325226_1118969854_n.jpg)
(http://sphotos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/971655_507314799323906_428067155_n.jpg)
Maybe not for everybody, but I definitely get a kick from the M8 do u even compress page.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Stillwater on May 21, 2013, 03:39:23 pm
LOL

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/9298126/rating-lead-singers-active-bands-2013
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on May 22, 2013, 10:57:15 am
There could be a separate thread of shit music lists on the innerwebs.
Here's another one...
http://www.spin.com/articles/best-drummers-list-alternative-music/?slide=100 (http://www.spin.com/articles/best-drummers-list-alternative-music/?slide=100)

I'd like to know their definition of 'alternative'.
Funk is alternative but reggae isn't?

A drum machine makes the list but Sly Dunbar, Grant Hart, Curtis Crowe of Pylon, Sterling Campbell, Colm Ó Cíosóig are not included.

Tony Thompson at 60 and Chad Smith at 10 says it all.


 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 24, 2013, 02:06:23 pm
Music-centric Onion copycat site: Equalizer Magazine (http://equalizermag.com/)

?Vinyl Purist? Identified As Primary Suspect In Slaying Of 22-year-old Traktor DJ (http://equalizermag.com/news/vinyl-purist-identified-as-primary-suspect-in-slaying-of-22-year-old-traktor-dj/)

Unreleased Boards of Canada Seven-Inch Discovered Beneath Feces At Dog Park (http://equalizermag.com/news/unreleased-boards-of-canada-7-inch-discovered-beneath-feces-at-dog-park/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 02, 2013, 04:53:59 pm
This interview with Gaahl (http://thequietus.com/articles/12384-gaahl-wardruna-gorgoroth-interview) is an enjoyable read. It sounds as though that VH1 documentary and the Vice interview (which was never touched upon) depicted him rather unfairly.

Edit: one more thought. I wish the interviewer asked him to be more specific about the issues he has with the US.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on June 03, 2013, 11:24:27 am
New Sharon Jones albun delayed as singer under goes treatment for cancer.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on June 14, 2013, 09:19:26 am
The Babys have reformed and what more then songwriting and cardio do you want from a reunited band.  And fess up I knew some here lost their virginities in the backseat while these guys were on the 8track player.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on June 14, 2013, 09:35:29 am
The Babys have reformed and what more then songwriting and cardio do you want from a reunited band.  And fess up I knew some here lost their virginities in the backseat while these guys were on the 8track player.

8 Track Player? Those were way gone by the time I turned 16.  Never heard the Babys music.  Is that the band John Waite was in?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on June 14, 2013, 10:19:36 am
Kim Deal left the Pixies. Bummer.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 14, 2013, 10:25:45 am
She probably was tired of living in the past and playing cashgrabtastic shows.


Keili is on WFMU regularly again. Maybe this means more airtime for Killsaly's music.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 14, 2013, 10:28:45 am
Oh yeah! I actually plan on sending her some new music over the next couple of months...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 14, 2013, 10:37:43 am
Maybe she'll have you in for a live session and I can tag along and be the annoying FMU fanboy.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 14, 2013, 10:42:37 am
If that ever happens, then i will definitely take you (and probably Joe, you know he wouldn't want to be left out).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 14, 2013, 11:10:32 am
I recently read the Pixies Oral History (seems weird to write that last bit)

anyways.. its pretty clear from reading it that the Pixies only really existed as functioning band for about a year or two... pretty much all the stuff was written very early on.. most of it probably origially by Frank Black/whatever he goes by today played with Joey....most of it came out on Pilgrim and Surfer but a lot of the later stuff on Doolittle and Trompe were real early songs.. I was surprised by that.... .. I also think a Pixies without Kim is just not workable and I wonder if Kim is just having so much fun touring with the Breeders right now that she decided she wanted to just keep going with that... if she felt she had to leave it makes it seem that something was about to happen be it a tour or new album recording... and she just decided to say no... either way she sure did Joey and Dave a service because without her rejoining the Pixies reunion would not have happened and they needed that money bad..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on June 14, 2013, 11:27:20 am
She probably was tired of living in the past
And to remedy that she's touring an album that is 20 years old.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 14, 2013, 11:29:06 am
Touche.


Though the Breeders' last effort came out just a few years ago.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on June 14, 2013, 11:30:50 am
John Waite yes in the Babys... And their hit album was on 8-track in the late 70s
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on June 14, 2013, 11:48:19 am
Touche.


Though the Breeders' last effort came out just a few years ago.


I like the Pixies better than the Breeders.  But I like Pod better than anything the Pixies ever did.  Does not compute.  Do the Breeders even play anything of Pod in concert?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 14, 2013, 12:35:05 pm
Touche.


Though the Breeders' last effort came out just a few years ago.


I like the Pixies better than the Breeders.  But I like Pod better than anything the Pixies ever did.  Does not compute.  Do the Breeders even play anything of Pod in concert?

well on this tour they were playing the happiness is a warm gun cover
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on June 14, 2013, 01:48:30 pm
Touche.


Though the Breeders' last effort came out just a few years ago.


I like the Pixies better than the Breeders.  But I like Pod better than anything the Pixies ever did.  Does not compute.  Do the Breeders even play anything of Pod in concert?

well on this tour they were playing the happiness is a warm gun cover


Father John Misty does that song as well.  Popular song to cover.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 03, 2013, 10:39:30 pm
Ke$ha rips off the Residents long standing stage look on her new tour and then her people won't even discuss the matter with someone representing the band.  Boo Hiss

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/does-ke-stage-show-rip-off-residents-193446304.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 03, 2013, 11:01:44 pm
do not artists steal from each other all the time, kosmo?  sometimes i question what is real art, and what is before such art.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 04, 2013, 07:46:39 am
it's theft walkie... right down to the different colored iris's on her dancers costumes.  all the band wants at this point is an acknowledgement it's their's or just to be asked for permission, but none of that has happened.  it will get ugly if she starts selling her own merchandise with one rock's few iconic looks/imagery on it...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chancegardener on July 04, 2013, 05:36:06 pm
The Babys' "Head First" is one WAY rockin' song
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 04, 2013, 07:40:42 pm
I chalked that Ke$ha/Residents thing up to being nothing more than a tribute at first but refusing to acknowledge them obviously changes that.

Great NYT piece on this Jay-z/Samsung album download deal. (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/05/arts/music/jay-z-is-watching-and-he-knows-your-friends.html?smid=tw-nytimesmusic&seid=auto&_r=0)

P.S. Jay-Z should have called it quits after The Black Album.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 05, 2013, 02:49:53 am
Bruce Russell put together this swell podcast of lesser known Kiwi indie rock. http://soundcloud.com/flyingnunrecords/and-the-maggots-dance-1-2-3
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 05, 2013, 10:44:52 am
https://www.facebook.com/m8pls (https://www.facebook.com/m8pls)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-d-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/577970_480656185323101_1705279094_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on July 08, 2013, 03:48:16 pm
so whats the deal with Sweden anyways?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 09, 2013, 08:45:10 am
Dave Allen on music distribution (http://north.com/thinking/rick-moody-and-dave-allen-discuss-the-music-distribution-problem/)

I think he is totally dead on here. Probably in the minority though.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on July 09, 2013, 10:20:40 am
Dave Allen on music distribution (http://north.com/thinking/rick-moody-and-dave-allen-discuss-the-music-distribution-problem/)

I think he is totally dead on here. Probably in the minority though.


I don't know what point he is trying to express.  I don't think the guy who played bass on Gang of Four albums and was in Shriekback should expect to be making money off the music industry today.  I talked to bands back in the 80's that had decent selling albums and they said they never made a dime off their album sales.  They were advanced money to make the album and their share of the album sales went to paying off those fees.  I think super star artists were making money back then and superstar artists are making money now. 

Plus now artists are able to put out stuff as long as they want.  Like everyone can do what Amanda Palmer did and cut out the record company and can actually make some money.

He states that record industry is only half of what it was at its peak.  But who is to say it have been at that level. Check out the album sales in the 60's and I doubt they were anywhere near the peak.   

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on July 09, 2013, 10:27:42 am
Ke$ha rips off the Residents long standing stage look on her new tour and then her people won't even discuss the matter with someone representing the band.  Boo Hiss

http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-the-presses/does-ke-stage-show-rip-off-residents-193446304.html

Why would she copy that look? It is a horrible one.  . 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 10, 2013, 01:51:15 pm
http://www.spin.com/#articles/dinosaur-jr-j-mascis-fifth-greatest-guitarist-all-time-australia-quiz-show/

why did i never know that kurt asked j to join nirvana, twice . . . and j said no twice. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 12, 2013, 02:19:20 pm
For you vinyl purist/non-music tech embracing people:
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/1069252_528649887190397_1706838143_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 12, 2013, 07:04:16 pm
My peeve is with labels that physically release something only on vinyl (because sound, man) and digitally only in MP3 or iTunes (because BULLSHIT, man).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on July 14, 2013, 12:23:14 am
My peeve is with labels that physically release something only on vinyl (because sound, man) and digitally only in MP3 or iTunes (because BULLSHIT, man).

Compact Discs are dead. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 14, 2013, 08:25:23 am
I was apparently DJing in the douchiest club in Chicago last night... at first I though it was spam, but no bot could create such douchbag profiles.

https://twitter.com/_jwalks/status/356290970951761920
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 14, 2013, 08:56:00 am
it would appear the douche's smartphone auto-corrected Criz R. to Chris R. while searching twitter..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 14, 2013, 10:49:27 am
I was apparently DJing in the douchiest club in Chicago last night... at first I though it was spam, but no bot could create such douchbag profiles.

https://twitter.com/_jwalks/status/356290970951761920

Those profiles are so money...  ::)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 14, 2013, 11:00:24 am
My peeve is with labels that physically release something only on vinyl (because sound, man) and digitally only in MP3 or iTunes (because BULLSHIT, man).

Compact Discs are dead. 

I guess I wasn't clear. Some labels offer downloads of their vinyl releases only in MP3 or iTunes, both of which are lossy formats that are inferior to CD. If they really cared about sound and not just looking cool, they would offer downloads in lossless formats, e.g. WAV, FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, BWF. Even better, they would offer downloads in higher digital resolutions than CD.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on July 14, 2013, 07:19:26 pm
My peeve is with labels that physically release something only on vinyl (because sound, man) and digitally only in MP3 or iTunes (because BULLSHIT, man).

Compact Discs are dead. 

I guess I wasn't clear. Some labels offer downloads of their vinyl releases only in MP3 or iTunes, both of which are lossy formats that are inferior to CD. If they really cared about sound and not just looking cool, they would offer downloads in lossless formats, e.g. WAV, FLAC, ALAC, AIFF, BWF. Even better, they would offer downloads in higher digital resolutions than CD.

Ok that makes sense.  I guess the problem is that most people today listen to music on a shitty phone with shitty ear buds and they don't really care about sound quality. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 15, 2013, 02:35:20 am
Nigel Godrich, Four Tet and Thom Yorke are not streaming service fans. http://blbrd.co/1bBf0tU Wondering if lesser known, younger bands will follow suit.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 18, 2013, 07:44:52 am
A counterpoint on the streaming services issue

From Kudos Distribution, a leading distributor of UK indie labels.  Streaming is the "2nd largest income source for our labels."

http://www.kudosdistribution.co.uk/streaming-services-again-2/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 18, 2013, 08:41:38 am
I saw you tweet that a bit ago.
 There was also this (http://storify.com/ahmadmzaghal/damon-krukowski-on-the-godrich-yorke-spotify-tweet) from Damon Krukowski of Damon and Naomi/Galaxie 500. In summation, he thinks that all streams should be completely free while owning the music itself would still come at a price. Essentially the Bandcamp model.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 18, 2013, 09:28:12 am
There is no one size fits all approach, as even some of Kudos's labels as use bandcamp in addition to more traditional distribution.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 18, 2013, 05:21:20 pm
Yeah agreed.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 18, 2013, 06:35:40 pm
i think musicians should go back to selling their music out of the back of vehicles.  you know, like music making ice cream mans.  like musical digestive food vendor trucks .  it could be the new rage.  the new hipster.  the new new.  roaming vans selling hard to find, exclusive songs, sometimes with the very fucking band on the truck recording the damn song right there and then spitting it out the side like a japanese ticket restaurant.

yeah.  take that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 18, 2013, 07:00:46 pm
great idea, but the word exclusives just turns into people gouging others on ebay...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 19, 2013, 10:27:19 pm
Oh hey. There's a link to my Storify thing in The New Yorker. That internet is a weird place sometimes. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sashafrerejones/2013/07/spotify-boycott-new-artists-music-business-model.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on July 21, 2013, 12:47:01 pm
Wow. Simply wow.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/when-jimi-hendrix-came-to-washington-and-blew-its-mind/2013/07/18/ca80eb58-dd18-11e2-85de-c03ca84cb4ef_story_1.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on July 22, 2013, 12:19:35 pm
Wow. Simply wow.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/when-jimi-hendrix-came-to-washington-and-blew-its-mind/2013/07/18/ca80eb58-dd18-11e2-85de-c03ca84cb4ef_story_1.html

Thanks for posting! I limit my Post visits since they started the paywall.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on July 22, 2013, 12:28:45 pm
http://posingdjs.tumblr.com/ (http://posingdjs.tumblr.com/)

Headphones are for pussies!!!

(http://24.media.tumblr.com/d4381de1b7af7a35d98c469429bae689/tumblr_mojwgmBpIo1sw9nrqo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 22, 2013, 12:32:34 pm
awesome. This one was one of my favorites, though i do not understand what exactly is going on. 
(http://24.media.tumblr.com/3e27c777f689ddd6573eb42836728337/tumblr_mojw8r32SU1sw9nrqo1_1280.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: xneverwherex on July 23, 2013, 01:46:51 pm
this was one of the most awesome shows ive ever seen. the crowd was comprised of mostly call fans that were definitely much older. Mid-30s I was one of the youngest people at the show. A lot of the fans were giving Robert a hard time - he messed up a few songs - forgot lyrics here and there - couldnt reach all the notes - etc. Regardless, everyone loved it. Robert was clearly embarrassed a few times, but he pulled through. He was indeed a good sport. They had spent ages trying to put this together and for Robert to learn all of the songs. I forgot which guy it was, but he was sporting a BRMC shirt. The band was charming, but at the end of the day - it was clear that everyone missed Michael. It was one of the most beautiful tributes Ive ever seen. They played for a good 2 hours and it was pure awesomeness!

Obviously this isn't the first time an offspring has taken over for a parent in a band but this would be good show to see...  I had no idea about the BRMC/The Call connection until after Micheal Been had passed away, he served as the bands soundman for several years.

*****

It gives us great pleasure to announce to you all that the seminal rock group 'The Call' will be reuniting with B.R.M.C.'.s Robert Been for two select shows!!!

Disbanded in 1990 The Call's original members Scott Musick, Tom Ferrier, and Jim Goodwin will be taking the stage with Robert Been, taking over the role of bass and vocals in honor of his father, the late Michael Been - twenty years since their last live show!

But now for the really exciting news - Tickets go on sale on Friday March 1st from www.the-call-band.com

April 18th: San Francisco, CA / Slim's

April 19th: Los Angeles, CA / The Troubadour
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 23, 2013, 03:21:36 pm
I saw The Call at the Bayou in the late 80s. Got their autographs on a CD afterwards. Rhett would not approve.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 29, 2013, 06:40:19 pm
Thanks for the post on the Call.  Despite the hiccups sounds like a cool event
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 29, 2013, 06:42:57 pm
It's a sign of the times when a leading craptasticEDM producer, comes with equally craptastic "americana"
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 29, 2013, 07:20:58 pm
pray for my soul... i just found out that evil spotify has the complete singles collection, while I don't want the entire collection it would be nice to listen to them and cherry pick some of the obscure releases...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 01, 2013, 09:53:14 am
If you're more visually inclined to absorb information, here's a infographic on how Spotify, Last.FM, Rhapsody, etc. reduce the ability for a musician to make a living wage.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/how-musicians-really-make-money-in-one-long-graph/249267/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/how-musicians-really-make-money-in-one-long-graph/249267/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on August 01, 2013, 10:19:04 am
I saw that yesterday.  I wonder where Bandcamp would fit on that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 01, 2013, 10:21:54 am
Is it ok to listen to archival music on Spotify? ;)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 02, 2013, 07:36:10 am
So is Wavves stuck forever playing venues the size of the Black Cat?  Or is his career on that downward slope to Empire.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on August 02, 2013, 09:19:52 am
Go for the King Tough, leave before the Wavves.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on August 08, 2013, 02:18:28 pm
I can already imagine the responses to this article and its main point, knowing people around here...
http://trustmeimascientist.com/2013/08/08/why-vinyl-is-not-going-to-save-the-music-industry/
(parts I am referring to below)
Quote
But ? Is the ?low sound quality of digital a turnoff??

There are two possible answers to this: A ) ?Yes, if by ?turnoff?, you mean ?people are listening to more music than ever before.? (They?re just not paying for it)? or B ) ?Yes, but only because our perception is dead wrong.?

Here?s the reality: Modern digital doesn?t have low sound quality. By any objective standard, it?s actually far better in terms of raw sound quality than vinyl is!

We?re not just talking about CDs here. This statement includes any good resolution downloads or streaming files. The problem is that music marketers have effectively been lying to listeners by telling them that modern digital doesn?t sound good. And we?ve got to stop. Now.

Perception affects enjoyment more than anything else. That?s where the failure is. Right now, by any objective standard, we have the best listening formats and equipment ever made, and at prices that are mind-bogglingly low.

In reality, modern digital actually sounds f*ing great. A 320kbps stream from Spotify, eMusic or MOG sounds indistinguishable from a CD when heard by the ear. This has been confirmed in countless blind tests. Meanwhile, within the spectrum of human hearing, a CD is unquestionably closer to the original master than vinyl is. We can prove that with measurements and we can prove it with listening tests. There is no doubt. Zero.

In terms of raw sound quality, what?s available today is provably higher-fidelity than vinyl, cassette, 8-track, reel-to-reel, wax cylinder, AM/FM radio, and just about any other consumer format ever invented. But we?re failing to tell that story.

At this point, we don?t need to convince the engineers to design better digital. They?ve already done their jobs. The technology is there. Now we?ve gotta do our jobs and convince people to start paying for it again!

Unfortunately, my friend went on to write:

?I?m embarrassed to admit that it has been years since I heard vinyl. That all changed 2 nights ago when I was at a friends house. I was sitting there and noticed the warmth, the sonic space, the timbre of the instruments. It was?sumptuous, sensual, dare I say, intoxicating.?

I believe my friend. Wouldn?t doubt him for a second. But here?s the thing: What really happened was that he sat down and listened to an amazing-sounding recording on a friends? stereo? Which was far better than his own. Of course you?re going to notice new things!

Yes: Great speakers sounds amazing. Hanging out with friends, listening to albums and feeding off of each others? enthusiasm is awesome. No question. These things can make a huge difference in perceived audio quality. Vinyl on the other hand? Not so much.

Don?t get me wrong ? Vinyl can be great. People actually can hear a difference under blind listening conditions. There can even be something so subtly familiar, ?so soft around the edges? about the medium. It?s just that with good vinyl, those differences are not that dramatic at all. And, when we prefer it, it?s because we like the measurably less pristine sound of the format.

It may be counter-intuitive to some vinyl promoters, but pretending that digital can?t sound as good or better than vinyl is a major part of the problem facing musicians today. Not only is it untrue, but it reinforces the backwards notion that today?s recordings just aren?t worth paying for. When we lie to kids and tell them digital is lousy, we?re effectively saying ?that sucks, you don?t have to pay for that garbage.? While in fact, ?that garbage? is among the best we?ve ever had.

The problem of musicians? income in the 21st century is not going to be solved by singing the praises of vinyl. It is going to be solved by developing great streaming services and making sure they pay fair rates. It?s going to be solved by reasonable and effective crackdowns on piracy. And it?s going to be solved by information campaigns that tell people the truth, inspiring them to put value back into the music that is already right there at their fingertips.

That is all that can save musicians. There is no way that vinyl can do it alone.

So spread the truth: If you want sound quality, we?ve got better sound quality today than ever before. If you want convenience and access, that?s here too. If you want low prices, my God are they low. Perhaps too low. If you want physicality and ritual, you can get that too. Buy your CDs, buy your vinyl. As long as you?re buying, those things are not going to go away.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 08, 2013, 02:56:04 pm
Nice article.  I do like a lot of things about vinyl, but I have always thought the 'outstanding sound difference' argument to be a little weak and hipsteresque
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on August 08, 2013, 03:00:15 pm
Nice article.  I do like a lot of things about vinyl, but I have always thought the 'outstanding sound difference' argument to be a little weak and hipsteresque

Vinyl sounds better to me.  And why is there an argument anyway?  If I prefer vinyl and I buy it everyone should be happy.  Musicians get money.  Jobs in US and Canada were the vinyl is pressed and the album covers are printed.  Local record stores get cash from me.   
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on August 08, 2013, 03:04:49 pm
as long as there are things to argue about, there will be arguments.   

I'd much rather listen to a pristine digital file. 

Would you prefer a VHS tape to a DVD?  A cassette tape to a CD? 

People like to inject subjective experiences into the objective vinyl vs digital debate (ie memories of youth and the "ritual" of listening to vinyl). 

if you prefer it, good.  But it doesnt mean it is better. 

Did you read that article?

Quote
In terms of raw sound quality, what?s available today is provably higher-fidelity than vinyl, cassette, 8-track, reel-to-reel, wax cylinder, AM/FM radio, and just about any other consumer format ever invented. But we?re failing to tell that story.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on August 08, 2013, 03:19:34 pm
as long as there are things to argue about, there will be arguments.   

I'd much rather listen to a pristine digital file. 

Would you prefer a VHS tape to a DVD?  A cassette tape to a CD? 

People like to inject subjective experiences into the objective vinyl vs digital debate (ie memories of youth and the "ritual" of listening to vinyl). 

if you prefer it, good.  But it doesnt mean it is better. 

Did you read that article?

Quote
In terms of raw sound quality, what?s available today is provably higher-fidelity than vinyl, cassette, 8-track, reel-to-reel, wax cylinder, AM/FM radio, and just about any other consumer format ever invented. But we?re failing to tell that story.

This is an opinion.  I have mine he has his.  What difference does it make who is right? If I buy vinyl that is better for the industry than if I just downloaded MP3's for free.  There is no way I would ever buy a CD.  I would either download a file for free or buy the Album. 

And VHS quality is awful.  Beta was actually far superior.  VHS was not analog.  Movies were always samples of the action.  26 frames per second or whatever.  Blue Ray is superior quality.  If CD's sounded better to me I would use them. They don't to my ears. 

I am not going to come out with an argument that you should buy Vinyl.  Buy whatever you think is better.  But I don't see what logical reason there is to convince someone that digitial is better.   
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on August 08, 2013, 03:20:37 pm
because the quality can be measured, that was the whole point of the article!
 ;D

I dont just download mp3s for free, i imagine you are making a general statement and hopefully not directing it at me!

I spend LOTS of money on the music industry per year.  Digital, Vinyl, tapes, CDs, concerts, posters, and T Shirts.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 08, 2013, 03:44:00 pm
So what's the deal with the 96k digital format, haven't had a chance to look into it.  It's something Toad The Wet Sprocket keep touting with their Kickstarter.  It's not a bandcamp providedformat.  And never seen it on offer before.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on August 08, 2013, 03:47:12 pm
As in?
http://www.tcelectronic.com/finalizer-96k/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 08, 2013, 03:49:23 pm
So what's the deal with the 96k digital format, haven't had a chance to look into it.  It's something Toad The Wet Sprocket keep touting with their Kickstarter.  It's not a bandcamp providedformat.  And never seen it on offer before.
http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2012/05/17/new-format-news-dolby-truehd-advanced-96k-upsampling (http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/blog/2012/05/17/new-format-news-dolby-truehd-advanced-96k-upsampling)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on August 08, 2013, 03:59:49 pm
So what's the deal with the 96k digital format, haven't had a chance to look into it.  It's something Toad The Wet Sprocket keep touting with their Kickstarter.  It's not a bandcamp providedformat.  And never seen it on offer before.

Myeah it actually<a href="https://www.hdtracks.com/index.php?file=9624albums&bitrate=e192> goes up to 192 khz[/url] (no theoretical limit I suppose), but you tend to have to have special hardware for that to be meaningful, and I'm not sure I want Rod Stewart sounding that close to my ears.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 08, 2013, 04:11:53 pm
Well I'm intrigued now, I'm guessing those files are huge and it may take some doing to get them to play...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 08, 2013, 05:00:32 pm
There has always been bullshit surrounding sound reproduction, and nowadays most of it is coming from the vinylistas. This recent op-ed (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130804artist#fr9Lbhf1_FmQMFpEwA5WkQ) at Digital Music News is a primo example. Check out this prose:

In closing, I just want to touch upon one more thing for artists considering investing in vinyl. There is another benefit, above and beyond the monetary, and that is the emotional factor.  From art school hipsters to old school misters, people are drawn to vinyl; drawn to it as something more than just an audio format. And yes, part of that is just image. Part of that is just people wanting to be "cool."  Part of that is the aura of elite intellectualism surrounding the appreciation of an antiquated commodity.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on August 08, 2013, 05:00:37 pm
because the quality can be measured, that was the whole point of the article!
 ;D

I dont just download mp3s for free, i imagine you are making a general statement and hopefully not directing it at me!

I spend LOTS of money on the music industry per year.  Digital, Vinyl, tapes, CDs, concerts, posters, and T Shirts.

No I was directing it to myself.  
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Ardamus on August 09, 2013, 09:44:14 am
This whole argument about what form of media is better is weak though. It all goes in circles anyway. Two forms of media people will not go back to are the following: for anything visual, laser discs, and for anything based on audio, 8-tracks. LOL. Everything else goes in cycles. People hate CDs but yet love tapes and vinyl all of a sudden again. Digital media is great until you don't back it up and lose it if your computer ever goes down. I really don't know to many people even into Blu-rays like that or even like DVDs too much anymore since its all about what you can stream/download online mostly. It all comes down to what you're really comfortable with having in your collection in whichever form you prefer.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: evilizac on August 09, 2013, 10:16:58 am
What about how we consume music? I find it nearly impossible to go to an electronics store and find something reasonably priced that doesn't sound cheap. These are the places that most consumers get their music listening equipment. Great music in a good digital format will sound mediocre, at best, on inadequate stereo equipment. One of the good things about vinyl is that the distortion that creates all that "warmth" is very forgiving to less than stellar equipment.
Plus there is the fact that as music has become more ubiquitous we care less about quality over quantity. If I can hear a song I like playing faintly over the speaker system at the grocery store (hypothetical) and be satiated enough, why do I need a dedicated piece of equipment taking up space in my house that could be filled with other stuff. Not to mention that as we get older we no longer have the time to sit sit back and actually enjoy music. We sit in our cars, on mass transit and subject ourselves to inferior sound quality. . . Plus how are beats headphones being sold off like they are some entry level gift to sound quality. . ? For their price especially they are terrible (my brief opinion).   
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on August 09, 2013, 11:13:23 am
This whole argument about what form of media is better is weak though. It all goes in circles anyway. Two forms of media people will not go back to are the following: for anything visual, laser discs, and for anything based on audio, 8-tracks. LOL. Everything else goes in cycles. People hate CDs but yet love tapes and vinyl all of a sudden again. Digital media is great until you don't back it up and lose it if your computer ever goes down. I really don't know to many people even into Blu-rays like that or even like DVDs too much anymore since its all about what you can stream/download online mostly. It all comes down to what you're really comfortable with having in your collection in whichever form you prefer.

I like Blue-Rays.  I was just stating how I wish Blockbuster still existed.  You could easily browse movies and find stuff that you would never watch.  I think people are just so lazy these days.  Too lazy to get off their azz and go to the store an pick up a video or album.  To lazy to make themselves a healthy meal. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on August 09, 2013, 11:24:53 am
Wait what?  Is this the foodicological banter thread?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomicfront on August 09, 2013, 11:27:06 am
Wait what?  Is this the foodicological banter thread?

We should have one of them.  I love good food.  And I don't mean bacon.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 09, 2013, 12:47:54 pm
Wait what?  Is this the foodicological banter thread?

We should have one of them.  I love good food.  And I don't mean bacon.

(http://www.gastronomica.org/wp-content/uploads/cover_0704_full.gif)

Gastronomy is the study of food and culture, with a particular focus on gourmet cuisine. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastronomy)

I'm no foodie so someone else will need to start a Gastronomical Banter thread.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 21, 2013, 09:50:46 am
Kate Bush is the godmother of 10s music.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 21, 2013, 05:57:33 pm
Any one listened to the new King Kruel album
http://kingkrule.co.uk/beneaththemoon/ (http://kingkrule.co.uk/beneaththemoon/)


He's streaming it from his site (as is NPR)

I really kan't stop listening to it

The video for Out getting ribs is just great (actually made 2 years ago)
http://kingkrule.co.uk/videos/ (http://kingkrule.co.uk/videos/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 27, 2013, 02:51:52 pm
Roddy Frame is doing High Land Hard Rain in the UK... Which makes me a sad panda
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on August 27, 2013, 04:18:12 pm
So Clap your Hands Say yeah is the first "big" band using this new service, Rabbl. 
https://www.rabbl.com/events/1000557

http://sweetteapumpkinpie.com/2013/08/27/interview-clap-your-hands-say-yeah-discusses-rabbl/

https://www.rabbl.com/

Not too sure how different it is than just ticket sales to gauge audience interest in a band... Could be a cool tool for smaller to medium sized venues and Bands.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 27, 2013, 04:33:37 pm
Roddy Frame is doing High Land Hard Rain in the UK... Which makes me a sad panda

you're such an oldies goldies kinda panda...  ;D








as am i
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 28, 2013, 06:18:11 am
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 28, 2013, 08:16:48 am
soundtrack from ziggy stardust is underrated


maybe not the best mix but still...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 28, 2013, 08:42:31 am
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on August 28, 2013, 09:40:01 am
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.

Matt and Kim is one of the most annoying acts I've ever seen.  Saw them at freefest because I was sitting in the front waiting for Pavement and LCD, and they were just heinous.  Do.not.get.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 29, 2013, 10:38:52 am
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.

Matt and Kim is one of the most annoying acts I've ever seen.  Saw them at freefest because I was sitting in the front waiting for Pavement and LCD, and they were just heinous.  Do.not.get.

I bet atomic loves Matt and Kim.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 29, 2013, 01:31:31 pm
Tonight was my favorite Franz Ferdinand record by far.. of course it stiffed.. I'm glad they survived to make another one.. the new one's album cover is so boring though.. I think this is their last one.. groovin to it today... can't say yet how it stacks up.. its good of course... but how good?

would love to end up at the FF show at Strathmore but have balked due to the ticket price...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 29, 2013, 01:41:29 pm
Yeah the FF is fast growing on me.. digging the new Sonics in their sound.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 29, 2013, 03:10:39 pm
While this onion worthy.. I can't find that thread at the moment

Old people offened by diarrhea planet

http://m.nashvillescene.com/nashville/blogs/Post?basename=ticked-off-belle-meade-news-reader-wants-to-get-off-of-diarrhea-planet&day=29&id=nashvillecream&month=08&year=2013
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on August 29, 2013, 03:17:22 pm
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.

Matt and Kim is one of the most annoying acts I've ever seen.  Saw them at freefest because I was sitting in the front waiting for Pavement and LCD, and they were just heinous.  Do.not.get.

I bet atomic loves Matt and Kim.

Of course, I do.  What's not to love.  High energy and great songs.   Pavement on the other hand were incredibly boring.  I left during their set. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 29, 2013, 03:24:10 pm
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.

Matt and Kim is one of the most annoying acts I've ever seen.  Saw them at freefest because I was sitting in the front waiting for Pavement and LCD, and they were just heinous.  Do.not.get.

I bet atomic loves Matt and Kim.

Of course, I do.  What's not to love.  High energy and great songs.   Pavement on the other hand were incredibly boring.  I left during their set. 

HAHAHAH.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on August 29, 2013, 03:44:25 pm
Rock Music is truly dead...  QOSTA take a swipe at Miley by promising no twerking at their Barclay center show.  and Kim of Matt and Kim poses topless on their remix album cover, teenage boys everywhere will be "listening" to this album. 

Was Matt and Kim ever considered "rock" music? What a bunch of wusses.

Matt and Kim is one of the most annoying acts I've ever seen.  Saw them at freefest because I was sitting in the front waiting for Pavement and LCD, and they were just heinous.  Do.not.get.

I bet atomic loves Matt and Kim.

Of course, I do.  What's not to love.  High energy and great songs.   Pavement on the other hand were incredibly boring.  I left during their set. 

What is funny about that.  Everyone I was with felt the same way.  They were all in their 20's.  Maybe it is an age thing.

HAHAHAH.


What is funny about that.  Everyone I was with felt the same way.  They were all in their 20's.  Maybe it is an age thing.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 29, 2013, 06:09:52 pm
The new Cactus Channel is basically one of the best hard hitting funk/soul records I've heard of late... it's streaming for the next couple of days here

http://themusic.com.au/listen/all/2013/08/26/exclusive-the-cactus-channel-wooden-boy
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 01, 2013, 01:49:26 pm
http://blbrd.co/1dXV45L

So much awesome here!
Great headline.
Interesting and promising idea.
Nice sneaky Diarrhea Planet reference.
Great to see Emily killing it at Billboard.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 04, 2013, 07:44:21 am
Someone has solved current problem of lack of Aphex Twin appearances, this should help bearman, sweetcell, etc move on to liking Miley Cyrus.  I expect some Hey Seth's out of you all today ;)


5 Ways Miley Cyrus is inadvertently mimicking Aphex Twin

http://theinternetispoison.blogspot.com/2013/09/miley-cyrus-windowlicker.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 04, 2013, 07:46:32 am
Woman gets conned trying to buy a festival ticket, then writes a song about the incident and names names. Video goes viral and get 10k+ worth of views. Ends up getting invited to play that festival. Lovely voice....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qVpVd__UuU
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on September 08, 2013, 10:11:13 pm
Thought this was an interesting post by Frank Turner on his own forum (forum.frank-turner.com)

Re: US Tour 2013

    ezeblazin wrote:I was at the Silver Spring show. Frank was great as always.. I'm just highly disappointed it was a 21+ show, there was no reason for that other than the stupid bud light sponsorship. Also upset that they were only allowed to sell bud light, bud light lime, bud light platinum and lime a ritas at the venue. They have a ton of other beers that are actually good and weren't able to sell them because of the sponsorship. I don't know why Frank would agree to that, although maybe he didn't know... I guess that's just what comes with being on a major label.

    Also, I'm wondering if the new song he had "never played before" is the same new song he played the last few nights... anyone know? I don't remember any of the lyrics other than the word Aphrodite.

Post by frank » Fri Aug 02, 2013 10:02 pm
frank     Site Admin
 Posts: 3437
 Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2005 6:47 pm
With regard to the Bud Light thing.. it's not something I'd usually do (because of the age limit thing, can't say I care that much about the beer branding, it doesn't affect what I do on stage). That said, in this instance they paid us a big fee for the show. Just before everyone calls me a sell out for that, the point is, it meant this tour was able to break even financially, and therefore to happen at all (and indeed to bring Ben Marwood out as well). So it wasn't perhaps the easiest decision, but I think the right one. Touring in the USA is still pretty fraught, financially, for me. Next time we're through it'll be all ages again.
-----------
Shows? All of em. (this is his sig as most fans put the number of shows they have been to)

"He's like an Uncle, I like him but I don't want to listen to him all day."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on September 08, 2013, 10:17:43 pm

Re: US Tour 2013
    ezeblazin wrote:I was at the Silver Spring show.
With regard to the Bud Light thing... they paid us a big fee for the show.


I'm pretty certain this is the #1 reason he didn't play the 930 this tour.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 09, 2013, 07:48:10 am
Probably too early for 2014 threads, so...

Neil Finn said on twitter he has a album/tour scheduled for 2014
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on September 09, 2013, 08:15:13 am
wow pitchfork gives the new pixies ep a 1.0....


what a  terrible review.. more about the reviewer than the music...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on September 09, 2013, 11:15:04 am
I havent heard it, but if the Bagboy song was any indication, i would assume it was horrible.  Some (like Swans) can make amazing music for years and decades and forever.  Not everyone is so inclined.  I will need to read the review later to see what you mean...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 09, 2013, 11:19:50 am
people read reviews?

People take said reviews of snarky musical outlets seriously?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 09, 2013, 11:22:22 am
wow pitchfork gives the new pixies ep a 1.0....


what a  terrible review.. more about the reviewer than the music...

Funny...as a longtime (and I mean really longtime) Pixies fan (I saw them twice before they broke up), I actually think the EP is really good and I'm enjoying it a lot. I am sort of sick of reviewers. I know they need to make a living too, but they probably need to go find a real job. And I say that as someone who used to write them. At a certain point, they don't really mean a damn thing. Sometimes they're run to read (the most fun I've ever had was trashing Bjork's "Drawing Restraint"), but that one was just dumb.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on September 09, 2013, 12:25:35 pm
everyone knows the truth about people who write reviews.  everyone knows the truth about people who write journalism.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on September 09, 2013, 12:30:11 pm
people read reviews?

People take said reviews of snarky musical outlets seriously?

well yah sometimes i read them for fun!..usually if something gets such an awful review which hardly talks about the music itself and instead tells us personal stories about the reviewer then i think "hey, must be good!"..in other words the review peaks my interest..




i am reminded of rolling stone's greil marcus and his review of self protrait which said something like "what is this shit?"... rolling stone just reviewed the new dylan bootleg series consisting of outtakes ..arguably outtakes of outtakes... from self portrait and calls it a masterpiece

self portrait is a great record reviewers be damned... and "dylan" (the real outtakes from self portrait) is even better..

another classic case of reviewers inserting their agenda into a review was the pitchfork people on liz phaiir's eponymous one which isn't that bad  a record...

the idea that black francis, joey and dave could make an ep deserving 1 out of 10 , to me, is laughable...

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 10, 2013, 07:36:18 am
I generally like Matthew Yglesias but whenever he writes anything about music, he sounds clueless. Like here. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/09/cassette_tape_trend_perfect_price_discrimination_in_band_affection.html)

Apparently only young people go to shows and tapes are a "hilarious gag" now.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 10, 2013, 08:49:16 am
I generally like Matthew Yglesias but whenever he writes anything about music, he sounds clueless. Like here. (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/09/09/cassette_tape_trend_perfect_price_discrimination_in_band_affection.html)

Apparently only young people go to shows and tapes are a "hilarious gag" now.


My christ... that dude is such a sanctimonious nozzle. He used to run in the same circle as an ex of mine nearly a decade ago and seems to get prickier by the years.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on September 10, 2013, 09:10:52 am
my favorite pitchfork review to read is the "oh shit these guys blew up and we didn't get any coverage on them?" 5.0
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 10, 2013, 09:16:56 am
There are a few Pitchfork contributors who I think are pretty reliably good/always worth reading whether or not you agree with them and know how to write a well-crafted review. Ned Raggett, Marc Masters, Lindsay Zoladz, Laura Snapes and Liz/Jenn Pelly come to mind. This Body/Head review published today, for example. (http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18471-bodyhead-coming-apart/) The scoring system is bullshit, though. It is not the individual reviewer who scores an album; scores are supposedly an average made up of the ratings given by a bunch of contributors. The scoring system should be done away with altogether and let the reviews speak for themselves.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on September 10, 2013, 10:55:15 am
There are a few Pitchfork contributors who I think are pretty reliably good/always worth reading whether or not you agree with them and know how to write a well-crafted review. Ned Raggett, Marc Masters, Lindsay Zoladz, Laura Snapes and Liz/Jenn Pelly come to mind. This Body/Head review published today, for example. (http://pitchfork.com/reviews/albums/18471-bodyhead-coming-apart/) The scoring system is bullshit, though. It is not the individual reviewer who scores an album; scores are supposedly an average made up of the ratings given by a bunch of contributors. The scoring system should be done away with altogether and let the reviews speak for themselves.


I really think they base the score not one whit on the music..its just based on what is cool and hip and what isn't..i wouldn't be surprised if they tell the reviewer what the score is ahead of time.... is a band on the upslope? have they become too big? if so, they trash the band no matter what.... its a joke...so many bands on pitchfork they lovethem the first album or two and then they backlash them no matter how good what they put out is....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on September 10, 2013, 11:03:58 am
Pitchfork just sucks.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on September 11, 2013, 09:04:14 am
I cannot read any reviews on pitchfork.

ever.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 11, 2013, 09:15:14 am
What's wrong with the one I linked?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on September 11, 2013, 01:47:58 pm
Too long winded.

I think that's always been my problem with pitchfork reviews.

But, I've never tried to review anything other than "good" "not good" "terrible", so what do I know?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on September 11, 2013, 02:01:29 pm
Too long winded.

I think that's always been my problem with pitchfork reviews.

But, I've never tried to review anything other than "good" "not good" "terrible", so what do I know?

Problem with any music review is that anything more than a couple of sentences is pretty useless.  To know whether you like music you have to listen to it.  I never read music reviews.  Interviews can be interesting though.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on September 11, 2013, 02:44:12 pm
which one . . . is better?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on September 11, 2013, 03:00:57 pm
the problem with most PF reviews, at least as i remember them (haven't read any in a long while), is that 75% of the review has nothing (or at least very very little) to do with the album being reviewed.  the authors tend to talk in large arcs, describing what music means to them, about how it invokes childhood memories, then they might tangentially talk about the musical genre of the album in broad strokes before digressing into a random thought about that one show they saw years ago... oh yeah and the album is meh.  now about those wistful childhood memories...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on September 11, 2013, 08:45:37 pm
Too long winded.

I think that's always been my problem with pitchfork reviews.

But, I've never tried to review anything other than "good" "not good" "terrible", so what do I know?

What are you waiting for, "nuanced"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on September 12, 2013, 10:55:05 am
Mercury Prize nominees out.
It's a tough year to pick a hands down winner.
Disclosure would probably be my pick today.

Arctic Monkeys: AM
David Bowie: The Next Day
Disclosure: Settle
Foals: Holy Fire
Jake Bugg: Jake Bugg
James Blake: Overgrown
Jon Hopkins: Immunity
Laura Marling: Once I Was an Eagle
Laura Mvula: Sing to the Moon
Rudimental: Home
Savages: Silence Yourself
Villagers: Awayland
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 12, 2013, 11:13:23 am
I like the Villagers album
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: brennser on September 12, 2013, 11:47:34 am
I like the Villagers album
me too
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: BrettnotBritt on September 12, 2013, 12:29:24 pm
Pitchfork just sucks.

What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on September 12, 2013, 12:45:16 pm
Pitchfork just sucks.

What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml

wow.  well that's embarrassing (that they scrub their archives, not that they liked mixalot's disappointing 1996 album)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 12, 2013, 02:44:20 pm
Pitchfork just sucks.

What's hilarious/sad is that they rewrite their own history by scrubbing older reviews from their archvies. It's like they're embarrassed they reviewed a Less Than Jake or Sir Mix-A-Lot album and have to maintain this elite indie presence.

Because yes, this happened: http://web.archive.org/web/20000816190320/www.pitchforkmedia.com/record-reviews/s/sir-mix-a-lot/return-of-the-bumpasaurus.shtml
That is pretty funny and sad.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on September 13, 2013, 09:32:14 am
can't believe there are still lawsuits over samples on pauls boutique

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/beastie-boys-cant-escape-pauls-boutique-sampling-lawsuit-050000640.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on September 13, 2013, 10:28:30 am
Mercury Prize nominees out.
It's a tough year to pick a hands down winner.
Disclosure would probably be my pick today.

Arctic Monkeys: AM
David Bowie: The Next Day
Disclosure: Settle
Foals: Holy Fire
Jake Bugg: Jake Bugg
James Blake: Overgrown
Jon Hopkins: Immunity
Laura Marling: Once I Was an Eagle
Laura Mvula: Sing to the Moon
Rudimental: Home
Savages: Silence Yourself
Villagers: Awayland
I have not heard a single album on that list...

And in other Mercury Prize News:
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/13/my-bloody-valentine-slams-mercury-prize
Quote
"Isn't Mercury a phone company or something, anyway? What's that got to do with music?" Shields said in an exclusive interview. "We're banned by them, and do you know why? Because we're not on Amazon or iTunes. That's one of the qualifying criteria. You have to have major distribution or be on iTunes or Amazon."

Shields may be correct. According to the terms and conditions on the Mercury website, qualifying albums will have "a digital and physical distribution deal in place in the UK". My Bloody Valentine, who self-released their album, only sold the digital version of mbv through their own website. This may not be considered a "digital distribution deal".

"We released our record, mbv, independently," Shields said. My Bloody Valentine didn't even rely on an indie label such as Domino or Alcopop! Records. "It's interesting to learn that to be as independent as we are is ? virtually illegal," he said. "It's not a real record. Our album's not a real album because it's independent. The corporate-ness has got to such a point where we've essentially been told that we don't exist. So, technically, that album doesn't exist. OK? It's not allowed to exist according to the Mercury prize."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 13, 2013, 10:41:30 am
He is right in that completely independently released albums should be considered but his going on to essentially call the Mercury Prize a curse kind of negates his argument, no? If you don't want it, why complain about not being nominated for it?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 17, 2013, 10:35:58 am
For DFA1979...nice interview with Josh and Dean from QOTSA here:

https://soundcloud.com/thestromboshow/stromboshow-sept15-2013
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 17, 2013, 11:41:13 am
This speaker list for the Future of Music Coalition conference looks great. http://t.co/lJZtg44AFS
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on September 17, 2013, 11:49:08 am
This speaker list for the Future of Music Coalition conference looks great. http://t.co/lJZtg44AFS

nice, sandy Perlman and Wayne Kramer are guests
The Keynote speakers look pretty dry...
local music showcase..but doesn't have any details
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 17, 2013, 11:57:54 am
John Conyers could be good.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: wml7 on September 17, 2013, 12:03:43 pm
For DFA1979...nice interview with Josh and Dean from QOTSA here:

https://soundcloud.com/thestromboshow/stromboshow-sept15-2013

More of the story here
http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/09/someone-actually-hates-jay-z-and-his-name-is-josh-homme/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on September 17, 2013, 12:42:53 pm
For DFA1979...nice interview with Josh and Dean from QOTSA here:

https://soundcloud.com/thestromboshow/stromboshow-sept15-2013

More of the story here
http://consequenceofsound.net/2013/09/someone-actually-hates-jay-z-and-his-name-is-josh-homme/

Not worth reading.  Ok so you don't like getting gifts of 300 dollar bottles of champagne.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on September 17, 2013, 12:50:13 pm
Every time I read something about that Josh Homme guy, he's always hating someone or wanting to punch someone. Seems like he needs to grow the fuck up.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 17, 2013, 01:53:53 pm
Every time I read something about that Josh Homme guy, he's always hating someone or wanting to punch someone. Seems like he needs to grow the fuck up.

Who ever said rock'n'roll was nice? Since when did everyone need to get along? Someone throws shit at him at his concert and he sticks up for himself. Seems justified. He's about to do a festival and feels like he's being treated like a criminal as he's about to get on the stage that'll be his for the next 60 minutes. Conveying that he's annoyed likewise seems legit. There's a TON of other interesting info to the interview that is way more relevant, but he makes one stray observation and the media wants to turn it into a feud just because he had the balls to express a feeling about someone that nobody else will say an unkind thing about. Sometimes people wear the black hat but it doesn't mean they are an evil person. Watch "Crossfire Hurricane", the Stones documentary. Rock'n'roll may be a dying genre, but that doesn't mean everyone is done writing the epilogue.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on September 17, 2013, 02:51:58 pm
can't believe there are still lawsuits over samples on pauls boutique

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/beastie-boys-cant-escape-pauls-boutique-sampling-lawsuit-050000640.html

yeah . . . stealing is weird that way.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on September 20, 2013, 01:51:12 pm
I don't know if it's their new song or not as I do not like them, but the MGMT song Celebration sounds exactly like Friend of the Devil by the Grateful Dead.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 20, 2013, 03:27:42 pm
I just witnessed Tim Burgess schedule the Chemical Brothers to DJ a charity gig in honor of The Charlatans drummer via Twitter.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on September 20, 2013, 03:47:37 pm
I just witnessed Tim Burgess schedule the Chemical Brothers to DJ a charity gig in honor of The Charlatans drummer via Twitter.

You were with him when he made the tweet?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on September 20, 2013, 03:48:11 pm
I don't know if it's their new song or not as I do not like them, but the MGMT song Celebration sounds exactly like Friend of the Devil by the Grateful Dead.

Are you sure you don't mean the song "Congratulations" which came out in 2010?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on September 22, 2013, 10:09:32 pm
(http://www.listofhealthyfoods.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/sad-clown.jpg)

Gathering of the Juggalos Is Headed for Bankruptcy... (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130922juggalos#oOBFJFZyRHplNWczALOlyA)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 23, 2013, 08:03:15 am
(http://www.listofhealthyfoods.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/sad-clown.jpg)

Gathering of the Juggalos Is Headed for Bankruptcy... (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/20130922juggalos#oOBFJFZyRHplNWczALOlyA)
Wow! I'm truly stunned! An event designed to cater to a demographic of people who hold down jobs with such regularity and have so much disposable income failed? Did not see this coming!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on September 24, 2013, 10:51:00 am
Like her or not, M.I.A. had a good response to the NFL's comical $1.5m fine on her sophomoric flipping the bird during the Super Bowl©.

"It's a massive waste of time, a massive waste of money, it?s a massive display of powerful corporation dick-shaking. They want me on my knees and say sorry so they can slap me on my wrist."

Can't tell who's getting played? Her, the NFL, or us by both parties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyVh0O8DiCs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyVh0O8DiCs)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 26, 2013, 02:56:33 pm
This is a fun read: http://www.stereogum.com/1495262/read-steve-albinis-four-page-in-utero-proposal/news/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on September 26, 2013, 03:46:55 pm
This is a fun read: http://www.stereogum.com/1495262/read-steve-albinis-four-page-in-utero-proposal/news/

That's great. Kinda sad reading the part about how doesn't like to have his recordings remixed, given what happened with Scott Litt and Heart-Shaped Box and All Apologies.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on September 26, 2013, 05:49:20 pm
Like her or not, M.I.A. had a good response to the NFL's comical $1.5m fine on her sophomoric flipping the bird during the Super Bowl©.

"It's a massive waste of time, a massive waste of money, it?s a massive display of powerful corporation dick-shaking. They want me on my knees and say sorry so they can slap me on my wrist."

Can't tell who's getting played? Her, the NFL, or us by both parties.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyVh0O8DiCs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wyVh0O8DiCs)

i think it was stupid on her part to do that.  so many artists would have killed for that spot.  she was pissed that whats her name was more important than her at the moment.  she should have had some respect for the opportunity that was.  i mean really.  r, e, s, p, e, c, t . . . that is what it means to me.  did that sound old man rant?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 01, 2013, 01:38:22 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=eY4ZXpsoOUg

The best ever Jesus and Mary Chain interview, recorded in 1986. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 01, 2013, 02:13:35 pm
Joy Division awful? Unambitious? What a bunch of twats.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 01, 2013, 03:13:48 pm
Joy Division awful? Unambitious? What a bunch of twats.

Joy Division was an awful band.  One decent song.  New Order is 100 times better.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 01, 2013, 04:17:39 pm
Joy Division awful? Unambitious? What a bunch of twats.

Joy Division was an awful band.  One decent song.  New Order is 100 times better.

Yawn.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 01, 2013, 04:49:36 pm
Joy Division awful? Unambitious? What a bunch of twats.

Joy Division was an awful band.  One decent song.  New Order is 100 times better.

Yawn.

Yeah that is how I feel about Joy Division.  Boring.  But "Love will tear us apart" was a decent song.  They should have done more like that one.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 01, 2013, 05:04:06 pm
Joy Division awful? Unambitious? What a bunch of twats.

Joy Division was an awful band.  One decent song.  New Order is 100 times better.

Yawn.

Yeah that is how I feel about Joy Division.  Boring.  But "Love will tear us apart" was a decent song.  They should have done more like that one.

Nope. They were and are perfect. Their music is a soulful gift to thousands (possibly millions) of people who think they were one of the most dramatic and flawless examples of modern music is. And I'm grateful that they never had the chance to be overplayed and commercialized the way New Order was. I love New Order too for completely different reasons, but ultimately Joy Division will always trump New Order. And if you don't understand why "Transmission", "Shadowplay", "Atmosphere" and "Dead Souls" are some of the greatest pieces of recorded music, then I suggest you revisit them with open ears. Maybe you'll change your mind.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 01, 2013, 05:30:29 pm
Joy Division awful? Unambitious? What a bunch of twats.

Joy Division was an awful band.  One decent song.  New Order is 100 times better.

Yawn.

Yeah that is how I feel about Joy Division.  Boring.  But "Love will tear us apart" was a decent song.  They should have done more like that one.

Nope. They were and are perfect. Their music is a soulful gift to thousands (possibly millions) of people who think they were one of the most dramatic and flawless examples of modern music is. And I'm grateful that they never had the chance to be overplayed and commercialized the way New Order was. I love New Order too for completely different reasons, but ultimately Joy Division will always trump New Order. And if you don't understand why "Transmission", "Shadowplay", "Atmosphere" and "Dead Souls" are some of the greatest pieces of recorded music, then I suggest you revisit them with open ears. Maybe you'll change your mind.

"Dead Souls" is a good song.  I do like Nine Inch Nails version better though.  New Order is better as it is more original and you can dance to it.  Sorry I am not a fan of Joy Division.  I listened to that stuff when it first came out.  Funny there used to be a band in Baltimore called Grey March that was a Joy Division rip off band and I love them.  But I think they had a little more kick to their music.  Who knows I like Interpol's first couple of albums as well. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 01, 2013, 06:32:56 pm
Not sure what Just Announced thread this goes in, so I'm stuffin it here.

Brendan Benson and Friends, a concert benefiting the Veterans and Children of Nashville, presented by the David Lynch Foundation Live and Lightning 100. The night will be filled with special performances from Brendan Benson with , Adriel Denae, Eric Burdon, Butch Walker, Jessie Baylin, Ken Stringfellow, Jon Auer, Cory Chisel, Willy Mason, The Howlin? Brothers (also opening), Young Hines, Jack White and more
TBA.


Ryman Auditorium
Nashville, TN

Tickets on sale 10/4:
http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1B004B3C10A3A53B
 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 01, 2013, 07:06:41 pm
http://www.redbull.com/us/en/music/stories/1331613196703/best-30-guitarists-under-30-part-1
I watched a few of these guitarists this year (Daniel Bachman, Denny Bowen of Roomrunner, Sadie Dupuis of Speedy Ortiz, and Phoebe Harris of Potty Mouth).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on October 01, 2013, 08:01:04 pm
Nope. They were and are perfect. Their music is a soulful gift to thousands (possibly millions) of people who think they were one of the most dramatic and flawless examples of modern music is. And I'm grateful that they never had the chance to be overplayed and commercialized the way New Order was. I love New Order too for completely different reasons, but ultimately Joy Division will always trump New Order. And if you don't understand why "Transmission", "Shadowplay", "Atmosphere" and "Dead Souls" are some of the greatest pieces of recorded music, then I suggest you revisit them with open ears. Maybe you'll change your mind.

This is the best thing to come out of the government shutdown so far.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 01, 2013, 11:33:13 pm
Nope. They were and are perfect. Their music is a soulful gift to thousands (possibly millions) of people who think they were one of the most dramatic and flawless examples of modern music is. And I'm grateful that they never had the chance to be overplayed and commercialized the way New Order was. I love New Order too for completely different reasons, but ultimately Joy Division will always trump New Order. And if you don't understand why "Transmission", "Shadowplay", "Atmosphere" and "Dead Souls" are some of the greatest pieces of recorded music, then I suggest you revisit them with open ears. Maybe you'll change your mind.

This is the best thing to come out of the government shutdown so far.

+1
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 01, 2013, 11:53:21 pm
Haha a friend of mine was complaining about this list tonight.

http://www.redbull.com/us/en/music/stories/1331613196703/best-30-guitarists-under-30-part-1
I watched a few of these guitarists this year (Daniel Bachman, Denny Bowen of Roomrunner, Sadie Dupuis of Speedy Ortiz, and Phoebe Harris of Potty Mouth).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on October 02, 2013, 12:26:31 am
Not sure what Just Announced thread this goes in, so I'm stuffin it here.

Brendan Benson and Friends, a concert benefiting the Veterans and Children of Nashville, presented by the David Lynch Foundation Live and Lightning 100. The night will be filled with special performances from Brendan Benson with , Adriel Denae, Eric Burdon, Butch Walker, Jessie Baylin, Ken Stringfellow, Jon Auer, Cory Chisel, Willy Mason, The Howlin? Brothers (also opening), Young Hines, Jack White and more
TBA.


Ryman Auditorium
Nashville, TN

Tickets on sale 10/4:
http://www.ticketmaster.com/event/1B004B3C10A3A53B
 

I find this concert strangely fascinating.  The David Lynch Foundation is all about promoting Transcendental Meditation - not that there's anything wrong with that.  Interesting line-up. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 02, 2013, 12:38:35 am
Not a bad list, over all. There are a few headscratchers but it's hard to argue with most of those.
Marissa Paternoster is not 30 yet, is she? She better be in the second half if not!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 02, 2013, 12:58:43 pm
http://blip.tv/indieacrossamerica/episode-2-sharkweek-and-baltimore-6648715
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.

The hell is wrong with Blip.TV?  DO some research!  If you are doing a segment on BALTIMORE bands and the city's scene, DO NOT feature a DC band.  http://sharkweekdc.bandcamp.com/

Is there any doubt that Shark Week are a DC band?  NO.  I dont know why they agreed to this.  Playing three shows in a city in a year does NOT MEAN THE BAND IS SPLITTING TIME between DC and Baltimore.  You are a DC band Shark Week, you should be on the DC episode of this. 

I actually like Shark Week, but no.  Were the 500 good BALTIMORE bands busy?  Did the producers get lazy?  The hell is the point of this? 

Sorry but this is just annoying.  I love Baltimore's scene (as I am sure most of you who pay attention to what I post know) and this is not about a Baltimore band.  I will give them credit for the way they DESCRIBE the Baltimore, DIY scene.  But no. 

END RANT
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Vas Deferens on October 02, 2013, 01:55:21 pm
http://blogs.citypaper.com/noise/index.php/2013/10/geico-claims-it-will-give-baltimore-identity-by-promoting-shitty-d-c-band-baltimore-says-fuck-off/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+citypaper%2FGHKN+%28City+Paper+-+Arts%29
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on October 02, 2013, 02:12:32 pm
http://blip.tv/indieacrossamerica/episode-2-sharkweek-and-baltimore-6648715
Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit, Bullshit.

The hell is wrong with Blip.TV?  DO some research!  If you are doing a segment on BALTIMORE bands and the city's scene, DO NOT feature a DC band.  http://sharkweekdc.bandcamp.com/

Is there any doubt that Shark Week are a DC band?  NO.  I dont know why they agreed to this.  Playing three shows in a city in a year does NOT MEAN THE BAND IS SPLITTING TIME between DC and Baltimore.  You are a DC band Shark Week, you should be on the DC episode of this. 

I actually like Shark Week, but no.  Were the 500 good BALTIMORE bands busy?  Did the producers get lazy?  The hell is the point of this? 

Sorry but this is just annoying.  I love Baltimore's scene (as I am sure most of you who pay attention to what I post know) and this is not about a Baltimore band.  I will give them credit for the way they DESCRIBE the Baltimore, DIY scene.  But no. 

END RANT
after watching the first 30 seconds of this moronic piece of crap the whole dc/balt thing is the last thing i take exception too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 02, 2013, 02:19:43 pm
That was what was on my mind when i typed my rant.  I also had a huge problem with the statement quoted below, from the City Paper write up:

Quote
?Here?s the thing, I looked into Baltimore and I couldn?t find out a whole lot about its music scene,? Holmes says, as if his first name were Sherlock. He evidently did not look to our own Big Baltimore Playlist or talk to any of the many local labels. And he acts as if he has never even heard that Rolling Stone named Baltimore the best music scene in the country in 2008, pretending that bands like Beach House, Wye Oak, and Dan Deacon don?t exist.

But, have no fear because Holmes promises that ?We?re going to give this place an identity. We?re putting Baltimore on the map.?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on October 02, 2013, 06:06:44 pm
the only thing i know a boot baltimore music, is one thing, and that is not saying a lot.  when a band plays dc, it sells out.  when a band plays baltimore, it does not.  equal sized cities?  equal sized, people give a shit about?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 02, 2013, 10:01:04 pm
Part 2 of that Red Bull list is full of more meh-ness but most of the best ones were hit IMO. http://www.redbull.com/us/en/music/stories/1331612905828/30-guitarists-under-30-part2

I guess he was running out of options when he started tapping Vampire Weekend, Diiv and Fallout Boy.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 08, 2013, 07:47:30 am
Got an extra GA ticket for the Pearl Jam Baltimore show.  It's going to be an evening with the band as their is no warm-up act scheduled.  Send me a PM if you are interested.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 08, 2013, 03:11:42 pm
I just noticed this for the Pixies' Strathmore gig:

"The Music Center at Strathmore is located in North Bethesda, MD. Sales to this event will be restricted to residents of NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC. Residency will be based on credit card billing address. Orders by residents outside NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC will be canceled without notice and refunds given. DOORS OPEN AT 7PM. Delivery delay set and will be lifted 11/10/13."

Seriously?? I think this is absolutely unfair. Who decides this? Ticketmaster?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on October 08, 2013, 04:08:03 pm
Ironically maryland isn't on the list of acceptable states.

The richmond show has a similar restriction which we discussed in JA:Commentary (which is an idiotic construct that causes people to miss things). Since these venues only seem to be doing it for this show, I am guessing its Pixies' doing.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 08, 2013, 04:45:59 pm
I just noticed this for the Pixies' Strathmore gig:

"The Music Center at Strathmore is located in North Bethesda, MD. Sales to this event will be restricted to residents of NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC. Residency will be based on credit card billing address. Orders by residents outside NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC will be canceled without notice and refunds given. DOORS OPEN AT 7PM. Delivery delay set and will be lifted 11/10/13."

Seriously?? I think this is absolutely unfair. Who decides this? Ticketmaster?
Kinda makes it impossible to follow a tour across the country (not that my old ass can do that anymore) Or catch a show when you know you'll be in that particular town that weekend
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on October 08, 2013, 04:52:39 pm
I just noticed this for the Pixies' Strathmore gig:

"The Music Center at Strathmore is located in North Bethesda, MD. Sales to this event will be restricted to residents of NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC. Residency will be based on credit card billing address. Orders by residents outside NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC will be canceled without notice and refunds given. DOORS OPEN AT 7PM. Delivery delay set and will be lifted 11/10/13."

Seriously?? I think this is absolutely unfair. Who decides this? Ticketmaster?
Kinda makes it impossible to follow a tour across the country (not that my old ass can do that anymore) Or catch a show when you know you'll be in that particular town that weekend

People tour with the Pixies?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 09, 2013, 07:13:53 am
I just noticed this for the Pixies' Strathmore gig:

"The Music Center at Strathmore is located in North Bethesda, MD. Sales to this event will be restricted to residents of NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC. Residency will be based on credit card billing address. Orders by residents outside NJ, PA, DE, VA, DC,WVA & NC will be canceled without notice and refunds given. DOORS OPEN AT 7PM. Delivery delay set and will be lifted 11/10/13."

Seriously?? I think this is absolutely unfair. Who decides this? Ticketmaster?
Kinda makes it impossible to follow a tour across the country (not that my old ass can do that anymore) Or catch a show when you know you'll be in that particular town that weekend

People tour with the Pixies?

oh yah....their set lists are so unpredictable

i particularly love the debaser>is she weird>monkey gone to heaven >debaser  from hampton 2005..epic..particularly the chuck berry tease santiago throws in there..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 09, 2013, 07:35:06 am
(https://scontent-b-lga.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1385289_10151932064705638_1210858769_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 09, 2013, 09:11:14 am
My extra PJ ticket has been taken.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 11, 2013, 07:48:48 am
Well this is rich over hyped crappy brotrance artist Deadmau5  is taking a swipe at Dubstep...

"Top 20 Most Influential Dubstep Tracks of All Time" ..all 3 years of it? or are you just counting the 2 years it was supposedly cool? 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 11, 2013, 10:18:07 am
good news

http://www.spin.com/articles/flag-black-greg-ginn-lawsuit-won-keith-morris-henry-rollins/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 11, 2013, 10:27:32 am
Well, so much for no Kim Deal...looks like the Pixies sold out. Good for them.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on October 11, 2013, 10:37:14 am
Well, so much for no Kim Deal...looks like the Pixies sold out. Good for them.
Richmond is about to as well. I was going to hold off until I go to the venue tomorrow for NMH but it doesn't look like they'll last past noon.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 11, 2013, 10:52:32 am
I grabbed two for Electric Factory... Anyone else making the trek north? 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: wml7 on October 11, 2013, 10:55:06 am
Got my Richmond ticket during the presale
 ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on October 11, 2013, 10:57:32 am
Got my Richmond ticket during the presale
 ;D
JULIAN'S AMERICA PREGAME MEET-UP?? Who else is going to RVA? Betao?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: wml7 on October 11, 2013, 12:27:54 pm
Got my Richmond ticket during the presale
 ;D
JULIAN'S AMERICA PREGAME MEET-UP?? Who else is going to RVA? Betao?

He will probably working the show
 ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on October 11, 2013, 12:41:00 pm
Got my Richmond ticket during the presale
 ;D
JULIAN'S AMERICA PREGAME MEET-UP?? Who else is going to RVA? Betao?

He will probably working the show
 ;D
Does The Jefferson work for everyone?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 11, 2013, 01:32:26 pm
Well I kinda thought Greg Ginn was being a d!ck and glad he lost the suit
the boys of FLAG put on a hell of a show and think it's a crime to not let the guys who were a part of that not continue to play that music to crowds who are just dying to see it

Ginn loses to Morris (http://www.spin.com/articles/flag-black-greg-ginn-lawsuit-won-keith-morris-henry-rollins/)

A judge found that: SST has no rights to the Black Flag copyright; Ginn has no special rights to any of the trademarks; neither Ginn nor the label gave a damn about copyrghts or trademarks until now; Rollins never quit Black Flag (!); fans are smart enough to know which band is which; and nobody tried to screw anybody over, so let's all give it a rest
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 11, 2013, 01:33:19 pm
Well I kinda thought Greg Ginn was being a d!ck and glad he lost the suit
the boys of FLAG put on a hell of a show and think it's a crime to not let the guys who were a part of that not continue to play that music to crowds who are just dying to see it

Ginn loses to Morris (http://www.spin.com/articles/flag-black-greg-ginn-lawsuit-won-keith-morris-henry-rollins/)

crusty bread
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 14, 2013, 01:21:07 pm
http://www.guitargeek.com/andy-bell-hurricane-number-1-guitar-rgi-and-gear-setup-1996/
Anyone into guitar pedals and signal chains?
Here is Andy Bell's from Hurricane #1
(http://www.guitargeek.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/hurricane_no1_andy_bell_1996.jpg)
Right now mine goes tuner, EH Freeze Sustain, devi ever ROcket fuzz, Boss Metal Zone, EH Memory Man with Hazarai Delay, BBE Two Timer Delay, Boost 21 RVB reverb, TC XII Phaser, and a Seymour Duncan Shapeshifter Tremolo.  I also have a few others to work into the mix, or will buy (have a chorus pedal but my amp has good chorus so i dont use it, also buying a TC Ditto Looper.. also more Fuzz pedals but i am running out of room).  Should I move my Tremolo after the distortion? Move the two delays to the end?  Bring phaser up?  I am in the middle of experimenting... but would gladly take suggestions!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on October 15, 2013, 10:00:37 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW4mwjSIkoE

I don't know where else to put this.  Cutest cat ever interviewing Steve Albini.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 15, 2013, 12:39:18 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW4mwjSIkoE

I don't know where else to put this.  Cutest cat ever interviewing Steve Albini.

Thank you thank you thank you. LOVE this.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 15, 2013, 01:01:06 pm
I saw that the other day and Albini reminded me of a grown up Steve Smith from American Dad. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on October 15, 2013, 01:57:33 pm
Rapper's Real Name or Republican Congressman?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexnaidus/rappers-real-name-or-republican-congressman (http://www.buzzfeed.com/alexnaidus/rappers-real-name-or-republican-congressman)

Ikea furniture or Black Metal Band?
ikeaordeath.com (http://ikeaordeath.com)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 16, 2013, 05:43:08 pm
I dont usually like album reviews, but Jarred and Peteys review corner is great!
http://singintothecomputer.tumblr.com/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 17, 2013, 11:34:28 am
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/artsdesk/music/2013/10/16/living-in-synth-a-flowchart-and-playlist-for-d-c-s-electronic-pop-scene/
A cool chart of electronic-pop/synthpop/darkwave/whatever in DC for your enjoyment!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on October 17, 2013, 12:50:08 pm
Anyone into guitar pedals and signal chains?

i play guitar, occasionally and have a bunch of effects.  but i don't play in a band or perform live, so the order of my effects are always changing.  needing to perform songs like would force me to settle on an order. 

Should I move my Tremolo after the distortion? Move the two delays to the end?  Bring phaser up?  I am in the middle of experimenting... but would gladly take suggestions!

i generally put temporal effects at the end, so i would move the delay and tremolo to the end of the chain (put tremolo in front of delay). 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 18, 2013, 08:01:19 am
A friend of mine helps assemble the Red Panda effects pedal based in Detroit.

http://redpandalab.com/

Henry Kaiser uses one in his touring pedalboard

(http://25.media.tumblr.com/bed564b05839afc3f3d53821d6790b5d/tumblr_mowsi1RmxP1qankfzo1_500.jpg)

http://redpandalab.tumblr.com/post/53771275544/henry-kaisers-touring-pedalboard-built-by
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 18, 2013, 09:02:21 am
Any recommendations on where to start in the Goblin discography?  Looks like i need to play a little catch on their 35+ year career. I had seen the name mentioned, but looked them up when Calibro 35 were compared to them.  And they seem right up my alley...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 18, 2013, 10:14:07 am
Nice pedal board! And it has the next pedal on my to buy list, TC Ditto Looper...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Unsanity on October 19, 2013, 03:13:40 am
Any recommendations on where to start in the Goblin discography?  Looks like i need to play a little catch on their 35+ year career. I had seen the name mentioned, but looked them up when Calibro 35 were compared to them.  And they seem right up my alley...

I first got into Goblin by watching the movie "Suspiria" Then checked out the soundtrack by them. That's as good a place as any to start. Then Proceed to listen to albums like "Roller" and "Il fantastico viaggio del bagarozzo Mark" then perhaps check out more soundtracks "Dawn of The Dead"
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 21, 2013, 03:17:45 pm
Thanks for the Goblin tips!  Calibro 35 are worth checking out for their Italian soundtrack inspired funk.

Found out today Idlewild are back in the studio!!!!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Got Haggis? on October 21, 2013, 03:36:38 pm
i don't know where else to put this but

that nine inch nails show friday night was fucking incredible

godspeed were also great - it was crazy watching their projectionist dude live mix 6 old school film projectors with film splices

nine inch nails stage show is the best use of tech ever in a stage show imho...its mind boggling

edit: oh yeah, he gave a shoutout to the 930 club....said the first time they played dc was at the old 930 club opening up for skinny puppy
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on October 23, 2013, 10:16:56 am
i don't know where else to put this but

that nine inch nails show friday night was fucking incredible

godspeed were also great - it was crazy watching their projectionist dude live mix 6 old school film projectors with film splices

nine inch nails stage show is the best use of tech ever in a stage show imho...its mind boggling

edit: oh yeah, he gave a shoutout to the 930 club....said the first time they played dc was at the old 930 club opening up for skinny puppy


So glad to hear it!  I'm sad I missed it.  I love NIN's stage setup.  And Trent Reznor's arms.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 23, 2013, 10:57:43 am
http://musicfeeds.com.au/news/engineer-turns-hardcore-band-into-edm-nightmare-after-they-fail-to-pay/
If you are in a band, you have to pay people for the work they do in support of you! Or this happens...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 23, 2013, 01:03:33 pm
http://adhoc.fm/post/first-residents-ultimate-box-set-sold/
The Residents sold their first $100,000 Ultimate Box Set.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 23, 2013, 04:56:33 pm
i don't know where else to put this but

that nine inch nails show friday night was fucking incredible

godspeed were also great - it was crazy watching their projectionist dude live mix 6 old school film projectors with film splices

nine inch nails stage show is the best use of tech ever in a stage show imho...its mind boggling

edit: oh yeah, he gave a shoutout to the 930 club....said the first time they played dc was at the old 930 club opening up for skinny puppy


I concur. To me that show felt like an hour long. It went by so fast. Absolutely stunningly beautiful.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 25, 2013, 01:47:00 pm
http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 01:57:29 pm
http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 02:13:29 pm
http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 02:22:44 pm
http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 25, 2013, 02:33:08 pm
And if Muse is any good, then I'm James Ford.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 02:56:37 pm
I was embarassed for Pitchfork reading their reviews of the Hellacopters... they didn't even bother to review High Visibility which is the greatest rock and roll record of the past 15 years..

my conclusion was modern music,, what largely passes for rock and roll, is for pussies...it is such fey weak shit..

here you have Hellacopters record this amazing vintage rock and roll record...

accordign to the pitchfork's of the world if you recorded something as good as ACDC's Back in Black it wouldn't matter because it wouldn't get past their fucked up sense of what good music is.

disgraceful..

i am so angry i better get off the internets..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 02:57:32 pm
And if Muse is any good, then I'm James Ford.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


but you're not, right?

i mean your name is not james ford.. is that what you're saying dude? i want to be in on your joke mahn..can you help me?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 25, 2013, 03:07:22 pm
My name is not James Ford. Is your name really Hutch? I though we both got our names from tv characters.

I don't really get the appeal of Muse. But then again, I'm not really a rock kind of guy to begin with.

Though I do agree with your assessments of pitchfork, and I do think that 99% of indie rock is total garbage.

Don't get angry, it's just music.

And if Muse is any good, then I'm James Ford.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


but you're not, right?

i mean your name is not james ford.. is that what you're saying dude? i want to be in on your joke mahn..can you help me?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 03:10:44 pm
My name is not James Ford. Is your name really Hutch? I though we both got our names from tv characters.

I don't really get the appeal of Muse. But then again, I'm not really a rock kind of guy to begin with.

Though I do agree with your assessments of pitchfork, and I do think that 99% of indie rock is total garbage.

Don't get angry, it's just music.

And if Muse is any good, then I'm James Ford.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


but you're not, right?

i mean your name is not james ford.. is that what you're saying dude? i want to be in on your joke mahn..can you help me?

i wasn't angry..  i thought i was being clever

i have no idea what pitchfork thinks of muse.. i think they totally suck..

its not rock and roll

this is the problem with pitchfork: if anyone actually creates rock and roll they call it a fake and the shit they call rock and roll isn't rock and roll..

that makes me mad. .not you man.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on October 25, 2013, 03:25:46 pm
at least they gave the new motorhead record a 7.6
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 03:29:29 pm
at least they gave the new motorhead record a 7.6


yeah..well they have to do that, no...its motorhead... this is what places like pitchfork do..they talk favorably about bands from yesteryear but if a new band tries to do something like that its like FUCK NO you are a POSEUR... they didn't even review high visibility i tell ya!

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 03:37:34 pm
http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


What are they then Ska?  Geez.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 25, 2013, 03:42:21 pm
Musical theater. Like Muse. And Glee.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


What are they then Ska?  Geez.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 03:45:18 pm
Musical theater. Like Muse. And Glee.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


What are they then Ska?  Geez.

Musical theater is cool.  A lot better than Motorhead that is for sure.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 03:46:26 pm
at least they gave the new motorhead record a 7.6


yeah..well they have to do that, no...its motorhead... this is what places like pitchfork do..they talk favorably about bands from yesteryear but if a new band tries to do something like that its like FUCK NO you are a POSEUR... they didn't even review high visibility i tell ya!



Let me tell you the only review of a  band I need is the  number of hot woman at the show.  Motorhead none.  Coldplay quite a lot.  Tori Amos the whole crowd.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 03:48:53 pm
at least they gave the new motorhead record a 7.6


yeah..well they have to do that, no...its motorhead... this is what places like pitchfork do..they talk favorably about bands from yesteryear but if a new band tries to do something like that its like FUCK NO you are a POSEUR... they didn't even review high visibility i tell ya!



Let me tell you the only review of a  band I need is the  number of hot woman at the show.  Motorhead none.  Coldplay quite a lot.  Tori Amos the whole crowd.

yeah but the kind of women at tori amos show are all psychos dude (or lesbians)...stay away...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 25, 2013, 03:50:13 pm
Would your wife agree with this statement?

at least they gave the new motorhead record a 7.6


yeah..well they have to do that, no...its motorhead... this is what places like pitchfork do..they talk favorably about bands from yesteryear but if a new band tries to do something like that its like FUCK NO you are a POSEUR... they didn't even review high visibility i tell ya!



Let me tell you the only review of a  band I need is the  number of hot woman at the show.  Motorhead none.  Coldplay quite a lot.  Tori Amos the whole crowd.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on October 25, 2013, 04:14:52 pm
Musical theater. Like Muse. And Glee.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


What are they then Ska?  Geez.

Musical theater is cool.  A lot better than Motorhead that is for sure.
you are so lame
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 04:18:05 pm
Would your wife agree with this statement?

at least they gave the new motorhead record a 7.6


yeah..well they have to do that, no...its motorhead... this is what places like pitchfork do..they talk favorably about bands from yesteryear but if a new band tries to do something like that its like FUCK NO you are a POSEUR... they didn't even review high visibility i tell ya!



Let me tell you the only review of a  band I need is the  number of hot woman at the show.  Motorhead none.  Coldplay quite a lot.  Tori Amos the whole crowd.

She hasn't seen Coldplay or Motorhead. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 04:19:12 pm
That would bother  me except you think Motorhead is better than Musicals.   So you opinion is pretty meaningless


Musical theater. Like Muse. And Glee.

http://pitchforkreviewgenerator.com/



pitchfork is so awful..they don't get it..they don't get ROCK AND ROLL. ..they just dont... all you have to do is read their reviews of the hellacopters to see they don't get it.

Or their reviews of Coldplay and Muse. 

if coldplay is rock and roll i'm sherlock holmes..


What are they then Ska?  Geez.

Musical theater is cool.  A lot better than Motorhead that is for sure.
you are so lame
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on October 25, 2013, 04:28:44 pm
That would bother  me except you think Motorhead is better than Musicals.   


comedy gold
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on October 25, 2013, 04:36:36 pm
That would bother  me except you think Motorhead is better than Musicals.   


comedy gold


The comedy is that you like Motorhead.   They have one song that is even mediocre in quality ("Ace of Spades").  Are you trying to tell me you think their music is better than  Rodgers and Hammerstein?  No one could have that bad taste, could they?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on October 25, 2013, 04:46:45 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN3s-0Gp8z4
The worst.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 25, 2013, 04:47:42 pm
finally some good old fashioned action on this board..it has been S L O W lately..

thank you Atomic, thank you Chaz.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on October 25, 2013, 04:52:11 pm
I'm just enjoying the absurdity of the Rogers and Hammerstein vs Motorhead comment.

Who the hell would even compare Motorhead to "Musicals"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on October 25, 2013, 05:01:10 pm
finally some good old fashioned action on this board..it has been S L O W lately..

thank you Atomic, thank you Chaz.

(http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/AWWW_a7fe03_734128.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 30, 2013, 08:32:42 pm
Cool set of posters from the UK, where an album and it's song title is turned into a series of Penguin book. Stone Roses, James, New Order, Smiths, Krafttwerk etc albums have done so far.

http://www.etsy.com/listing/156076969/the-stone-roses-poster-print-debut-album

(http://img0.etsystatic.com/021/1/6097572/il_570xN.477235160_pz86.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on November 08, 2013, 05:47:18 pm
US Version
http://noisey.vice.com/blog/what-your-terrible-taste-in-music-says-about-you

UK Version
http://noisey.vice.com/en_uk/blog/what-your-shitty-music-taste-says-about-you
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on November 21, 2013, 12:46:03 pm
(http://images.contactmusic.com/images/press/the-killers-direct-hits-2013.jpg)

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Eagles_greatest_vol_2.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on November 21, 2013, 01:51:51 pm
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT48ekV85ViMAr8Egcn3c-ch5tsvgHQWrxkdtpowlCLuMx-G01wBA)
(http://reeks.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/badreligion.jpg)

(just saying, having similar things on album covers happens a lot)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on November 21, 2013, 02:18:55 pm
But my post was of compilations by bands that take themselves too seriously, and I'm sure that one of them thinks of themselves as miles above the other.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on November 21, 2013, 03:16:56 pm
That would bother  me except you think Motorhead is better than Musicals.   


comedy gold


The comedy is that you like Motorhead.   They have one song that is even mediocre in quality ("Ace of Spades").  Are you trying to tell me you think their music is better than  Rodgers and Hammerstein?  No one could have that bad taste, could they?

Are you baiting me?  We can settle this once and for all.  Three questions:

1.)  Have more people gotten high listening to musicals?  Or Motorhead?
2.)  Have more people had a good time listening to muscials?  Or Motorhead?
3.)  Have more people gotten laid listening to muscials?  Or Motothead?

Q.E.D.

You have horrible taste in music, atomic.  You like Arcade Fire AND musicals?  Jeez.  Have you ever kissed a girl?  Do you enjoy larping and Rush, too?

Brian
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on November 21, 2013, 03:45:50 pm
sorry, brian, that was dumb, what i said.  as dumb as my commas, sometimes.  can you feel your own attraction, around here?  can atomic, as well?  i think hutch exemplifies the true idea, that this place is fun, and certain people make it, that much more fun.  and julian, too . . . good lord, how did i almost forget him. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: eros on December 05, 2013, 02:12:18 pm
Say what you will about him, at least he's honest.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/noel-gallaghers-epic-year-end-gripe-session-20131205 (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/noel-gallaghers-epic-year-end-gripe-session-20131205)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on December 05, 2013, 03:54:07 pm
1.)  Have more people gotten high listening to musicals?  Or Motorhead?
2.)  Have more people had a good time listening to muscials?  Or Motorhead?
3.)  Have more people gotten laid listening to muscials?  Or Motothead?
(http://dramyjohnson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/idk.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 05, 2013, 04:02:44 pm
i need to go cut myself, now
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 12, 2013, 04:26:14 pm
Kanye West is the Frank Zappa of his generation.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 12, 2013, 04:29:39 pm
Kanye West is the Frank Zappa of his generation.
bull double shit on that
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on December 12, 2013, 04:45:06 pm
Kanye West is the Frank Zappa of his generation.

Bowie --> Zappa --> Kanye?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 12, 2013, 05:01:59 pm
Pat Boone --> Tiny Tim -->Kanye
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on December 12, 2013, 05:09:39 pm

Muhammed Ali + Terence Trent D'Arby + Dennis Rodman = Kanye West.

The deification (and defecation) of Mr. West is due to two things:

1.)  White, liberal guilt.  They like him because a few of his early album titles reference education and hey, education is the most important thing in the world.

2.)  Old-school rock critics (is there another KIND?) who want to turn a marginally talented rapper/producer into an egotistical Axl Rose-type rock star.  Like those two old guys in "Trading Places."

Brian
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on December 12, 2013, 05:35:44 pm
In my opinion, Kanye West has made more consistently great pop albums than anyone over the past 15 years. You can criticize his public persona, outburts, marriage, style, whatever, but his music is great. Every one of his albums is good and several of them are great, including his first and his most recent.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on December 12, 2013, 05:40:17 pm
And I would also argue that more prevalent than white people trying to justify liking him are white people who shit on his music because he doesn't fit into their myopic version of how a non-uppity negro is supposed to act. You're threatened by his power so you denigrate his art even though you know nothing about it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on December 12, 2013, 05:43:33 pm
And I would also argue that more prevalent than white people trying to justify liking him are white people who shit on his music because he doesn't fit into their myopic version of how a non-uppity negro is supposed to act. You're threatened by his power so you denigrate his art even though you know nothing about it.

I think he sucks balls.  Everytime I hear his music on the radio I think who is that sucks so bad and then it turns out to be Kanye.  Dissing GW on national TV is what makes people like him.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on December 12, 2013, 05:45:32 pm
Are there any black musicians that you like or do you just hate them all with equal vehemence?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on December 12, 2013, 05:51:41 pm
Are there any black musicians that you like or do you just hate them all with equal vehemence?

I bet atomic likes the Carolina Chocolate Drops since they dress all old timey and shit.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on December 12, 2013, 06:05:17 pm
And I would also argue that more prevalent than white people trying to justify liking him are white people who shit on his music because he doesn't fit into their myopic version of how a non-uppity negro is supposed to act. You're threatened by his power so you denigrate his art even though you know nothing about it.

Ok.  First of all, that power is fading.  Quickly.  Have you seen how many tickets he's sold for his current tour?  Dates were cancelled because of slow ticket sales.  And if he has produced 15 years of "great pop" then why don't you hear any of it on the radio?  Oh, I guess all radio programmers are white and are "black"-listing him?  And far be it from ME to compare him to "classic" rap/soul artists but I have listened to EVERY ONE of his albums and I don't hear ANYTHING approaching Stevie Wonder...Nas....James Brown....Public Enemy....early Wu-Tang...Sly Stone...or whatever white artists you want me to compare him to: Steve Jobs....Ghandi.....Jesus Christ.....John Lennon...Pablo Picasso....

Brian
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on December 12, 2013, 06:09:40 pm
His power is not fading,  you only choose to depict as such because of your white racist fear. 'Yeezus' was a major hit, which spawned 'Black Skinhead'. He is playing an overwhelmingly praised tour in arenas, and the cancellations were due to logistics issues, not sales. Among the postponed dates were sold out shows in his hometown of Chicago. But you choose to make up facts to suit your racist ignorant premise. And then you trot out all the traditionally white-loved artists that make up the middle of the road. I'm kind of surprised you didn't say that you actually have black friends and that your father was 1/32 black.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on December 12, 2013, 06:24:29 pm
Are there any black musicians that you like or do you just hate them all with equal vehemence?

When have I ever said anything about another black musician? You like Kanye because he is black and he accused the president  of being a racist.  I get it.  I don't see the color of Kanye's music when hearing how badly it sucks. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on December 12, 2013, 06:25:08 pm
His power is not fading,  you only choose to depict as such because of your white racist fear. 'Yeezus' was a major hit, which spawned 'Black Skinhead'. He is playing an overwhelmingly praised tour in arenas, and the cancellations were due to logistics issues, not sales. Among the postponed dates were sold out shows in his hometown of Chicago. But you choose to make up facts to suit your racist ignorant premise. And then you trot out all the traditionally white-loved artists that make up the middle of the road. I'm kind of surprised you didn't say that you actually have black friends and that your father was 1/32 black.

Man Relaxer is racist. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on December 12, 2013, 06:42:31 pm
His power is not fading,  you only choose to depict as such because of your white racist fear. 'Yeezus' was a major hit, which spawned 'Black Skinhead'. He is playing an overwhelmingly praised tour in arenas, and the cancellations were due to logistics issues, not sales. Among the postponed dates were sold out shows in his hometown of Chicago. But you choose to make up facts to suit your racist ignorant premise. And then you trot out all the traditionally white-loved artists that make up the middle of the road. I'm kind of surprised you didn't say that you actually have black friends and that your father was 1/32 black.

"Logisitics issues!??!?!"   ::)  Do you also believe "tired and emotional?"

Whatever.  Time will tell.  The Wu-Tang Clan is "middle of the road?"  And Kanye WHO IMPREGNATED A KARDASHIAN is somehow "edgy" because he released a song called "Black Skinhead" which, you're absolutely right, was ALL OVER RADIO.  Sometime they stopped a Katy Perry song just to play "Black Skinhead" in the middle of it. 

Before I put my hood back on, let me tell you, you're going to look foolish in a couple months.  Limp Bizkit were popular once, too.  But at least they had some tunes.

Brian
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on December 12, 2013, 06:49:14 pm
Atomic, you are a very ignorant person who lashes out with insecurity because he knows the kind of man he is. It's pathetic and sad but fortunately you live in the middle of nowhere so civilized progressive people don't have to deal with your ways.

Brian, I don't know how Kanye West in any way threatens your love for Limp Bizkit but I'll leave that to you.  It doesn't really concern me because it's a proven fact that since his debut album, Kanye has been a consistent producer of highly acclaimed, very good music that has sold extremely well. In the pop music arena, there are very few people who have sustained a 10+ year career at the top.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 12, 2013, 07:20:35 pm
lot of black people / white people talk on the board today

dupek . . . is jerking off.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on December 12, 2013, 07:23:21 pm
I find it funny when someone doesn't like the lamest person alive it is because of race.  Who thinks about race like this..I guess Kanye fans. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 12, 2013, 09:59:25 pm
'Yeezus' was a major hit 
Yawn...since when does being a major hit actually mean good music

He is playing an overwhelmingly praised tour in arenas,

again yawn...but I'm sure everyone enjoyed it.  I'm really not at all impressed with KW
I've listened to his albums and I just can't get into it

I will say for me, it 100% NOT because he's black (when it comes to music...I almost always bet on black)

The only thing that I have ever found redeeming is that cover that Dia Frampton did on the voice
http://youtu.be/Vh25mvAkN9U

So I might say he's a good song writer, but I've never enjoyed his delivery or presentation

I also think in 20 years, he won't have a legacy like James Brown or David Bowie or Frank Zappa or Lou Reed or Stevie Wonder or Johnny Cash or Public Enemy or Grandmaster Flash or Freddy Mercury and so on and so on


Hey relaxer....relax. IMHO there are far more talented and interesting performers to go to the mat for.  Art is subjective....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on December 12, 2013, 10:48:41 pm
^did you see what Lou Reed wrote, just weeks before he died, about Kanye's last album ? 

has to, at the very least, give one pause...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 12, 2013, 11:00:48 pm
i saw him at the mtv show and he was one row away and he didn't even say hello.  i dont get it.  you know I hate lou, i really do.  he won't even hire us for his videos, and I was so proud of him.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on December 12, 2013, 11:04:45 pm
i saw him at the mtv show and he was one row away and he didn't even say hello.  i dont get it.  you know I hate lou, i really do.  he won't even hire us for his videos, and I was so proud of him.

oh god ... please tell me lou hasn't been added to "walkie's blacklist"...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on December 13, 2013, 08:33:26 am
^did you see what Lou Reed wrote, just weeks before he died, about Kanye's last album ? 

has to, at the very least, give one pause...

Hutch, you're an adult, right?  Did your parents divorce when you were young?  I'm totally dumbfounded at why adults worship certain music artists:

"Did you hear what LOU REED said about Kanye West, huh?  HUH?  LOU REED, THE GREATEST ROCK ARTIST EVER!  THE MAN WITH THE MOST INTEGRITY EVER!  THE MAN WHO INVENTED ALTERNATIVE MUSIC!?!?!!  Did you hear what HE said about Kanye West?"

Who gives a shit?  I don't care what Lou Reed thought about anything.  Lou Reed was just another musician.  Just another song writer.  A good one, yes.  Innovative, sure. 

People like you, hutch, who follow musicians like the disciples followed Jesus and venerate their opinions as gospel just...I don't get you.   People do this with Lennon and Dylan and.......

Musicians and the music they produce is fantastic.  Music makes life worth living.  But to put some artist who when they die they get put on the cover of Rolling Stone on a pedestal is foolish for a society to do.  Lou Reed's opinion is not more valid or more intelligent or more introspective than your or my opinion.  It really isn't.  I suggest you wake up.

Brian
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on December 13, 2013, 08:57:15 am
^did you see what Lou Reed wrote, just weeks before he died, about Kanye's last album ? 

has to, at the very least, give one pause...

Hutch, you're an adult, right?  Did your parents divorce when you were young?  I'm totally dumbfounded at why adults worship certain music artists:

"Did you hear what LOU REED said about Kanye West, huh?  HUH?  LOU REED, THE GREATEST ROCK ARTIST EVER!  THE MAN WITH THE MOST INTEGRITY EVER!  THE MAN WHO INVENTED ALTERNATIVE MUSIC!?!?!!  Did you hear what HE said about Kanye West?"

Who gives a shit?  I don't care what Lou Reed thought about anything.  Lou Reed was just another musician.  Just another song writer.  A good one, yes.  Innovative, sure. 

People like you, hutch, who follow musicians like the disciples followed Jesus and venerate their opinions as gospel just...I don't get you.   People do this with Lennon and Dylan and.......

Musicians and the music they produce is fantastic.  Music makes life worth living.  But to put some artist who when they die they get put on the cover of Rolling Stone on a pedestal is foolish for a society to do.  Lou Reed's opinion is not more valid or more intelligent or more introspective than your or my opinion.  It really isn't.  I suggest you wake up.

Brian

uh oh
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on December 13, 2013, 09:10:39 am
'Yeezus' was a major hit, which spawned 'Black Skinhead'.
I'm not getting into this argument in whole but let me just say anecdotally: I listen to pop radio probably more than the average person on here and I have not heard a new Kanye West song on a Top 40 station off the last two records. I could not tell you the chorus to Black Skinhead.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on December 13, 2013, 10:09:57 am
I heard it twice last night on tv, in the preview for the new Scorsese movie and for, I think, T-Mobile. But you know, I don't really care about any of this any more.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on December 13, 2013, 10:11:13 am
First of all, and I really have to leave this fascinating conversation to take my kid to storytime, like many people on this thread I don't get Kanye West...I may never even bother to listen to his music again...

but I pay attention to the dentist when he has something to say about teeth and, likewise, I listen to the musician when he has something to say about music.. I may not always agree though...but I at least listen because much as I love my teeth I love music....I'm at least interested... If he's one of the finest songwriters of any generation I may listen a bit harder..I don't consider that "worship" but common sense... and if those happen to be Lou Reed's last published words I may pay even a bit more attention because, you know, he contributed a lot to my life....he gave me great joy... I hope that doesn't make me a bad person or a childish one.. I think its called experience.... you know: live and learn..

What I try not to do is pay attention to what a critic with no actual experience making music, or some random internet poster wants to tell me about what music I should listen to...that's a whole different enchilada..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on December 13, 2013, 11:01:54 am
First of all, and I really have to leave this fascinating conversation to take my kid to storytime, like many people on this thread I don't get Kanye West...I may never even bother to listen to his music again...

but I pay attention to the dentist when he has something to say about teeth and, likewise, I listen to the musician when he has something to say about music.. I may not always agree though...but I at least listen because much as I love my teeth I love music....I'm at least interested... If he's one of the finest songwriters of any generation I may listen a bit harder..I don't consider that "worship" but common sense... and if those happen to be Lou Reed's last published words I may pay even a bit more attention because, you know, he contributed a lot to my life....he gave me great joy... I hope that doesn't make me a bad person or a childish one.. I think its called experience.... you know: live and learn..

What I try not to do is pay attention to what a critic with no actual experience making music, or some random internet poster wants to tell me about what music I should listen to...that's a whole different enchilada..

Lou Reed hadn't done anything worth listening since "Transformer". If he knew so much about music why did he suck for 40 years? 

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on December 13, 2013, 11:16:31 am
god knows I'm not a Lou Reed/VU fan, but New York is an album very worth listening to.

I've listened to a couple of Kanye albums, and can say that I'd be happy to never hear him again. The fact that he's a total douche seals the deal.


First of all, and I really have to leave this fascinating conversation to take my kid to storytime, like many people on this thread I don't get Kanye West...I may never even bother to listen to his music again...

but I pay attention to the dentist when he has something to say about teeth and, likewise, I listen to the musician when he has something to say about music.. I may not always agree though...but I at least listen because much as I love my teeth I love music....I'm at least interested... If he's one of the finest songwriters of any generation I may listen a bit harder..I don't consider that "worship" but common sense... and if those happen to be Lou Reed's last published words I may pay even a bit more attention because, you know, he contributed a lot to my life....he gave me great joy... I hope that doesn't make me a bad person or a childish one.. I think its called experience.... you know: live and learn..

What I try not to do is pay attention to what a critic with no actual experience making music, or some random internet poster wants to tell me about what music I should listen to...that's a whole different enchilada..

Lou Reed hadn't done anything worth listening since "Transformer". If he knew so much about music why did he suck for 40 years? 


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 13, 2013, 12:53:08 pm
In a related story

Small-Town Police Chief to Kanye West: 'Check Yourself, Before You Wreck Yourself' (http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/small-town-police-chief-kanye-west-39-check-194424302--abc-news-celebrities.html)

"This comes just days after West compared the danger of his work to that of police officers and soldiers in war, telling a radio host he puts his life "literally" on the line each day.

After all, the rapper noted, he could slip on stage."

Can't believe I've got something in common with JF...but yes this man is a Douche
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on December 13, 2013, 01:42:33 pm
i appreciated Laura Mayberry's article on feminism a month or so go back, but i loved this take by Mish Way. 

http://www.self-titledmag.com/2013/12/13/white-lungs-mish-way-on-message-boards-corrosion-of-conformity-and-hardcore-singer-chris-thomson/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on December 13, 2013, 07:26:20 pm
RE: The Kanye West discussion.

i feel like kanye is pretty smart about his art.  i hated yeezus, but i've enjoyed past albums, and respect the fact that in 20 years people will look at him as the defining pop artist of the past decade. yeezus was every bit calculated, it's completely different from the rest of his style/discography, similiar to 808&HB.  people will look back, and say "remember that black activist album he made?", and "remember the auto-tune album he did?" just as people look back at pink floyd's the wall, the beatle's helter skelter, lou reed's metal machine music, etc..

like it or hate it, the guy does an incredible job about making people talk about his music, and that's what makes music icons live on.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 17, 2013, 11:59:05 pm
Did anyone else grab the new Death Grips when they leaked it the other day?

i am listening right now . . . and im losing my mind.  am i on acid?  am i on the planet earth?


So I decided to give death grips a try and I have to say Walky was spot on with this review.
not sure I'm in the 'save killsaly' club.  But, I there might be deeper meaning with this recommendation and his quick departure from the board. If your listening, we hear your cries

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on December 22, 2013, 10:10:10 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BcF59KoCEAEPIhr.jpg:large)

Kevin Cummins tweeter feed is fantastic seeing as he took many of the iconic pictures of Joy Division, etc..

https://twitter.com/KCMANC/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 22, 2013, 03:09:40 pm
A bit surprised you guys glossed over this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHo9XHm3tWY)

He makes a few valid points but his being a dick about it gets in the way of them. The ads all over sites like Pitchfork, Stereogogm and BV are probably partially why we have to scroll over so much "OMG lulz Steve Albini called Amanda Palmer an idiot!" nonsense and Lana Del Rae coverage, for instance. That shit gets clicks. He could've picked a much guiltier person to call out, though. Liz Pelly is the one music writer who decided to start an ad-free website this year and based on articles I've read of hers in the past, I doubt any of the advertisers on any of the sites she wrote for had anything to do with what she wrote.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 23, 2013, 12:50:25 am
A bit surprised you guys glossed over this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vHo9XHm3tWY)
wow, reminded me of Albini's 'you could already be this fu@ked'
Worth the view...although he is a little cocky
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on December 23, 2013, 02:34:35 am
that dude might be on to something if he didn't say fuckin' every fifth word.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 23, 2013, 08:31:21 am
I do like a good amount of his other videos. The ones on shoegaze and 4AD especially.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 26, 2013, 02:32:22 pm
This will be the 1st generation in history whose parents wished they had louder, more offensive music. (https://twitter.com/MichaelSchein1/status/416227067861012480)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on December 26, 2013, 04:11:53 pm
Vampire Weekend and Arcade Fire? I doubt many young people are listening to either of those. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 26, 2013, 05:37:05 pm
i am enjoying that we have a new person on here, that isnt another form of brian or julian . . . or is it?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on December 26, 2013, 05:55:47 pm
I am neither named Brian nor Julian. How are you doing today? 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 26, 2013, 05:56:09 pm
i am enjoying that we have a new person on here, that isnt another form of brian or julian . . . or is it?
doesn't seem quite so bitter and dickish...so I'd say a genuine new'bie
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 26, 2013, 06:01:41 pm
only time will tell.  that last responce . . . was questionable.  you saying he seems legit . . . even more questionable.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 26, 2013, 06:02:43 pm
only time will tell.  that last responce . . . was questionable.  you saying he seems legit . . . even more questionable.
dang...still can't seem to evade the wrath of walky...I'll keep trying
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on December 26, 2013, 06:04:45 pm
You guys would make lousy detectives, but I have inside info.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 26, 2013, 06:06:06 pm
only time will tell.  that last responce . . . was questionable.  you saying he seems legit . . . even more questionable.
dang...still can't seem to evade the wrath of walky...I'll keep trying


(http://awesomegifs.com/wp-content/uploads/cat-high-five.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 26, 2013, 06:08:01 pm
You guys would make lousy detectives, but I have inside info.

you just made my nipples, hard

i vote . . . the return of jags
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on December 26, 2013, 06:31:24 pm
Yes.  kosmo knows who I am. 

1. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/witch-hunt
An investigation carried out ostensibly to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.

(Government, Politics & Diplomacy) a rigorous campaign to round up or expose dissenters on the pretext of safeguarding the welfare of the public

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt
A witch-hunt is a search for witches or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic,[1] or mass hysteria.[2] Before 1750 it was legally sanctioned and involving official witchcraft trials.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 26, 2013, 10:33:26 pm
I caught this earlier today!
I think Tom Scharpling retweeted it.

This will be the 1st generation in history whose parents wished they had louder, more offensive music. (https://twitter.com/MichaelSchein1/status/416227067861012480)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 26, 2013, 10:34:56 pm
Samesies.

You guys would make lousy detectives, but I have inside info.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 27, 2013, 01:33:11 am
I caught this earlier today!
I think Tom Scharpling retweeted it.

This will be the 1st generation in history whose parents wished they had louder, more offensive music. (https://twitter.com/MichaelSchein1/status/416227067861012480)

I had caught Kim Gordon's retweet. Michael Schein (@MichaelSchein1), a little known digital PR dude that Gordon does not follow, had tweeted it in reply to someone else.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on December 27, 2013, 08:47:54 am
I caught this earlier today!
I think Tom Scharpling retweeted it.

This will be the 1st generation in history whose parents wished they had louder, more offensive music. (https://twitter.com/MichaelSchein1/status/416227067861012480)

I had caught Kim Gordon's retweet. Michael Schein (@MichaelSchein1), a little known digital PR dude that Gordon does not follow, had tweeted it in reply to someone else.

clearly these people don't follow Wall Of Beard (http://wallofbeard.com/) because dubstep is pretty loud and just offensive.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on December 27, 2013, 10:55:35 am
i think i accidentally Hexenjagd in another thread, but just changed that... didn't realize you were trying to stay anonymous.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 27, 2013, 11:21:54 am
Cat's pretty much out of the bag now anyway.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on December 27, 2013, 12:03:37 pm
Cat's pretty much out of the bag now anyway.

(http://veronicagraham.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/catbag.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 27, 2013, 12:11:20 pm
Man Stabbed Over Jukebox Argument (http://www.wusa9.com/news/article/287408/158/Man-stabbed-over-jukebox-argument)

ANNAPOLIS, Md. (WUSA9) -- Police say a man was stabbed after an argument over music playing on a jukebox at a Maryland restaurant.

It happened in the 1300 block of Forest Drive in Annapolis at 12:45 a.m., when police say the adult male victim and Martin Marroquin Rodriguez got in an agreement over the jukebox.

When the victim was walking home he was approached by Rodriguez, who gave him a hug, police say. While hugging the victim, Rodriguez stabbed him in the stomach.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 27, 2013, 12:18:18 pm
i enjoy . . . staying in the dark about the new person.  we need new people; lots and lots of new people.  cats, too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on December 27, 2013, 12:25:26 pm
oh . . . i get it now.  heres to me getting it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kebl0KfR8Ps

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUXGQdVGkjE
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on December 27, 2013, 12:31:44 pm
The Polyphonic Spree - You Don't Know Me
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGiEL_BGToo
Quote
It's time to jump in
It's time to let go

Don't let the people think they know you
They don't know

You move around, you say goodbye to them
There's always more to you than there are of them

Keep yourself high
Don't keep yourself low
It's easy to forget what you came here for when you get old

There's always someone there to bring you down again
There's always more to you than there are of them

Hey, hey, you don't know me
Hey, hey, you don't know me
Hey, hey, you don't know me
Hey, hey, you don't know me

I know you will hide
When I'm around

Hey, hey, you don't know me
Hey, hey, you don't know me

There's always someone there to bring you down again
There's always more to you than there are of them

I know you will hide
When I'm around

I know you will hide
When I'm around

Watch them follow you all around
watch them follow you all around
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on January 11, 2014, 09:41:44 pm
Cedella Marley on the Musical ?Three Little Birds? and Bob Marley?s Legacy (http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/01/09/cedella-marley-on-three-little-birds-and-bob-marleys-legacy/)

With marijuana now legal in Colorado, would your family somehow get involved commercially?

We?re looking to see how the marijuana stocks are going. It depends. We love farming so if we could have a farm where that?s what we grow, legally, then we might consider a farm. I am watching it. The lines, how the demand has grown so much they?re having to ration it. You have a smile on your face and you still hope people are using it for the right reasons. I just think when you?re growing marijuana, it?s supposed to be a healing herb. You have to do it in the right way. You don?t want all the chemicals, you want to do it as organically as possible. I think to have it grown by Marley farms, anywhere where it?s legal to do that, it?s something that definitely we would be looking into. It?s not so much opening a shop. I?m more concerned with what the people would be consuming. I see the blogs now and then and I know everything isn?t being grown as organically as possible. It?s like you?re getting something that?s healing that?s coated with chemicals. Are you getting the benefits or getting worse?


Maybe this should go in the Onion thread....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on January 12, 2014, 12:33:53 am
they have this Marley brand coffee and it's $25 a bag.   
I've always thought that was insane, but maybe there is another reason for the added cost?
(http://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0274/1509/products/BlueMountain600x600_large_large.jpeg%3Fv%3D1380910993)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 12, 2014, 11:53:27 pm
i think i accidentally Hexenjagd in another thread, but just changed that... didn't realize you were trying to stay anonymous.

Why did Killsally change his name?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 13, 2014, 12:00:26 am
i think i accidentally Hexenjagd in another thread, but just changed that... didn't realize you were trying to stay anonymous.

Why did Killsally change his name?
I made fun of professional wrestling and called its fans juvenile and he refuted my argument by deleting his account claiming the place had disintegrated into Junior High and then came back a few days later. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 13, 2014, 12:02:34 am
i think i accidentally Hexenjagd in another thread, but just changed that... didn't realize you were trying to stay anonymous.

Why did Killsally change his name?
I made fun of professional wrestling and called its fans juvenile and he refuted my argument by deleting his account claiming the place had disintegrated into Junior High and then came back a few days later. 

I don't like the new name it sounds like some Norweigan Death Metal band name or something.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 13, 2014, 12:05:02 am
Hexen was a weird occult Doom knockoff circa 1996. Idk how I know that honestly.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 13, 2014, 02:04:57 am
Yes, you made a comment about wrestling fans.

No, that wasn't the reason I quit this place. 

I quit because I was slowly phasing forums out of my life, one at at time, over the last few years (at one point I posted on seven different music forums).  Mainly this was due to the fact that I can just get everything I need in regards to music and socializing online, on Facebook (I am easy to find on there if anyone wants to send a friend request).  This is the same reason I don't use MySpace anymore, or chat rooms, or buy music magazines. 

It was done after you made your comment, but that was not the reason.  Do you really think I would quit this site that I was a part of for over six years because of some comment you made?

The reason I am back is because I like a lot of the people here and realized it is the easiest way to communicate with them. 

As for the name, it is just another name I use for a music project of mine, and for the mixes I make for my label/blog, Dragged to Hell. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on January 13, 2014, 10:47:23 am
(http://getlol.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/cat-wrestling-600x420.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 13, 2014, 11:02:25 am
Yes, you made a comment about wrestling fans.

No, that wasn't the reason I quit this place. 

I quit because I was slowly phasing forums out of my life, one at at time, over the last few years (at one point I posted on seven different music forums).  Mainly this was due to the fact that I can just get everything I need in regards to music and socializing online, on Facebook (I am easy to find on there if anyone wants to send a friend request).  This is the same reason I don't use MySpace anymore, or chat rooms, or buy music magazines. 

It was done after you made your comment, but that was not the reason.  Do you really think I would quit this site that I was a part of for over six years because of some comment you made?

The reason I am back is because I like a lot of the people here and realized it is the easiest way to communicate with them. 

As for the name, it is just another name I use for a music project of mine, and for the mixes I make for my label/blog, Dragged to Hell. 

First, Facebook is dying.  And second everyone tries to be pleasant to each other on Facebook.  Third, you have to wade through mindless sports posts, baby photos, and people's daily mundane live posts.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 13, 2014, 12:11:14 pm
I mostly follow posts from a few close friends and use the site to keep up with bands.  When something better comes along, I will change it. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on January 13, 2014, 05:38:48 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/13/business/media/dance-band-experiments-with-three-way-stereo.html?_r=0

i think i notice the difference . . . that the song sucks in a totally new way.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 15, 2014, 01:20:38 pm
http://www.attackmagazine.com/news/roland-reissue-tb-303-tr-808/

I guess I need to start saving my money!
(http://www.funnypictureblog.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/picture_small/fry-take-my-money.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on January 15, 2014, 01:30:42 pm
http://www.attackmagazine.com/news/roland-reissue-tb-303-tr-808/

I guess I need to start saving my money!

this looks like a money-grab to me.  i fear it's going to be digital (so none of the analog quirkiness that made the 303 and 808 famous) and based on samples (which you can get elsewhere).  the interface might be a change-up from what you currently use but seems to me you can do better with a customizable interface with assignable pads, sliders, etc - rather than being locked into the layout of this device which will have limited functionality.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on January 16, 2014, 05:09:14 pm
Was anybody as excited when Eddie fronted DKs?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on January 17, 2014, 01:06:19 pm
http://www.attackmagazine.com/news/roland-reissue-tb-303-tr-808/

I guess I need to start saving my money!

this looks like a money-grab to me.  i fear it's going to be digital (so none of the analog quirkiness that made the 303 and 808 famous) and based on samples (which you can get elsewhere).  the interface might be a change-up from what you currently use but seems to me you can do better with a customizable interface with assignable pads, sliders, etc - rather than being locked into the layout of this device which will have limited functionality.

Sounds like it's digital. If price and quality is as rumored, it'll do well.
http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/01/16/roland-aira-tr-08-rumor-leak-update-not-analog-but-great-fun/#more-54288 (http://www.synthtopia.com/content/2014/01/16/roland-aira-tr-08-rumor-leak-update-not-analog-but-great-fun/#more-54288)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 17, 2014, 02:56:10 pm
I plan on trying before I buy... But this definitely would be a nice addition to my setup (i am running a NI Maschine into a laptop for drums, hard synths for bass/some leads, and guitars and pedals)... It would be nice to cut the tether to the laptop... (I use a lot of 808 samples in my beats). 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on January 29, 2014, 10:14:30 pm
Is there a pop musician with more success and less impact on culture than Billy Joel?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 29, 2014, 10:41:13 pm
Is there a pop musician with more success and less impact on culture than Billy Joel?
Off the top of my head, Eagles and ABBA.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on January 29, 2014, 11:15:08 pm
Is there a pop musician with more success and less impact on culture than Billy Joel?
Off the top of my head, Eagles and ABBA.

Barry Manilow has to take this...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on January 29, 2014, 11:45:49 pm
Celine Dion?  Or does keeping Cory Hart employed count...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on January 30, 2014, 09:11:36 am
Is there a pop musician with more success and less impact on culture than Billy Joel?

What do you mean by "impact on culture?"  God, that's such a Generation whatever, navel-gazing phrase.  In no way am I defending Billy Joel, but what a snooty, elitist comment.  Do YOU even know what you're asking?

I assume someone like Bowie or Lou Reed, in your opinion, has had a huge "impact on culture?"  Really?  Maybe for the 0.00001% of culture who actually play an instrument and/or are in a band. 

Are you talking about the culture of clothing?  Yes, "rock stars" with destinctive styles of dress can cause young fans to dress like them.  I'm thinking Madonna when she started out.  But did people ever really dress like Springsteen or Mick Jagger?

I would say Billy Joel has a huge impact on culture simply due to the fact that for 10 solid years, every woman entering college was issued "Billy Joel's Greatest Hits Vol. 1 and 2" along with some tampons.

"Impact on culture."  That's just what this generation does.  Wonders about "impacts on culture."

I guarantee you more young men and women "connected" over "She's Got a Way" or "Big Shot" than "Sweet Jane" or "Five Years."

Brian
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on January 30, 2014, 09:52:34 am
I guarantee you more young men and women "connected" over "She's Got a Way" or "Big Shot" than "Sweet Jane" or "Five Years."
Yeah but...only the hot chicks listened to the latter. 
I usually steered clear of anyone who had Dave Matthews or Hootie and the Blowfish in their cd collection.  Usually said a lot about the person. (did seem the easy ones always had Dave Matthews)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on January 30, 2014, 10:04:26 am
I can't wait for Brian's reply.

I guarantee you more young men and women "connected" over "She's Got a Way" or "Big Shot" than "Sweet Jane" or "Five Years."
Yeah but...only the hot chicks listened to the latter. 
I usually steered clear of anyone who had Dave Matthews or Hootie and the Blowfish in their cd collection.  Usually said a lot about the person. (did seem the easy ones always had Dave Matthews)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 10:43:31 am
Is there a pop musician with more success and less impact on culture than Billy Joel?
Off the top of my head, Eagles and ABBA.

Really have you ever dated a woman or a gay man?  They love ABBA.  Shit I love ABBA.   Of course, I ,like normal people, like Billy Joel, too.   Glass Houses and the Stranger are masterpieces.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 10:45:55 am
Is there a pop musician with more success and less impact on culture than Billy Joel?

What do you mean by "impact on culture?"  God, that's such a Generation whatever, navel-gazing phrase.  In no way am I defending Billy Joel, but what a snooty, elitist comment.  Do YOU even know what you're asking?

I assume someone like Bowie or Lou Reed, in your opinion, has had a huge "impact on culture?"  Really?  Maybe for the 0.00001% of culture who actually play an instrument and/or are in a band. 

Are you talking about the culture of clothing?  Yes, "rock stars" with destinctive styles of dress can cause young fans to dress like them.  I'm thinking Madonna when she started out.  But did people ever really dress like Springsteen or Mick Jagger?

I would say Billy Joel has a huge impact on culture simply due to the fact that for 10 solid years, every woman entering college was issued "Billy Joel's Greatest Hits Vol. 1 and 2" along with some tampons.

"Impact on culture."  That's just what this generation does.  Wonders about "impacts on culture."

I guarantee you more young men and women "connected" over "She's Got a Way" or "Big Shot" than "Sweet Jane" or "Five Years."

Brian

"Sweet Jane" is awful.  That is basically sucky Lou Reed solo.  No Velvet Undeground on that song.  No one has gotten most out of a career from one album that he was just one member of a band than Lou Reed.  First Velvet's album one of the best albums of all time.  "Stepahanie Says" great song.  "After Hours" decent song.  Rest of Velvet catalog "shit".
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 11:06:31 am
Really have you ever dated a woman or a gay man?  They love ABBA.  Shit I love ABBA.   Of course, I ,like normal people, like Billy Joel, too.   Glass Houses and the Stranger are masterpieces.
There's a difference between people owning the CD (which a lot of people do with regard to The Eagles) and having an effect on the culture (which as Brian mentions is a nebulous at best concept).

How do you think The Eagles "affected our culture"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on January 30, 2014, 11:15:19 am
They were the inspiration for 95% of what is today called "country" music. Hence, serving as an inspiration for moving country music from its distinct Southern hillbilly roots and fan base to a light rock-Chevy truck commercial sound and geographically and socioeconomically indistinct fan base.

Really have you ever dated a woman or a gay man?  They love ABBA.  Shit I love ABBA.   Of course, I ,like normal people, like Billy Joel, too.   Glass Houses and the Stranger are masterpieces.
There's a difference between people owning the CD (which a lot of people do with regard to The Eagles) and having an effect on the culture (which as Brian mentions is a nebulous at best concept).

How do you think The Eagles "affected our culture"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 11:17:23 am
Really have you ever dated a woman or a gay man?  They love ABBA.  Shit I love ABBA.   Of course, I ,like normal people, like Billy Joel, too.   Glass Houses and the Stranger are masterpieces.
There's a difference between people owning the CD (which a lot of people do with regard to The Eagles) and having an effect on the culture (which as Brian mentions is a nebulous at best concept).

How do you think The Eagles "affected our culture"?

 I really don't know that much about the Eagles but ABBA made our world a happier place.  What has any band done to affect our culture.   What did Radiohead do for our culture?  Make us more accepting of really ugly people?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on January 30, 2014, 11:20:27 am
They were the inspiration for 95% of what is today called "country" music. Hence, serving as an inspiration for moving country music from its distinct Southern hillbilly roots and fan base to a light rock-Chevy truck commercial sound and geographically and socioeconomically indistinct fan base.



Ummm... lots of big words but no...

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 11:23:12 am
They were the inspiration for 95% of what is today called "country" music. Hence, serving as an inspiration for moving country music from its distinct Southern hillbilly roots and fan base to a light rock-Chevy truck commercial sound and geographically and socioeconomically indistinct fan base.

Country music moved away from its distinct hillbilly roots and fan base solely because of the self-generated forward momentum of one Miss Taylor Swift, a ruthlessly efficient media mogul who has clawed her way to the top of a crumbling music industry infrastructure.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on January 30, 2014, 11:28:32 am
Vince Gill was  quoted as saying the Eagles have influenced more people than Ernest Tubb, and therefore should join him in Country Music's Hall of Fame.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is different, though, is country music. There?s been a lot of cross-pollination between rock and pop and country, and ?country music is now akin to what my generation was listening to in the ?60s and ?70s,? Henley said.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


When the Eagles debuted in the mid-'70s, their brand of lighthearted crossover country was more crossover than country, getting play on stations like New York's WHN but alienating plenty of down-home traditionalists. These days, though, updated sonics are the only thing separating early hits like "Take It Easy" from your average country playlist; the song's suggestion that you "lighten up while you still can" still resonates with a generation of Kenny Chesneys and Zac Browns.


They were the inspiration for 95% of what is today called "country" music. Hence, serving as an inspiration for moving country music from its distinct Southern hillbilly roots and fan base to a light rock-Chevy truck commercial sound and geographically and socioeconomically indistinct fan base.



Ummm... lots of big words but no...


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 11:29:52 am

Vince Gill was  quoted as saying the Eagles have influenced more people than Ernest Tubb, and therefore should join him in Country Music's Hall of Fame.
More than ERNEST TUBB? I revoke my argument. Jesus Christ, how could I have been so wrong.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on January 30, 2014, 11:30:17 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_kCR5yQpY0



Really have you ever dated a woman or a gay man?  They love ABBA.  Shit I love ABBA.   Of course, I ,like normal people, like Billy Joel, too.   Glass Houses and the Stranger are masterpieces.
There's a difference between people owning the CD (which a lot of people do with regard to The Eagles) and having an effect on the culture (which as Brian mentions is a nebulous at best concept).

How do you think The Eagles "affected our culture"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 11:30:47 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_kCR5yQpY0

Nice.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on January 30, 2014, 11:31:35 am
Tubb was no good after he split with Crockett.


Vince Gill was  quoted as saying the Eagles have influenced more people than Ernest Tubb, and therefore should join him in Country Music's Hall of Fame.
More than ERNEST TUBB? I revoke my argument. Jesus Christ, how could I have been so wrong.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 11:34:07 am
I am listening to "ABBA - The Essential Collection" right now and I am thinking you guys would be less uptight if you would listen to ABBA instead of that boring,dull music you usually listen to all the time.  Queens of the Stonge Age is not for fun people.  
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on January 30, 2014, 11:59:51 am
  Shit I love ABBA.    

Dang...don't like when we overlap on taste
usually it's easy as you have such horrible taste in just about everything

damn you ABBA for trying to bring the world together in harmony!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 12:04:57 pm
I think each day we should pick a classic album and we can all listen to it together.  I will start today's selection of Billy Joel's "The Stranger". 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 12:19:25 pm
I will start today's selection of Billy Joel's "The Stranger". 
That's a fantastic record.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on January 30, 2014, 12:23:44 pm
Country music moved away from its distinct hillbilly roots and fan base solely because of the self-generated forward momentum of one Miss Taylor Swift, a ruthlessly efficient media mogul who has clawed her way to the top of a crumbling music industry infrastructure.
TS gets a whoopin (http://youtu.be/m4luHEVjqKA)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on January 30, 2014, 12:28:46 pm
I will start today's selection of Billy Joel's "The Stranger". 
That's a fantastic record.

I assume you're listening to the 30th Anniversary Deluxe Limited Edition
The limited deluxe edition inclueds a CD of a previously unreleased concert featuring Billy and his band, Live At Carnegie Hall 1977, recorded at the historic Manhattan venue on June 3, 1977, one month before the sessions for The Stranger album


it is pretty classic.  Truth be told I'm from Long Island, so it's in my blood.  Just it does sound a little dated, only because I've heard it from start to finish 1 million times
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on January 30, 2014, 12:30:03 pm
I think each day we should pick a classic album and we can all listen to it together.  I will start today's selection of Billy Joel's "The Stranger". 

I enjoy the dichotomy of having a "Woman...you're just amazing...without the make-up and the bj's....I truly love YOU" song ("Just the Way You Are", 1978's Record AND Song of the Year) AND a "You know....women are unpredictable, moody bitches most of the time...but you still let a mug like me have sex with you so I guess, you're sort of cool" song ("She's Always a Woman") on the SAME album.  Usually there's a gap of a couple of albums and a couple of bitter divorces between those two.

Brian

P.S.  I think most young hipsters hate the Eagles simply becuase of "The Big Lebowski".   A LOT of college educated men of a certain age view themselves as quasi-Lebowskis and therefore adopt every opinion he has.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 12:30:58 pm
I will start today's selection of Billy Joel's "The Stranger". 
That's a fantastic record.

I assume you're listening to the 30th Anniversary Deluxe Limited Edition
The limited deluxe edition inclueds a CD of a previously unreleased concert featuring Billy and his band, Live At Carnegie Hall 1977, recorded at the historic Manhattan venue on June 3, 1977, one month before the sessions for The Stranger album


it is pretty classic.  Truth be told I'm from Long Island, so it's in my blood.  Just it does sound a little dated, only because I've heard it from start to finish 1 million times
No, I just have the regular version. Not a big enough Billy Joel fan to go buy another copy. Scenes From An Italian Restaurant is a great composition.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2014, 12:32:46 pm
P.S.  I think most young hipsters hate the Eagles simply becuase of "The Big Lebowski".   A LOT of college educated men of a certain age view themselves as quasi-Lebowskis and therefore adopt every opinion he has.
That's probably my vote for "Most overrated movie of all time that doesn't have the words 'Star' and 'Wars' in the title." I like the Coen brothers but I never got why people were so hyped over this film. Its extremely "meh."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on January 30, 2014, 12:45:27 pm
one word . . . pot.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on January 30, 2014, 01:24:02 pm
http://www.rhcp2014.com/

Parody of a new RHCP song. Since so many of us boardies love them. Very funny.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on January 30, 2014, 01:26:00 pm
you haven't lived til you've heard the Stranger LP on the highly limited RL cut (Robert Ludwig)...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 30, 2014, 01:26:52 pm
http://www.rhcp2014.com/

Parody of a new RHCP song. Since so many of us boardies love them. Very funny.
also a good nine inch nails one...
http://dangerousminds.net/comments/this_is_a_trent_reznor_song_nine_inch_nails_by-the-numbers_parody_is_absolu
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on January 30, 2014, 02:08:30 pm
How many of you BJ fans are also fans of his band Atilla?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLuiVJBZyVM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swiI32BcNUU
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 02:43:34 pm
How many of you BJ fans are also fans of his band Atilla?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLuiVJBZyVM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swiI32BcNUU

I think everyone on here is a "BJ fan".  We're all dudes, after all.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on January 30, 2014, 04:55:53 pm
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/01/29/0129-daft-punk-pcn-getty-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 30, 2014, 04:59:13 pm
Yes daft punk are not really robots.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on January 30, 2014, 05:04:27 pm
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/01/29/0129-daft-punk-pcn-getty-3.jpg)

(http://don.greymafia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/JFbNUk41.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on January 30, 2014, 05:05:30 pm
Cool Husker Du shirt...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Brian_Wallace on January 30, 2014, 05:14:38 pm
(http://ll-media.tmz.com/2014/01/29/0129-daft-punk-pcn-getty-3.jpg)

Dammit.  My guesses were either Simon and Garfunkel or the dudes from Air.

Brian

P.S.  Well, who's the Stig, then?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on January 30, 2014, 05:16:41 pm
P.S.  Well, who's the Stig, then?

Well it's clearly not Schumacher...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on January 30, 2014, 05:39:59 pm
I like to go to musical festivals and tell chicks I am in Daft Punk.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on January 30, 2014, 07:16:29 pm
(http://i.imgur.com/YgIIT4a.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on January 30, 2014, 08:04:25 pm
slappy, wins
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Unsanity on January 31, 2014, 01:57:11 am
I love that Attila record! I own an original copy of it that I grabbed from the DC record fair when it was at the Artisphere. Its so heavy and psychedelic and not the radio crap he is known for! According to amg, Billy himself has stated that Atilla was "psychedelic bullshit" and hates that record wit a passion. Amg also stated it is the worst record of all time! I also have records from Billy's first big band, The Hassles. Jay Leno was a noted fan of them haha.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on January 31, 2014, 01:42:49 pm
they don't look that much different than the dudes from Air.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Relaxer on January 31, 2014, 01:49:35 pm
French people all look the same to me, but I'm also a sexist.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on January 31, 2014, 06:15:41 pm
Quote
Dear sweet everyone,

I switched this page from Chelsea Light Moving to Thurston Joseph Michael Moore. The next record to be released under my own name will be titled "Detonation" (Matador, June 1st 2014). Most of the music on it will be unreleased tracks recorded by myself with John Moloney, Samara Lubelski and Keith Wood - who recorded and toured with me under the name Chelsea Light Moving but i've decided to just use my real name from now on for records and gigs regardless of who will be playing with me, or at least for the time being(!). The last few years had me going strong with John, Samara and Keith, friends/musicians/confidantes whom i ADORE, but I feel the need to change the live thing up a bit. Right now i'm playing under my own name with guitarist extraordinaire James Sedwards - we have a few gigs coming up. All future info will be updated on https://www.facebook.com/ThurstonMooreOfficial
So was the half full Ottobar show indicative of the rest of the Chelsea Light Moving (I personally loved the album and their set) tour? So the next CLM record is... Actually a Thurston solo record, but just with the same players.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 02, 2014, 08:48:39 am
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/214271/canadian-band-skinny-puppy-invoices-u-s-government-after-learning-their-music-was-used-to-torture-guantanamo-detainees/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 02, 2014, 01:22:59 pm
Guess they should have used an AMERICUN band, like Ministry.

But really, whatever happened to good old methods of torture like ripping out peoples fingernails? Playing loud music is torture? Puh-leaze.
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/214271/canadian-band-skinny-puppy-invoices-u-s-government-after-learning-their-music-was-used-to-torture-guantanamo-detainees/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 02, 2014, 02:39:30 pm
It is a placeholder for when I post something but change my mind and delete my post.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 02, 2014, 03:08:46 pm
what does

.

mean

as a singular

response, post?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 02, 2014, 03:10:06 pm
Better? I had a response, but it was not really relevant to music talk.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 02, 2014, 03:14:03 pm
how, neat
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 02, 2014, 03:15:32 pm
I, for one, do not think, my opinions, on everything, need to clutter, non-relevant, threads.  I would have changed my "." to something else after I thought of something better to post.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 03, 2014, 05:31:53 pm
Priests interview! Priests interview! Priests interview! Priests interview! (http://www.tinymixtapes.com/features/priests)

But they are a quartet, not a trio.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 03, 2014, 05:34:48 pm
http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/214271/canadian-band-skinny-puppy-invoices-u-s-government-after-learning-their-music-was-used-to-torture-guantanamo-detainees/

I thought the Skinny Puppy guy was dead.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 03, 2014, 05:40:00 pm
Priests interview! Priests interview! Priests interview! Priests interview! (http://www.tinymixtapes.com/features/priests)

But they are a quartet, not a trio.

This says quartet.

Quote
D.C. quartet Priests are omnivorous consumers of ideas; you can practically feel them exploding from their short songs
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 03, 2014, 05:44:13 pm
Guess they edited it.

It said "trio" earlier.

https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/430379939649839104
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on February 03, 2014, 05:49:47 pm
Guess they edited it.

It said "trio" earlier.

https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/430379939649839104
I like that your avatar is an ostrich. Wait, you do know its an ostrich, right?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 03, 2014, 05:50:14 pm
yes
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 03, 2014, 05:54:03 pm
you didnt like the halftime show?  not a fan of whats his name, but he did well.  chili poopers, well thats another story.

and dont you find twitter, to be, gay?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 03, 2014, 05:58:58 pm
Oh boy.


I didn't think my tweets would be dissected.

What I heard of the halftime thing (not much of it) sounded like a jumbled mess.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 03, 2014, 06:08:16 pm
im going to read your twitter now everyday, and give my opinion.  oh, yeah.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 03, 2014, 06:13:23 pm
Enjoy.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 03, 2014, 06:15:27 pm
i bet, you are, a fascinating man.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 03, 2014, 06:20:19 pm
Oh boy.


I didn't think my tweets would be dissected.

What I heard of the halftime thing (not much of it) sounded like a jumbled mess.


Bruno Mars is a very small man. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 03, 2014, 06:32:25 pm
Guess they edited it.

It said "trio" earlier.

https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/430379939649839104
I like that your avatar is an ostrich. Wait, you do know its an ostrich, right?

 i lol'd
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 03, 2014, 06:34:22 pm
Wow this exists. (http://current931.bandcamp.com/music)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 03, 2014, 10:56:17 pm
(http://newnownext.mtvnimages.com/2014/02/lady-gaga-littlemonsters.png)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 04, 2014, 09:13:23 pm
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/red-hot-chili-peppers-flea-explains-his-miming-at-the-super-bowl-20140204
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 04, 2014, 09:18:13 pm
azag . . . people should feel sad by aspca emails.  that way, they might go and beat the fuck out of people who do shit like having a dog, and keep it in a small ass cage in the back yard, with no life, and even during the most cold it gets outside, they dont bring them inside.  i see this all the time in the country, and i turn away, pretending that im not seeing it.  i wish i had the balls to beat the shit out of people like that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 05, 2014, 09:52:05 pm
This is a bit crazy  Marvin Gaye's passport was found in a album that was bought for 50 cents.

http://permanentrecordproject.blogspot.com/2014/02/the-passport-you-see-above-belonged-to.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Unsanity on February 05, 2014, 11:59:00 pm
I always find weird stuff in old LPs. Never anything valuable though. Weed seeds and stems, Porn DVDs, divorce papers, newspaper clippings. The two most interesting items were a creepy black and white photo of a very old woman inside of Black Sabbath's Vol. 4 and possible homosexual love letter (can't remember what record that was in though)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 06, 2014, 01:20:09 am
Hahahahaha it took me a second to figure out the context of this. I completely agree with you. I just offered a solution to her dilemma.
P.S. This is not musicological. If you want to start a tweet dissection thread, I will be more than happy to address your questions/comments/concerns there.


azag . . . people should feel sad by aspca emails.  that way, they might go and beat the fuck out of people who do shit like having a dog, and keep it in a small ass cage in the back yard, with no life, and even during the most cold it gets outside, they dont bring them inside.  i see this all the time in the country, and i turn away, pretending that im not seeing it.  i wish i had the balls to beat the shit out of people like that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 09:32:26 am
probably ZZ Top

I always find weird stuff in old LPs. Never anything valuable though. Weed seeds and stems, Porn DVDs, divorce papers, newspaper clippings. The two most interesting items were a creepy black and white photo of a very old woman inside of Black Sabbath's Vol. 4 and possible homosexual love letter (can't remember what record that was in though)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on February 06, 2014, 09:38:13 am
I always find weird stuff in old LPs. Never anything valuable though. Weed seeds and stems, Porn DVDs, divorce papers, newspaper clippings. The two most interesting items were a creepy black and white photo of a very old woman inside of Black Sabbath's Vol. 4 and possible homosexual love letter (can't remember what record that was in though)

If I was expecting to find a homosexual love letter in an LP, I'd guess it was probably Bette Midler, Yaz, the Smiths, or the Rollins Band. Something like Torch Song Trilogy or Hedwig would be too obvious. I think those automatically come with gay love letters.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 10:11:16 am
I still say ZZ Top. Gayest band name ever.

I always find weird stuff in old LPs. Never anything valuable though. Weed seeds and stems, Porn DVDs, divorce papers, newspaper clippings. The two most interesting items were a creepy black and white photo of a very old woman inside of Black Sabbath's Vol. 4 and possible homosexual love letter (can't remember what record that was in though)

If I was expecting to find a homosexual love letter in an LP, I'd guess it was probably Bette Midler, Yaz, the Smiths, or the Rollins Band. Something like Torch Song Trilogy or Hedwig would be too obvious. I think those automatically come with gay love letters.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on February 06, 2014, 10:18:23 am
I still say ZZ Top. Gayest band name ever.
Not to mention they take the concept of a mustache ride to absolute extremes. Good call, Rhett.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 06, 2014, 02:36:46 pm
So I was asked by a traveling hip hop MC (who I kind of know) if I knew any good local hip-hop for Baltimore, to add to a show at Club K next week.  I told him "sure" and sent a list of people that I like.  Height, Mighty Mark, Mickey Free, Sam from Future Islands, Glittoris aka Sara of Wing Dam/Which Magic...

He then proceeded to contact Mighty Mark, and book him.  Without listening to his music.  I get a message a bit later saying "oh no. Big Booby Bitch is one of his songs?"  To which i reply "yeah, he is a Bmore Club dude, most of his music will be like that."

To which he replied "We'll survive it. Just have to suspend our feminism for a night."

Anyways this is directed to him but I am not saying it to his face, since I kind of know him:

1.  You didn't listen before you booked him?  That is on you, because you asked me who I LIKED.  No caveats about what type of hip-hop it could be.

2.  Feminists?  I am not a fan of guys who label themselves that.  You are NOT a feminist.  You are a dude who is empathetic to the struggles of females.  ALL males should be this way without trying to label themselves.   SMH

3.  The addition of MM playing (and also Ricky Ray) means that people MIGHT ACTUALLY SHOW UP.  if they werent booked, the show would draw... Maybe 5 people.

Anyways, I thought the whole situation was humorous and thought I would share... (the feminist stuff should be taken with a grain of salt, i really don't care what people label themselves, just thought it was a bit silly)
A nice write up on male feminists:
http://monkeysgonetoheaven.wordpress.com/2013/09/09/is-the-male-feminist-nothing-but-an-oxymoron/
(http://monkeysgonetoheaven.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/fems_large.jpeg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 06, 2014, 04:27:14 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 06, 2014, 04:34:00 pm
On a related feminist note, The two members of Pussy Riot that were recently released from prison have been unceremoniously booted from the collective. (http://pitchfork.com/news/53860-nadia-tolokonnikova-and-masha-alyokhina-no-longer-members-of-pussy-riot/) The letter does make some valid points; the most valid being that appearing at a big corporate orgy like the one that happened last night goes against what they theoretically stand for.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 04:36:24 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 04:48:30 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 06, 2014, 05:02:40 pm
This would make you a male chauvinist.
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 05:09:26 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

okay, return to my initial logic... if some woman wanted to label themselves as a misogynist because they felt like they hated women, why would anyone care?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 05:09:37 pm
Isn't the better thing to say is that you think a child should have a stay at home parent, and in most cases the female is better equipped to be the one who does so? That's my thought on that subject, as well as my wifes.


I don't think saying that makes a person a male or female chauvinist.

Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 05:21:47 pm
Isn't the better thing to say is that you think a child should have a stay at home parent, and in most cases the female is better equipped to be the one who does so? That's my thought on that subject, as well as my wifes.


I don't think saying that makes a person a male or female chauvinist.

Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.  Does that make me a feminist?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 05:22:49 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

okay, return to my initial logic... if some woman wanted to label themselves as a misogynist because they felt like they hated women, why would anyone care?


Would it be OK if I labeled my self a lesbian or would that be annoying?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 05:24:34 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

okay, return to my initial logic... if some woman wanted to label themselves as a misogynist because they felt like they hated women, why would anyone care?


Would it be OK if I labeled my self a lesbian or would that be annoying?

oh go fuck yourself.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 05:26:40 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

okay, return to my initial logic... if some woman wanted to label themselves as a misogynist because they felt like they hated women, why would anyone care?


Would it be OK if I labeled my self a lesbian or would that be annoying?

oh go fuck yourself.

You are a poor loser.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 05:28:04 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

okay, return to my initial logic... if some woman wanted to label themselves as a misogynist because they felt like they hated women, why would anyone care?


Would it be OK if I labeled my self a lesbian or would that be annoying?

oh go fuck yourself.

You are a poor loser.

true, but you changed the rules of the game.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on February 06, 2014, 05:53:54 pm
(http://monkeysgonetoheaven.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/fems_large.jpeg)

A study called ?Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,? which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming ? the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do ? then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn?t just the frequency that was affected, either ? at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband?s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife?s reported sexual satisfaction.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 06:18:29 pm
(http://monkeysgonetoheaven.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/fems_large.jpeg)

A study called ?Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,? which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming ? the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do ? then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn?t just the frequency that was affected, either ? at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband?s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife?s reported sexual satisfaction.

Take note, James Ford.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 06, 2014, 06:25:42 pm
Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.

I did not mean to imply that it cannot exist, I was more making an observation on the absurdity of this rappers claim that he was a feminist rapper.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 06:27:54 pm
Having a partner with good cunnilingus skills also probably helps contribute to a woman's reported sexual satisfaction.

I'm not sure if it factors into this conversation, but has anybody seen the movie Don Jon? My wife had a total boner for JGL's character, not because of his chiseled body, but because he was so obsessive about keeping his apartment clean.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 06, 2014, 06:29:28 pm
Also my main point was music related - he didn't listen to who he booked beforehand.

We can start a male feminist thread...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 06:37:49 pm
You're going to send your kid to daycare so that you can have an Audi? That doesn't make you a feminist, it makes you a bad parent.  ;)


Isn't the better thing to say is that you think a child should have a stay at home parent, and in most cases the female is better equipped to be the one who does so? That's my thought on that subject, as well as my wifes.


I don't think saying that makes a person a male or female chauvinist.

Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.  Does that make me a feminist?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on February 06, 2014, 06:47:18 pm
You're going to send your kid to daycare so that you can have an Audi? That doesn't make you a feminist, it makes you a bad parent.  ;)



never ceases to amaze me how so many of your posts amount to patting yourself on the back for the choices you make...this is one technique: criticizing people who haven't made the same choices you made... people are not bad parents for sending their kids to daycare

you must be very insecure about the choices you make to need to point out their correctness to strangers on a semi-permanent basis..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 06:47:43 pm
 ;)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 06:52:30 pm
So are you saying that putting a baby in daycare (when it's actually a choice) is actually a better parenting decision than having a loving parent stay home with that baby? Because if you are, you're wrong.

You're going to send your kid to daycare so that you can have an Audi? That doesn't make you a feminist, it makes you a bad parent.  ;)



never ceases to amaze me how so many of your posts amount to patting yourself on the back for the choices you make...this is one technique: criticizing people who haven't made the same choices you made... people are not bad parents for sending their kids to daycare

you must be very insecure about the choices you make to need to point out their correctness to strangers on a semi-permanent basis..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 06:54:51 pm
i just want to apologize to everyone for somehow catalyzing the parenting circle jerk again.

back to music: future islands fucking rules.  how did i just discover these guys?  stoked to see them in a few weeks.

also, i ordered after dark 1 and 2 yesterday on clear vinyl.  spotify streaming did these albums zero justice and i'm stoked to blast this shit on high quality.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 06, 2014, 07:04:54 pm
I recommend all Of their albums, and also their releases from when they were known as Art Lords and the Self Portraits.

The members are also in these groups: the snails, peals, archer twins, moss of aura (garret solo) and hemlock Ernst (Sam solo rapping).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 07:11:42 pm
Oh well I will be driving my  new  Audi the three miles to work while you sit on a subway for two hours a day.   If it makes you to feel better about it being good parenting more power to you.


You're going to send your kid to daycare so that you can have an Audi? That doesn't make you a feminist, it makes you a bad parent.  ;)


Isn't the better thing to say is that you think a child should have a stay at home parent, and in most cases the female is better equipped to be the one who does so? That's my thought on that subject, as well as my wifes.


I don't think saying that makes a person a male or female chauvinist.

Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.  Does that make me a feminist?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 07:27:35 pm
Enjoy your ride now, then enjoy your life 30 years from now when your daycare kid puts you in a nursing home.  ;)

Oh well I will be driving my  new  Audi the three miles to work while you sit on a subway for two hours a day.   If it makes you to feel better about it being good parenting more power to you.


You're going to send your kid to daycare so that you can have an Audi? That doesn't make you a feminist, it makes you a bad parent.  ;)


Isn't the better thing to say is that you think a child should have a stay at home parent, and in most cases the female is better equipped to be the one who does so? That's my thought on that subject, as well as my wifes.


I don't think saying that makes a person a male or female chauvinist.

Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.  Does that make me a feminist?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 07:38:58 pm
Sounds like a plan.  If I am so bad that I need to be in a nursing home I doubt I will care where I am.   

Enjoy your ride now, then enjoy your life 30 years from now when your daycare kid puts you in a nursing home.  ;)

Oh well I will be driving my  new  Audi the three miles to work while you sit on a subway for two hours a day.   If it makes you to feel better about it being good parenting more power to you.


You're going to send your kid to daycare so that you can have an Audi? That doesn't make you a feminist, it makes you a bad parent.  ;)


Isn't the better thing to say is that you think a child should have a stay at home parent, and in most cases the female is better equipped to be the one who does so? That's my thought on that subject, as well as my wifes.


I don't think saying that makes a person a male or female chauvinist.

Agree with 1 and 3 but there is nothing in the definition of "feminist" that says that feminists have to be women.


agree.

do we really care that much about what someone labels themselves?  i mean really, if someone cares that much that they are going out of their way to label themselves as such, who are we to tell them "no man, your credentials don't match up". if we don't have a way to label ourselves outside the default (misogynist), i don't see a better alternative to using the label "feminist".


So women can call themselves misogynists?  I don't think that is the default.  Misogynist means you hate women.  You can be anti-feminist without hating women.  For example, you could think women should stay at home raising children but that doesn't mean you hate women. 

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.  Does that make me a feminist?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 07:50:05 pm
listen: no matter how incredible you are at parenting, someone else is going to be a shitty parent. and their shitty kid is eventually going to cross paths with your kid, and bam, your kid is shitty too.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 08:09:56 pm
I'm glad my wife doesn't read this board anymore. If she did, she'd see your comment and use it to further her argument for homeschooling.

So I really like this album.
 http://www.npr.org/2014/01/26/264996373/first-listen-jeremy-messersmith-heart-murmurs

In some pictures, he even vaguely looks like you.

Does that count as a contribution to this thread?

listen: no matter how incredible you are at parenting, someone else is going to be a shitty parent. and their shitty kid is eventually going to cross paths with your kid, and bam, your kid is shitty too.


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 06, 2014, 08:17:19 pm
I'm glad my wife doesn't read this board anymore. If she did, she'd see your comment and use it to further her argument for homeschooling.

So I really like this album.
 http://www.npr.org/2014/01/26/264996373/first-listen-jeremy-messersmith-heart-murmurs

In some pictures, he even vaguely looks like you.

Does that count as a contribution to this thread?

listen: no matter how incredible you are at parenting, someone else is going to be a shitty parent. and their shitty kid is eventually going to cross paths with your kid, and bam, your kid is shitty too.

HH

Only child that is home schooled?  Sounds like a future serial killer.  Every person I have met that has been home schooled has been pretty much insane and has poor personal hygiene. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 08:20:40 pm
That's an argument my wife won't win.  ;D

How many people do you know who were homeschooled? I know only one, and her hygiene is fine. Sanity debateable.

So what do you guys think of the new Marissa Nadler album?


I'm glad my wife doesn't read this board anymore. If she did, she'd see your comment and use it to further her argument for homeschooling.

So I really like this album.
 http://www.npr.org/2014/01/26/264996373/first-listen-jeremy-messersmith-heart-murmurs

In some pictures, he even vaguely looks like you.

Does that count as a contribution to this thread?

listen: no matter how incredible you are at parenting, someone else is going to be a shitty parent. and their shitty kid is eventually going to cross paths with your kid, and bam, your kid is shitty too.

HH

Only child that is home schooled?  Sounds like a future serial killer.  Every person I have met that has been home schooled has been pretty much insane and has poor personal hygiene. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 09:09:03 pm
i only have one home-schooled friend. he plays in one of those awful folk bands, plays one of the yeehaw instruments, wears dumb hats, and in conversation, sounds pretentious at every moment they are provided the opportunity.  don't home school.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 09:26:07 pm
And I apologize if I offended anybody. Child rearing is just something I have strong opinions about, and i'm not good at filtering myself. If what I say offends, don't take it personally and just skip by what I say!

i just want to apologize to everyone for somehow catalyzing the parenting circle jerk again.

back to music: future islands fucking rules.  how did i just discover these guys?  stoked to see them in a few weeks.

also, i ordered after dark 1 and 2 yesterday on clear vinyl.  spotify streaming did these albums zero justice and i'm stoked to blast this shit on high quality.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 06, 2014, 09:26:46 pm
Wow, sounds like a great friend to have around!

i only have one home-schooled friend. he plays in one of those awful folk bands, plays one of the yeehaw instruments, wears dumb hats, and in conversation, sounds pretentious at every moment they are provided the opportunity.  don't home school.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 09:38:54 pm
Wow, sounds like a great friend to have around!

i only have one home-schooled friend. he plays in one of those awful folk bands, plays one of the yeehaw instruments, wears dumb hats, and in conversation, sounds pretentious at every moment they are provided the opportunity.  don't home school.

he's up there with the best of em.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 06, 2014, 09:39:50 pm
I recommend all Of their albums, and also their releases from when they were known as Art Lords and the Self Portraits.

The members are also in these groups: the snails, peals, archer twins, moss of aura (garret solo) and hemlock Ernst (Sam solo rapping).

peals never did it for me... although from seeing the reaction of many on this forum (okay, azag), it seems like there is something more to their live show? and the art lord and the self portraits sound nothing like them! what gives?

i'll work through the rest of these, thanks.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 06, 2014, 09:49:54 pm
http://www.ehserecords.com/ss001/
Archer Twins is William plus Stuart (who runs Ehse Records).  Sadly I skipped the one show I saw advertised a few years back, and I don't know if they played any other shows.

I don't know why Art Lord sounds different, I suppose they just matured their sound over time.  The first two Future Islands albums (Little Advances/wave like home) sound a lot different than their newer ones (In Evening Air/On the Water/Singles (heard all of these songs last year when they played them in an epic 90 minute set)).  I prefer the newer sound but the older songs like Beach Foam are sweet too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on February 07, 2014, 12:16:18 am
i only have one home-schooled friend. he plays in one of those awful folk bands, plays one of the yeehaw instruments, wears dumb hats, and in conversation, sounds pretentious at every moment they are provided the opportunity.  don't home school.

n=1 isn't very convincing.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on February 07, 2014, 12:57:33 am
It takes a real piece of work to write "If I say you are a lousy parent don't take it personally I just feel that way strongly! I'm just not good at not telling you how I honestly feel about your parenting..so please ignore it."

And that is why I will take Brian Wallace over James Ford any day... Brian Wallace will insult you over your views of some musician or other..James Ford does it about what kind of parent you are. That kind of thing should really be off limits... If James Ford or anyone said that to my face I'd beat the crap out of them....



Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 07, 2014, 08:28:35 am
Thanks for your final words on the matter, now here's mine.

If a 50 year old guy who claims to make beaucoup money states on a public message board:

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.

I'm going to call him out on his bad parenting (and spousal) decision.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 07, 2014, 09:40:00 am
Can you guys go start a parenting thread somewhere else?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on February 07, 2014, 09:52:35 am
Can you guys go start a parenting thread somewhere else?
Oh, wait, we already did.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 07, 2014, 10:00:49 am
I wish people would use it. I only read a couple of threads here and having people constantly going off topic is annoying.

Maybe I should go post about video games and movies over and over again in the Beer and Baseball threads.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on February 07, 2014, 10:06:48 am
Maybe I should go post about video games and movies over and over again in the Beer and Baseball threads.
I still say the solution to all this mess is to ban Just Announced.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 07, 2014, 10:25:54 am
Thanks for your final words on the matter, now here's mine.

If a 50 year old guy who claims to make beaucoup money states on a public message board:

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.

I'm going to call him out on his bad parenting (and spousal) decision.


Wait, I am 49.  Second whe did I claim to make beaucup money?  Third, it is a joke. 

That is the difference between my post about how I am better than you guys and your post about how you are better than us. I am joking.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 07, 2014, 10:27:07 am
Maybe I should go post about video games and movies over and over again in the Beer and Baseball threads.
I still say the solution to all this mess is to ban Just Announced.

And ban talk about video games as well.  I think I should make up a list of acceptable discussion points. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 07, 2014, 10:31:26 am
I never said I was better than anybody.

Can I share with you a quote from my wife regarding daycare? And if you think she (or I for respecting and sharing my wife's views), by having these thoughts. am saying I am better than you, well fine. Infer whatever you want.


to me, there's be no other way for a child under one...and possibly 2-3...but no way I would leave a non-walking, non-talking infant who is supposed to be held and cuddled all day and given breastmilk on demand with someone other than me...
It's not the kind of thing I need a study to tell me is good or bad for the child either, as a mother, I just know...and I am actually sad for those who can't or won't stay with their babies...
Anyway, I would have been heartbroken to be with a husband who tried to push me to go back to work before I wanted to


Thanks for your final words on the matter, now here's mine.

If a 50 year old guy who claims to make beaucoup money states on a public message board:

My wife doesn't think she should work after the child is born but hey that new Audi that I want isn't going to pay for itself.

I'm going to call him out on his bad parenting (and spousal) decision.


Wait, I am 49.  Second whe did I claim to make beaucup money?  Third, it is a joke. 

That is the difference between my post about how I am better than you guys and your post about how you are better than us. I am joking.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 07, 2014, 10:35:43 am
Why would be want to talk about video games? We're adults.

I wish people would use it. I only read a couple of threads here and having people constantly going off topic is annoying.

Maybe I should go post about video games and movies over and over again in the Beer and Baseball threads.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 07, 2014, 12:44:59 pm
adults, who cant spell, we.  video games, rule . . . they rule, you marathon runner.  so there.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on February 07, 2014, 12:52:34 pm
I never said I was better than anybody.

Can I share with you a quote from my wife regarding daycare? And if you think she (or I for respecting and sharing my wife's views), by having these thoughts. am saying I am better than you, well fine. Infer whatever you want.


to me, there's be no other way for a child under one...and possibly 2-3...but no way I would leave a non-walking, non-talking infant who is supposed to be held and cuddled all day and given breastmilk on demand with someone other than me...
It's not the kind of thing I need a study to tell me is good or bad for the child either, as a mother, I just know...and I am actually sad for those who can't or won't stay with their babies...
Anyway, I would have been heartbroken to be with a husband who tried to push me to go back to work before I wanted to



As a critical thinking human... the 'as a mother, I just know' is complete and utter bullshit.
Mother's can be just as shitty as anybody.

China Arnold just knew she had to microwave her 28 day old baby daughter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/china-arnold-appeal_n_3948106.html?utm_hp_ref=murder (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/china-arnold-appeal_n_3948106.html?utm_hp_ref=murder)

Sara Krueger just knew she needed to stick her 3 year old in a suitcase before putting her in the freezer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/kayleigh-slusher_n_4726743.html?utm_hp_ref=crime (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/kayleigh-slusher_n_4726743.html?utm_hp_ref=crime)

As a mother, Jennifer Marie Brys knows to pimp her 4 year old daughter on Craig's List.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/jennifer-marie-brys-backpage-sell-4-year-old_n_4181632.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/jennifer-marie-brys-backpage-sell-4-year-old_n_4181632.html)  But in her defense, I'm sure the activities were to take place at home and not in daycare.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 07, 2014, 12:56:22 pm
and azag, wanted me to take my musings on his twitter posts, elsewhere.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 07, 2014, 12:58:12 pm
So four bad apples make any argument a woman who is a mom makes regarding motherhood complete and utter bullshit?

I never said I was better than anybody.

Can I share with you a quote from my wife regarding daycare? And if you think she (or I for respecting and sharing my wife's views), by having these thoughts. am saying I am better than you, well fine. Infer whatever you want.


to me, there's be no other way for a child under one...and possibly 2-3...but no way I would leave a non-walking, non-talking infant who is supposed to be held and cuddled all day and given breastmilk on demand with someone other than me...
It's not the kind of thing I need a study to tell me is good or bad for the child either, as a mother, I just know...and I am actually sad for those who can't or won't stay with their babies...
Anyway, I would have been heartbroken to be with a husband who tried to push me to go back to work before I wanted to



As a critical thinking human... the 'as a mother, I just know' is complete and utter bullshit.
Mother's can be just as shitty as anybody.

China Arnold just knew she had to microwave her 28 day old baby daughter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/china-arnold-appeal_n_3948106.html?utm_hp_ref=murder (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/19/china-arnold-appeal_n_3948106.html?utm_hp_ref=murder)

Sara Krueger just knew she needed to stick her 3 year old in a suitcase before putting her in the freezer.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/kayleigh-slusher_n_4726743.html?utm_hp_ref=crime (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/04/kayleigh-slusher_n_4726743.html?utm_hp_ref=crime)

As a mother, Jennifer Marie Brys knows to pimp her 4 year old daughter on Craig's List.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/jennifer-marie-brys-backpage-sell-4-year-old_n_4181632.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/31/jennifer-marie-brys-backpage-sell-4-year-old_n_4181632.html)  But in her defense, I'm sure the activities were to take place at home and not in daycare.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 07, 2014, 01:01:02 pm
I would be willing to wager a bet that in general when the mother doesn't work the children turn out worse.  Welfare mommies tend to have more kids, live in areas with bad school systems and usually have absent fathers.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 07, 2014, 01:05:31 pm
oh, no, he . . . oh you know where im going with that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on February 07, 2014, 01:06:33 pm
I never said I was better than anybody.

Can I share with you a quote from my wife regarding daycare? And if you think she (or I for respecting and sharing my wife's views), by having these thoughts. am saying I am better than you, well fine. Infer whatever you want.


to me, there's be no other way for a child under one...and possibly 2-3...but no way I would leave a non-walking, non-talking infant who is supposed to be held and cuddled all day and given breastmilk on demand with someone other than me...
It's not the kind of thing I need a study to tell me is good or bad for the child either, as a mother, I just know...and I am actually sad for those who can't or won't stay with their babies...
Anyway, I would have been heartbroken to be with a husband who tried to push me to go back to work before I wanted to



As a critical thinking human... the 'as a mother, I just know' is complete and utter bullshit.
Mother's can be just as shitty as anybody.



Yes, I have seen, first hand and with devastating results, the "but I'm their MOTHER" defense put in to practice.  The discrimination that fathers face because they are not "mothers" is ungodly and unreal.  I'm ranting here...this is off topic.  But mothers do not always know best. 

That said, I'd say it's pretty obvious that the best situation for a newborn, generally speaking, is to spend as much time as possible with the mother, rather than $12/hour baby holders at some daycare somewhere.

Sadly, this is not possible for everyone.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on February 07, 2014, 01:08:47 pm
so we have two threads now fulltime devoted to parenting?

geez
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 07, 2014, 01:10:25 pm
thats what you get . . . for being heterosexual.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 07, 2014, 01:11:04 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUkm78l9xoI

here . . . heres something musical, to ponder.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on February 07, 2014, 01:13:55 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUkm78l9xoI

here . . . heres something musical, to ponder.

Man, the Flaming Lips are so annoying.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on February 07, 2014, 01:35:21 pm
i only have one home-schooled friend. he plays in one of those awful folk bands, plays one of the yeehaw instruments, wears dumb hats, and in conversation, sounds pretentious at every moment they are provided the opportunity.  don't home school.

n=1 isn't very convincing.

we get it, you understand the concept of statistics

what you dont understand is the concept of a joke
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on February 07, 2014, 04:20:49 pm
So four bad apples make any argument a woman who is a mom makes regarding motherhood complete and utter bullshit?

Yes, a woman that justifies their criticism of another's parenting by saying they have popped out a baby is full of complete and utter bullshit.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 07, 2014, 08:52:33 pm
oh darn x-factor got cancelled, when can we cancel Simon Cowell so he can stop destroying popular music...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 08, 2014, 09:05:36 am
Revenge! On The Wikipedia

http://xrrf.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/panic-at-venue.html

Panic At The Disco had to cut short their a Atlanta gig, when the venue's floor started to collapse.

someone took to wikipedia to dish out some snark


During the Panic! At the Disco concert after the second song the building was evacuated due to possible cracking in the floor. People who hailed mostly from the outer boroughs expressed dismay that such a terrible thing could have happened to them, meaning they were slightly discomfited, and expressed no remorse for damaging the structure of a 116 year old building. Many Atlantans offered to drive them back to their far flung homes for free just to remove their potential threat to downtown buildings.

note: to julian don't be getting any idea...

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 08, 2014, 09:08:11 am
Reply moved to appropriate thread in hope of not continuing to derail this one.

So four bad apples make any argument a woman who is a mom makes regarding motherhood complete and utter bullshit?

Yes, a woman that justifies their criticism of another's parenting by saying they have popped out a baby is full of complete and utter bullshit.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 08, 2014, 12:25:36 pm
ratbastard must have been abused severely while utwo played in the background.  like a gitmo form of torture or something.   i have never seen a person hate a band as much as he hates utwo.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 08, 2014, 01:03:05 pm
I know. I really don't understand that one.

I'm not a big fan of U2, but I've never thought of them as a band deserving of hatred.

ratbastard must have been abused severely while utwo played in the background.  like a gitmo form of torture or something.   i have never seen a person hate a band as much as he hates utwo.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 09, 2014, 01:54:14 pm
twerk cobain?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 09, 2014, 05:46:31 pm
Interesting article about the music biz from an artists pov:

http://www.cracked.com/article_20939_7-things-record-deal-teaches-you-about-music-industry.html (http://www.cracked.com/article_20939_7-things-record-deal-teaches-you-about-music-industry.html)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 11, 2014, 10:16:29 pm
How will Ratbastard react to this? An ardent socialist preaching the gospel about Bono. http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/bono-u2-invisible-red-bank-of-america ?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on February 14, 2014, 06:30:25 pm
Had iTunes on random play. For a good couple seconds was thinking 'All Cats Are Grey' by the Cure was Boards of Canada.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on February 20, 2014, 11:28:26 am
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/t1/1781986_10152201648276187_636999069_n.jpg)

Don't remember seeing this one. Most accurate yet.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on February 20, 2014, 04:37:32 pm
(http://gothamist.com/attachments/arts_jen/2recordsdumpter.jpg)

Photos: Tons Of Vinyl Being Tossed From Former Williamsburg Record Shop (http://gothamist.com/2014/02/20/dumpster_full_of_vinyl.php)

Indisputable Fact: If it's on vinyl then it's golden  ::)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 25, 2014, 05:07:42 pm
Twitter is a buzz regarding an Oasis reunion. Best quip I've seen so far is

pros and cons of oasis

Pro no more beady eye
Con Oasis reunites
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 25, 2014, 05:16:18 pm
What needs to happen now is a Noel Gallagher commentary on Vine about the Oasis Instagram announcement
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 25, 2014, 09:22:32 pm
I must be old and out of touch, or just unwilling to accept the ridiculousness that is yet another form of visual entertainment on the internet . . . but i refuse to understand or accept the need of, this thing, called vine.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 25, 2014, 09:38:16 pm
i personnel could care less about vine too, but it's just the perfect platform for Noel to comment on this

http://instagram.com/p/k2fsb8vdIk/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 25, 2014, 11:03:35 pm
Walkies, what do you think about emojis?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 26, 2014, 09:52:35 am
The big announcement was a reissue/box set which includes a tote bag and keychain.  Also a limited edition cassette of demos.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 26, 2014, 10:40:05 am
Walkies, what do you think about emojis?


to be honest, at first, like most of human kind, i found them to be endearing and cute representations of laziness . . . but now, like most of human kind, ive grown tired of their simplistic answers to inane forms of neocommunications.  i guess i should sum up such logic by posting one now, here at the end of this sentence, as some sort of reasonational metaphor, but i wont, because wtf, lolz and omg.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 26, 2014, 10:41:35 am
So cassettes are officially mainstream again.


Blame/thank the noise/DIY/punk communities for that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 26, 2014, 10:45:28 am
i blame, boredom, and spoiled brats everywhere, who need to be homeless eating out of dumpsters for about a month to slap some fucking sense of actual humanity into their wastes of energy.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 26, 2014, 10:47:26 am
Walkies, what do you think about emojis?


to be honest, at first, like most of human kind, i found them to be endearing and cute representations of laziness . . . but now, like most of human kind, ive grown tired of their simplistic answers to inane forms of neocommunications.  i guess i should sum up such logic by posting one now, here at the end of this sentence, as some sort of reasonational metaphor, but i wont, because wtf, lolz and omg.

Well what do you think of my idea to make emoji versions of song lyrics? Cop Killer (https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/438214172284026880) Add it Up intro and verses 1 and 2 (https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/438552474597982208)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 26, 2014, 10:52:26 am
all i see is blank boxes, but then again, all i want to see is blank boxes.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 26, 2014, 10:56:51 am
Do they only work on phones? That's no good.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 26, 2014, 03:57:06 pm
i just joined twitter myself, after a long battle of you must not join because it is dumb.  but i get excited thinking about stuff to tweet, and i dont, know even why.  i actually hang my head in shame that i am having to watch a youtube video on how to get the finer aspects of understanding the whole thing, because besides typing in a ridiculous inane comment every so often, i dont really know what i am doing.  good lord, it sounds, like me here.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on February 26, 2014, 04:57:35 pm
From spin.com (http://spin.com)
State's Most Popular Music Not As Popular Anywhere Else (aggregated from streaming sites).

(http://musicmachinery.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/distinctive_artist_map-2.png?w=620&h=437)

The source website also has charts to confirm young people listen to shitty music.
http://musicmachinery.com/ (http://musicmachinery.com/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on February 26, 2014, 05:02:03 pm
I saw that the other day and thought some of them were really weird.  Kurt Vile for Oregon?  Edward Sharpe for PA?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on February 26, 2014, 05:13:55 pm
That map is highly misleading...

Another caveat: The map only shows, as Lumere puts it, "the top most distinctive popular artist for a state that hasn't already been selected for a more populous state."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 26, 2014, 05:19:15 pm
Highly misleading or not PA and DE have a lot to answer for.  And who knew Idaho has become a hot bed for alternative lifestyles. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on February 26, 2014, 05:25:11 pm
That map is highly misleading...

Another caveat: The map only shows, as Lumere puts it, "the top most distinctive popular artist for a state that hasn't already been selected for a more populous state."

Yeah, I was trying to figure out with this rational if there are still more people listening to Tegan and Sara in California than Idaho.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 26, 2014, 05:34:21 pm
I saw that the other day and thought some of them were really weird.  Kurt Vile for Oregon?  Edward Sharpe for PA?

Lot of colleges in PA.  I never heard of Kelly Rowland.  I guess it was smart for Sufjan Stevens to name an album after Illinois. Metric in Minnesota is probably due to Illegal Alien Canadians coming down.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on February 26, 2014, 07:49:11 pm
somebody told me that sufjan wanted to name an album after every state . . . i wonder how true that is?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 26, 2014, 10:07:37 pm
The Yo La Tengo WFMU covers show is on.

Basically, if you donate $100 or more to WFMU, Yo La Tengo will play any cover you ask them to play.

https://www.wfmu.org/marathon/pledge.php?pr=ED
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 26, 2014, 11:01:32 pm
Just put in a request for Swell Maps' Cakeshop Girl. Let's see what happens.

http://wfmu.org
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on February 27, 2014, 10:27:10 am
Perhaps this map is more telling. And more depressing.

http://m.motherjones.com/mixed-media/2014/02/map-does-not-show-what-your-states-favorite-band

(http://m.motherjones.com/files/fav_artist_map-4.png)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on February 27, 2014, 11:27:59 am
somebody told me that sufjan wanted to name an album after every state . . . i wonder how true that is?

It isn't working out at all.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on February 27, 2014, 10:23:04 pm
(http://musicmachinery.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/distinctive_artist_map-2.png?w=620&h=437)

The most believable one here is Arizona.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on February 28, 2014, 11:04:40 am
(http://musicmachinery.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/distinctive_artist_map-2.png?w=620&h=437)

The most believable one here is Arizona.

I'd add Verhampshire.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on February 28, 2014, 11:07:31 am
Listening to a Smiths/Lana Del Rey mashup right now called "This Charming Video Game." It actually works surprisingly well.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on February 28, 2014, 12:17:03 pm
Listening to a Smiths/Lana Del Rey mashup right now called "This Charming Video Game." It actually works surprisingly well.

Link? This seems right up my alley.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Ardamus on February 28, 2014, 03:12:41 pm
(http://musicmachinery.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/distinctive_artist_map-2.png?w=620&h=437)

The most believable one here is Arizona.


True. But AWOLNATION being Utah is a bit of a stretch. LOL. They got Florida right with Rick Ross.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 03, 2014, 02:13:32 am
Listening to a Smiths/Lana Del Rey mashup right now called "This Charming Video Game." It actually works surprisingly well.

Link? This seems right up my alley.

Here ya go. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yd0zpEMF5sI)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 03, 2014, 08:13:57 pm
http://www.newnownext.com/beyonces-drunk-in-love-emoji-music-video-is-a-masterpiece-watch/03/2014/

somebody, must have been, reading azags twitter.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 04, 2014, 10:49:58 pm
http://www.newnownext.com/beyonces-drunk-in-love-emoji-music-video-is-a-masterpiece-watch/03/2014/

somebody, must have been, reading azags twitter.

yeah azags and i have been bested by Beyonce once again....

but i did get re-tweeted by Belle and Sebastian for my first attempt...  (small victory)

https://twitter.com/kosmo_wren/status/438825833869082624



 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 04, 2014, 11:20:58 pm
http://www.newnownext.com/beyonces-drunk-in-love-emoji-music-video-is-a-masterpiece-watch/03/2014/

somebody, must have been, reading azags twitter.

yeah azags and i have been bested by Beyonce once again....

but i did get re-tweeted by Belle and Sebastian for my first attempt...  (small victory)

https://twitter.com/kosmo_wren/status/438825833869082624



 

http://www.avclub.com/article/text-me-ishmael-an-allemoji-translation-of-herman-105760
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 05, 2014, 11:13:00 am
i do so enjoy reading both your twitters of perspective, meaning azag and kosmo.  i am such a novice to the world of twitter, and seem to want to use it for the notices of advancement and potential option opportunities of work relating to writing, be so if there is any.  to me, life is nothing more than advancement, which can be sad, if you wish upon a star for too long.  what, in your technoinfinite wisdom is the best way for me to learn the ins and outs of twitter and are there secrets to steering the people you want, who you consider contemporaries and hands to help rock your cradle further along, to your twitter feeds?  im sure there are articles or youtube videos out there somewhere which have these answers, or maybe profound practice is a better option . . . but i feel asking the sources of those who seem to be so very proficient in the art of the one hundred forty, would be my first best stop.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 05, 2014, 09:49:24 pm
honestly twitter is mainly about bragging, hoping for the occasional retweet and getting a response from some one well known.  i follow far to many 90s UK bands, funk groups and labels.  i probably follow far to many verify accounts and not enough of ordinary folk like myself. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 05, 2014, 09:58:16 pm
Well this should spark an interesting debate... Someone did the analysis of Pitchfork scores verses the number of time that review was shared on Facebook determine was hipster and was "bro".  And here are results

http://priceonomics.com/the-hipster-music-index/

(http://pix-media.s3.amazonaws.com/blog/627/ScreenShot2014-03-04at11.28.50AM.png)

Least obscure and topping the "Beer Me Bro" Music Index is The National.

Most obscure and topping the "you?ve probably never heard of them" music index is The Field.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 06, 2014, 03:14:09 pm
Why is the bro artist the National?  Wouldnt it be Kanye West?  He has a lot more shares... Same with MBV. 

Or are you basing that on the National having a slightly lower score? 

And is the Field "you never heard of them" or "nobody gives a shit enough to share the pitchfork writeup on them"? 

Who shares pitchfork reviews? 

And what is a "bro" and a "hipster" in your own words?

Edit:
Oh i see the "bro me" index on the article... strange

Edit2: MBV isnt hipster approved?  Nobody told the crowd of hipsters in Philly last year that they shouldnt be there...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on March 18, 2014, 11:48:41 am
http://thetalkhouse.com/reviews/view/peter-holsapple-foster-the-people

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 18, 2014, 12:13:19 pm
^I noticed that earlier but have yet to read. Talk about a bizarre combination.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on March 18, 2014, 12:34:22 pm
Why is the bro artist the National?  Wouldnt it be Kanye West?  He has a lot more shares... Same with MBV. 

Or are you basing that on the National having a slightly lower score? 

And is the Field "you never heard of them" or "nobody gives a shit enough to share the pitchfork writeup on them"? 

Who shares pitchfork reviews? 

And what is a "bro" and a "hipster" in your own words?

Edit:
Oh i see the "bro me" index on the article... strange

Edit2: MBV isnt hipster approved?  Nobody told the crowd of hipsters in Philly last year that they shouldnt be there...

The thing is stupid.  Arcade Fire isn't a bro band.   Not that there is anything wrong with being a Bro band.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 18, 2014, 04:35:32 pm
Hard to tell who is and is not a bro band without going to one of their shows. I think Roomrunner are becoming a bro band, for instance. I talked about that a little in this thing I made for a couple friends' webzine. (http://www.fvckthemedia.com/issue30/shooting-in-the)


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 18, 2014, 07:15:29 pm
I've been to ten or more roomrunner shows. Most are not so bro. It was the fact that they had a keg of free beer And most of the crowd was from bel air and friends with at least Brett. And it was only five bros most of the crowd was fine.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on March 18, 2014, 07:44:34 pm
I've been to ten or more roomrunner shows. Most are not so bro. It was the fact that they had a keg of free beer And most of the crowd was from bel air and friends with at least Brett. And it was only five bros most of the crowd was fine.

bel air? wow i do like me some bel air... home of the all american girl anne samuel... 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 19, 2014, 07:33:36 am
Yeah I've been to quite a few myself and that was the only one like that. Hopefully I jumped to conclusions in that last post.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on March 19, 2014, 12:20:51 pm
No clue where this post should go, but what are the usual set times at Ottobar on a Saturday?

cc: atomic, az, kilsally
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 19, 2014, 01:01:12 pm
It depends on how many bands are playing.  I have been to shows as early as 7 pm and as late as 10 pm for the first band.  They are pretty good about posting set times on Facebook and Twitter; and they usually reply on either when asked about a specific show.  Which show are you asking about?

If it is for the Deen Ween show it would probably go;
8 - doors
845 - THE PILTDOWN MEN
930 - SATELLITE HEARTS
1030 - THE DEAN WEEN GROUP

Or maybe DWG at 11 and SH at 945.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Vas Deferens on March 19, 2014, 01:21:07 pm
Between 10:30 and 11 pm is a good guess for Dean Ween. Ottobar is usually on time.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on March 19, 2014, 01:54:41 pm
thanks!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 19, 2014, 09:10:23 pm
Why Wye Oak dropped the guitar:
http://www.elle.com/news/culture/sxsw-wye-oak
Quote
What was the most empowering part of that process, trouncing writer's block?

Just the realization that the fate of this band was in my hands. It was a good thing, though, because I honestly thought that the fact that I couldn't write any more guitar songs meant that Wye Oak wouldn't exist. The most empowering thing I can imagine was realizing that the band could be whatever I'd want it to be. All told, it's about the songs themselves, and whatever path I take to get to those songs, and however I decide to dress them up aesthetically, that's the heart of it. It's always been about the songs themselves.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 20, 2014, 07:42:06 pm
It totally made my day to find out that Andy Partridge turned an offer to join the Pat Travers band and Colin Moulding turned down an offer to tour as bass player with Pink Floyd. Andy has been setting some XTC facts straight via twitter of late. https://twitter.com/xtcfans
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 24, 2014, 01:05:24 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on March 24, 2014, 01:13:22 pm
Even the NY Times critics think change is bad:

"So when Macklemore bests Mr. Lamar ? and Jay Z, Drake and Kanye West ? for a rap Grammy award, he makes sure that he kisses the ring. ?I robbed you? is a strikingly powerful phrase in this context: a white artist?s muscling into a historically black genre, essentially uninvited, and taking its laurel. In a nutshell, this is the entire cycle of racial borrowing in an environment of white privilege: black art, white appropriation, white guilt, repeat until there?s nothing left to appropriate."

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 24, 2014, 01:43:55 pm
Homophobic, totally.


Whether or not he is being racist is definitely debatable. White people have been culturally appropriating music made by African Americans and not fairly giving them credit since at least the 20's if not earlier. Then there is Orientalism which has been going on for much longer.


So yeah, Hard to blame him for at least being a little wary of white appropriation (it happened a long time ago and these arguments are about 20 years too late though).
The homophobic stuff is inexcusable, however.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 24, 2014, 02:07:06 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)

Use the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" rule. If I said this same thing about African-American neuvo-riche "watering down" my yacht club, I'd get banned from here.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 24, 2014, 02:44:31 pm
The moment when the misappropriation of rap by white people was complete (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8aqAgtwqcU)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on March 24, 2014, 03:50:17 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)

Use the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" rule. If I said this same thing about African-American neuvo-riche "watering down" my yacht club, I'd get banned from here.

Mon dieu, Julian!

"Nouveau" - not "neuvo"

Also, "en" route, not "on" route.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on March 24, 2014, 03:51:52 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)

Use the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" rule. If I said this same thing about African-American neuvo-riche "watering down" my yacht club, I'd get banned from here.

Mon dieu, Julian!

"Nouveau" - not "neuvo"

Also, "en" route, not "on" route.

PWNT
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 24, 2014, 03:52:27 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)

Use the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" rule. If I said this same thing about African-American neuvo-riche "watering down" my yacht club, I'd get banned from here.

Mon dieu, Julian!

"Nouveau" - not "neuvo"

Also, "en" route, not "on" route.
I've commented on this several times. I can only use voice to text. It's spotty at best.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on March 24, 2014, 03:57:34 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)

Use the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" rule. If I said this same thing about African-American neuvo-riche "watering down" my yacht club, I'd get banned from here.

Mon dieu, Julian!

"Nouveau" - not "neuvo"

Also, "en" route, not "on" route.
I've commented on this several times. I can only use voice to text. It's spotty at best.

And your voice to text program defaults to Estonian?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neuvo
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 24, 2014, 04:02:19 pm
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2014/03/lord-jamar-rap-hip-hop-conservative.html

Is Mr Lord Jamar racist and homophobic, or does he have a point?  Should hip-hop stay in the realm of only alpha male black dudes?  Are white rappers, white fans, and gay rappers watering down the whiskey?  is he just old and out of touch with the times?  isnt change good?  Should that culture  limit itself to one thing, or should it be adaptive?

(my thoughts are: the more diverse the voices, the more diverse the product. Hip hop and all genres of music should be for all mankind, NOT just one group of people)

Use the "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" rule. If I said this same thing about African-American neuvo-riche "watering down" my yacht club, I'd get banned from here.

Mon dieu, Julian!

"Nouveau" - not "neuvo"

Also, "en" route, not "on" route.
I've commented on this several times. I can only use voice to text. It's spotty at best.

And your voice to text program defaults to Estonian?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/neuvo
I don't know how these things work. I never claimed to be some sort of technology guru, go ask van smack about that. I'm a fashion and culture Guru.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on March 24, 2014, 04:20:57 pm
I'm a fashion and culture Guru.
Aka...
(http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/17mrhckqxxywmjpg.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on March 24, 2014, 05:27:01 pm
"50 Incredibly Tough Albums for Extreme Listeners (http://flavorwire.com/434857/50-incredibly-tough-albums-for-extreme-listeners/view-all/)"

Oooohhhh!!! Look at this tough guy list...  ::)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 24, 2014, 06:15:31 pm
What a lazy list.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 25, 2014, 09:26:56 am
can't argue with his description of Death Grips ? No Love Deep Web

"An aural experience best approximated as being punched in the head repeatedly by an intimidatingly large man."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 25, 2014, 09:59:43 am
If death grips actually show up for their own gigs
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 25, 2014, 10:14:49 am
Chris Ott is not a big St. Vincent fan. http://ask.fm/shallowrewards/answer/109645018719
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on March 25, 2014, 02:59:09 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 25, 2014, 04:06:32 pm
Good article about the corporate media's cozy relationship with indie-rock and punk nowadays. Perfect Pussy was used as an example but that's just one of dozens. http://adhoc.fm/post/consensus-perfect-pussy-say-yes-love/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 25, 2014, 05:57:52 pm
when i think st.vincent . . . i think good looking, talented, artist, smart, femme fatale.  when i think chris ott . . . i think, who in the fuck is that?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 25, 2014, 06:02:29 pm
Yeah I disagree too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on March 25, 2014, 06:11:36 pm
when i think st.vincent . . . i think good looking, talented, artist, smart, femme fatale.  when i think chris ott . . . i think, who in the fuck is that?

When I think of St Vincent I think geez XMU overplays that lady.  I do like her first album.  Never heard of Chris Ott either. 

Edit:  Did a search on Chris Ott and nothing came up other than linked in links.  Who the f is he?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on March 25, 2014, 06:50:03 pm
http://www.smithsonianchannel.com/sc/web/show/3397952/blondies-new-york

Cool documentary on the recording of Blondie's Parallel Lines currently running on the Smithsonian Channel.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on March 25, 2014, 07:45:41 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D

And now they're deleting posts on their page that call them out (none by me).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 25, 2014, 09:00:40 pm
when i think st.vincent . . . i think good looking, talented, artist, smart, femme fatale.  when i think chris ott . . . i think, who in the fuck is that?

When I think of St Vincent I think geez XMU overplays that lady.  I do like her first album.  Never heard of Chris Ott either. 

Edit:  Did a search on Chris Ott and nothing came up other than linked in links.  Who the f is he?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJvIi_GZo1c

Also used to write for Pitchfork and The Village Voice some time back.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 25, 2014, 09:04:08 pm
that hat . . . says it all.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 26, 2014, 01:25:52 pm
Good article about the corporate media's cozy relationship with indie-rock and punk nowadays. Perfect Pussy was used as an example but that's just one of dozens. http://adhoc.fm/post/consensus-perfect-pussy-say-yes-love/
vas what are your thoughts on Perfect Pussy? I forget...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Stillwater on March 26, 2014, 07:00:26 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D

And now they're deleting posts on their page that call them out (none by me).

Slappy Maxwell
You did not write 'Elastic Man'! The Great MES has a posse!
Change your name you cunts!


The Fall - band That worthless piece of Shit band hasn't been together for years.. so like I said fuck off Ass Hole
Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago

The Fall - band Fuck off Ass Hole!!!
Like · Reply · 13 minutes ago
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 26, 2014, 11:25:37 pm
http://springsteen.bandcamp.com/

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 27, 2014, 11:45:50 am
Are there two bands named the Fall?  Are they from different countries? 

Don't forget there are two Nirvanas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_%28British_band%29
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 27, 2014, 12:57:11 pm
The British Fall have been around almost 40 years.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 27, 2014, 12:58:46 pm
OK. 

British Nirvana started in 1965, twenty plus years before Nirvana of Seattle started.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 27, 2014, 01:00:59 pm
See also Bush:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_%28band%29

it depends on who owns the rights to the name and where.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 27, 2014, 01:12:25 pm
There's also Ceremony.



But The Fall are pretty much an institution at this point.

I have an excuse to put this here now. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05-ytS6ALLA)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on March 27, 2014, 04:12:56 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D

And now they're deleting posts on their page that call them out (none by me).

Slappy Maxwell
You did not write 'Elastic Man'! The Great MES has a posse!
Change your name you cunts!


The Fall - band That worthless piece of Shit band hasn't been together for years.. so like I said fuck off Ass Hole
Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago

The Fall - band Fuck off Ass Hole!!!
Like · Reply · 13 minutes ago

It took them a good 24 hours to figure out how to block me. It was fun while it lasted.

"The Fall - band March 13 · Edited
Our lead vocalist JD Davis somewhere in the backwoods of OKLAHOMA with a prize pig!
You can take the boy out the country....but you sure can't take the country out the boy!!"

Slappy Maxwell
I bet he swiped it from another hunter.
Like · Reply · 18 hours ago

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 27, 2014, 05:12:18 pm
http://springsteen.bandcamp.com/
I don't get why this one would be a problem.  Sure Bruce is called by his last name a lot, and sure he is the most famous of anyone with that name.  But, I don't see why a band cant call themselves Springsteen.  What about a band called Jackson?  or Dion?  Or Buckley?  Or Diamond?  Or Wilson?  Or Jagger?  Or Duff?  Or Simpson?  Or Spears?  or any last name?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 27, 2014, 05:19:09 pm
http://springsteen.bandcamp.com/
I don't get why this one would be a problem.  Sure Bruce is called by his last name a lot, and sure he is the most famous of anyone with that name.  But, I don't see why a band cant call themselves Springsteen.  What about a band called Jackson?  or Dion?  Or Buckley?  Or Diamond?  Or Wilson?  Or Jagger?  Or Duff?  Or Simpson?  Or Spears?  or any last name?

It's not a problem. I just thought it was funny. A friend of a friend is in that band. And the timing with this Fall thing was perfect.


Also, Springsteen did it on purpose because they also find it funny. "The Fall" just seem unaware of the existence of an established band with that name.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on March 27, 2014, 09:13:39 pm
http://springsteen.bandcamp.com/
I don't get why this one would be a problem.  Sure Bruce is called by his last name a lot, and sure he is the most famous of anyone with that name.  But, I don't see why a band cant call themselves Springsteen.  What about a band called Jackson?  or Dion?  Or Buckley?  Or Diamond?  Or Wilson?  Or Jagger?  Or Duff?  Or Simpson?  Or Spears?  or any last name?

"Bruce Springsteen" was trademarked only last year, but not simply "Springsteen". Anybody can try to trademark their name but it's difficult and expensive and it may be rejected anyway, especially if it's a common name or if there's little evidence of need. The KC Fall would probably be rejected, even if The Fall have never trademarked their name, because The Fall have had an extensive and substantial reach under that name. There is a trademark for "The Fall" but it's for a clothing line; it's okay because it's substantially different from the band's business.

Just now randomly playing: The Fall "Creep" (Peel session).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on March 27, 2014, 09:58:07 pm
http://springsteen.bandcamp.com/
I don't get why this one would be a problem.  Sure Bruce is called by his last name a lot, and sure he is the most famous of anyone with that name.  But, I don't see why a band cant call themselves Springsteen.  What about a band called Jackson?  or Dion?  Or Buckley?  Or Diamond?  Or Wilson?  Or Jagger?  Or Duff?  Or Simpson?  Or Spears?  or any last name?

See "Handsome" Dick Manitoba vs. Caribou (fka Manitoba)

http://exclaim.ca/Features/OnTheCover/caribou-math_psychedelia_ass_named_handsome



Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 27, 2014, 10:04:48 pm
More locally, our boy Fico had a shitty warped tour band squat on their name Cartel until they'd pushed them outta that space. Changing to Cedars really seemed to stymie their momentum.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 27, 2014, 10:40:49 pm
Always add colors.

Black Springsteen

Yellow Cartel



Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 27, 2014, 10:42:42 pm
Pink Perfect Pussy


Hiyooooooooooooo!!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on March 27, 2014, 10:45:12 pm
I was thinking

Perfect Boy Pussy

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x4iBBfEHNaE
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 27, 2014, 10:49:05 pm
Always add colors.

Black Springsteen

Yellow Cartel




His Cartel was first, though.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 27, 2014, 10:50:07 pm
Pink Perfect Pussy


Hiyooooooooooooo!!

Pink TacocaT
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 27, 2014, 10:59:37 pm
Dammit, kids, why can't you guys be more like this all the time? This is some quality posting!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 27, 2014, 11:00:04 pm
Pink taco cat, ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 27, 2014, 11:11:38 pm
Band consisting of one male singer/4 women playing drums/guitar/bass/keys called Protruding Penis.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on March 28, 2014, 11:10:32 am
<a href="http://lacienegasmiled.tumblr.com/post/77598143356/as-jackson-couldnt-fluently-play-any-instruments:>Mind blown.[/url] I had no idea. Make sure you click on the "listen" link. 

As [Michael] Jackson couldn?t fluently play any instruments, he would sing and beatbox out how he wanted his songs to sound by himself on tape, layering the vocals, harmonies and rhythm before having instrumentalists come in to complete the songs...

We called in a guitar player, and Michael sang every note of every chord to him. ?here?s the first chord first note, second note, third note. Here?s the second chord first note, second note, third note?, etc., etc.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on March 28, 2014, 11:22:34 am
Nice little interview with the guy who founded Hopscotch (http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/2014/03/a-chat-with-the-entrepreneur-behind-raleighs.html)


Lineup soon I guess!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on March 28, 2014, 12:55:22 pm
<a href="http://lacienegasmiled.tumblr.com/post/77598143356/as-jackson-couldnt-fluently-play-any-instruments:>Mind blown.[/url] I had no idea. Make sure you click on the "listen" link. 

As [Michael] Jackson couldn?t fluently play any instruments, he would sing and beatbox out how he wanted his songs to sound by himself on tape, layering the vocals, harmonies and rhythm before having instrumentalists come in to complete the songs...

We called in a guitar player, and Michael sang every note of every chord to him. ?here?s the first chord first note, second note, third note. Here?s the second chord first note, second note, third note?, etc., etc.



wow.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 28, 2014, 06:21:04 pm
but nows he dead because he was an out of control junkie . . . so theres that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on March 28, 2014, 06:47:54 pm
but nows he dead because he was an out of control junkie . . . so theres that.


i think "junkie" is completely the wrong word walkie though maybe it makes you feel better to put him down that way....he took a lot of legally prescribed meds and obtained some precription meds through doctors that probably should not have written the scrips.......he wasn't really into illicit drugs... michael a coke or heroin junkie? not really although he probably tried everything in the culture of the 70s...

and what would his drug problems have to do with his musical talent anyways? why even bring it up?



Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 28, 2014, 07:08:11 pm
i love michael and love most, if not all of his songs.  i grew up on michael.  his videos are still, untouchable.  i had the stupid jacket as a kid.  i tried to dance like michael.  and yes, he was, a junkie.  in more ways, than just, drugs.  i brought it up, because drugs always ruin, the great ones.  sad.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 30, 2014, 05:52:29 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/54568-the-flaming-lips-releasing-companion-album-to-pink-floyds-the-dark-side-of-the-moon/

i would love to have a honest mindful discussion about the flaming lips one day on here with some people who have such opinions about the flaming lips requiring words to express it.  i feel that they were (once) good, maybe even (twice) legendary, but somehow, now, they have devolved, into a thing that is more interested in gimmick over substance.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: chaz on April 01, 2014, 01:36:49 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D

And now they're deleting posts on their page that call them out (none by me).

Slappy Maxwell
You did not write 'Elastic Man'! The Great MES has a posse!
Change your name you cunts!


The Fall - band That worthless piece of Shit band hasn't been together for years.. so like I said fuck off Ass Hole
Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago

The Fall - band Fuck off Ass Hole!!!
Like · Reply · 13 minutes ago

It took them a good 24 hours to figure out how to block me. It was fun while it lasted.

"The Fall - band March 13 · Edited
Our lead vocalist JD Davis somewhere in the backwoods of OKLAHOMA with a prize pig!
You can take the boy out the country....but you sure can't take the country out the boy!!"

Slappy Maxwell
I bet he swiped it from another hunter.
Like · Reply · 18 hours ago


i'm enjoying trolling them
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on April 01, 2014, 01:41:29 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/54568-the-flaming-lips-releasing-companion-album-to-pink-floyds-the-dark-side-of-the-moon/

i would love to have a honest mindful discussion about the flaming lips one day on here with some people who have such opinions about the flaming lips requiring words to express it.  i feel that they were (once) good, maybe even (twice) legendary, but somehow, now, they have devolved, into a thing that is more interested in gimmick over substance.

in the words of my friend Hutch, they're done!!!!!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on April 01, 2014, 01:48:03 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D

And now they're deleting posts on their page that call them out (none by me).

Slappy Maxwell
You did not write 'Elastic Man'! The Great MES has a posse!
Change your name you cunts!


The Fall - band That worthless piece of Shit band hasn't been together for years.. so like I said fuck off Ass Hole
Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago

The Fall - band Fuck off Ass Hole!!!
Like · Reply · 13 minutes ago

It took them a good 24 hours to figure out how to block me. It was fun while it lasted.

"The Fall - band March 13 · Edited
Our lead vocalist JD Davis somewhere in the backwoods of OKLAHOMA with a prize pig!
You can take the boy out the country....but you sure can't take the country out the boy!!"

Slappy Maxwell
I bet he swiped it from another hunter.
Like · Reply · 18 hours ago


i'm enjoying trolling them


It's funny that they say that they've tried to contact The Fall but so far no success. No reply is necessary; the problem will take care of itself. These guys might get a few gigs around KC but nowhere else. They would probably have trouble getting recordings pressed, and none of the digital services will take them with that name. If they're at all serious they'll change their name soon.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 01, 2014, 03:19:50 pm
This is fucking adorable: The Fall - band (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)  :D

And now they're deleting posts on their page that call them out (none by me).

Slappy Maxwell
You did not write 'Elastic Man'! The Great MES has a posse!
Change your name you cunts!


The Fall - band That worthless piece of Shit band hasn't been together for years.. so like I said fuck off Ass Hole
Like · Reply · 11 minutes ago

The Fall - band Fuck off Ass Hole!!!
Like · Reply · 13 minutes ago

It took them a good 24 hours to figure out how to block me. It was fun while it lasted.

"The Fall - band March 13 · Edited
Our lead vocalist JD Davis somewhere in the backwoods of OKLAHOMA with a prize pig!
You can take the boy out the country....but you sure can't take the country out the boy!!"

Slappy Maxwell
I bet he swiped it from another hunter.
Like · Reply · 18 hours ago


i'm enjoying trolling them


It's funny that they say that they've tried to contact The Fall but so far no success. No reply is necessary; the problem will take care of itself. These guys might get a few gigs around KC but nowhere else. They would probably have trouble getting recordings pressed, and none of the digital services will take them with that name. If they're at all serious they'll change their name soon.

There is a band called the Fall without Mark E. Smith in it?  Is Brix Smith in the band? If not they need to change the name.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 01, 2014, 06:52:12 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/54568-the-flaming-lips-releasing-companion-album-to-pink-floyds-the-dark-side-of-the-moon/

i would love to have a honest mindful discussion about the flaming lips one day on here with some people who have such opinions about the flaming lips requiring words to express it.  i feel that they were (once) good, maybe even (twice) legendary, but somehow, now, they have devolved, into a thing that is more interested in gimmick over substance.

in the words of my friend Hutch, they're done!!!!!

It would appear it's part of elaborate prank that a bunch of music sites fell for.  It was released on Funny Or Die today.

 http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/c7562ab266/flaming-side-of-the-moon-studio-session

And Fred Armisen joining the flaming lips is pretty funny...

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/a5c3a11daa/fred-armisen-joins-the-flaming-lips
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 02, 2014, 01:39:00 pm
men in lipstick, will yell at you

http://pitchfork.com/news/54626-the-cures-robert-smith-rips-into-sad-bitter-guardian-critic-with-lengthy-all-caps-screeds/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on April 02, 2014, 10:48:52 pm
might want to catch this next  trilogy tour (http://pitchfork.com/news/53815-the-cure-plan-new-record-live-dvds-another-album-trilogy-tour/)
This one will feature The Top, The Head on the Door, and Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 08:06:19 am
might want to catch this next  trilogy tour (http://pitchfork.com/news/53815-the-cure-plan-new-record-live-dvds-another-album-trilogy-tour/)
This one will feature The Top, The Head on the Door, and Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me.

Might??


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 03, 2014, 10:31:20 am
might want to catch this next  trilogy tour (http://pitchfork.com/news/53815-the-cure-plan-new-record-live-dvds-another-album-trilogy-tour/)
This one will feature The Top, The Head on the Door, and Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me.

Oh my favorite three albums by them. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on April 03, 2014, 11:35:46 am
might want to catch this next  trilogy tour (http://pitchfork.com/news/53815-the-cure-plan-new-record-live-dvds-another-album-trilogy-tour/)
This one will feature The Top, The Head on the Door, and Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me.

Might??

Ok most certainly, but they will probably play the LUBE and I won't want to go
last time I saw them was Disintegration
Then there was the time....that Hutch bought tickets to see them at the Nissan in the 90's and forgot about it until the next day!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 04:55:36 pm
might want to catch this next  trilogy tour (http://pitchfork.com/news/53815-the-cure-plan-new-record-live-dvds-another-album-trilogy-tour/)
This one will feature The Top, The Head on the Door, and Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me.

Might??

Ok most certainly, but they will probably play the LUBE and I won't want to go
last time I saw them was Disintegration
Then there was the time....that Hutch bought tickets to see them at the Nissan in the 90's and forgot about it until the next day!

wasn't that patriot center?..

yah..way the fuck embarassing....still haven't seen them....

robert smith sounds phenomenal.. he's got some of the old classic band members back.... and he'll play a four hour show about 45 songs

to me it sounds like a must see..

note last time cure played area it was MPP as part of i think curiosa so i don't see them playing the lube.... i think they would go through IMP and do MPP again
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on April 03, 2014, 05:04:53 pm
note last time cure played area it was MPP

last time played MPP was 2004.... played Patriot Center 2008.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 03, 2014, 05:05:57 pm
i love shows at patriot . . . i dont know why, but i do.  loved white stripes, beck, cure, furthur.  so easy to get into and out of.  plus i can stop at that dennys on the way out.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 03, 2014, 05:34:21 pm
note last time cure played area it was MPP

last time played MPP was 2004.... played Patriot Center 2008.

They played MPP in 1986.  The third time I saw them. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 05:34:50 pm
note last time cure played area it was MPP

last time played MPP was 2004.... played Patriot Center 2008.

I stand corrected...thats how little i been paying attention to the Cure..


but these Trilogy shows  some even with tolhurst and i don't know who else are interesting to me...nostalgia i guess

they are playing 4 hour plus shows its crazy....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 05:38:18 pm
i love shows at patriot . . . i dont know why, but i do.  loved white stripes, beck, cure, furthur.  so easy to get into and out of.  plus i can stop at that dennys on the way out.

if the reason you love a venue is cause of how far its from your home/convenient to get to or hate a venue is cause its far i think you should just keep your thoughts to yourself cause they have nothing to say to anybody else.

the ottobar is a bitch for me to get to....doesn't mean its not great... what a nice place to see a band... friendly staff, cheap beer, easy as pie parking...the kind of place you meet the band after the show in the lot right next to it...

the patriot center is close to me..doesnt mean the sound doesn't usually suck.. or that it isn't a colorless place with zero personality...talk about a boring venue..not to mention campus security always fun...

objectivty. try it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on April 03, 2014, 05:48:51 pm
if the reason you love a venue is cause of how far its from your home/convenient to get to or hate a venue is cause its far i think you should just keep your thoughts to yourself cause they have nothing to say to anybody else.

...

objectivty. try it.
Says the guy who is famous for ranting about "natural DC shows" in response to a concert he wanted to attend skipping his town...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 03, 2014, 06:31:14 pm
i love shows at patriot . . . i dont know why, but i do.  loved white stripes, beck, cure, furthur.  so easy to get into and out of.  plus i can stop at that dennys on the way out.

if the reason you love a venue is cause of how far its from your home/convenient to get to or hate a venue is cause its far i think you should just keep your thoughts to yourself cause they have nothing to say to anybody else.

the ottobar is a bitch for me to get to....doesn't mean its not great... what a nice place to see a band... friendly staff, cheap beer, easy as pie parking...the kind of place you meet the band after the show in the lot right next to it...

the patriot center is close to me..doesnt mean the sound doesn't usually suck.. or that it isn't a colorless place with zero personality...talk about a boring venue..not to mention campus security always fun...

objectivty. try it.

that car really knocked the hate into you . . . though I feel it was already there.  enjoy, the quiet things in life.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 07:22:19 pm
i love shows at patriot . . . i dont know why, but i do.  loved white stripes, beck, cure, furthur.  so easy to get into and out of.  plus i can stop at that dennys on the way out.

if the reason you love a venue is cause of how far its from your home/convenient to get to or hate a venue is cause its far i think you should just keep your thoughts to yourself cause they have nothing to say to anybody else.

the ottobar is a bitch for me to get to....doesn't mean its not great... what a nice place to see a band... friendly staff, cheap beer, easy as pie parking...the kind of place you meet the band after the show in the lot right next to it...

the patriot center is close to me..doesnt mean the sound doesn't usually suck.. or that it isn't a colorless place with zero personality...talk about a boring venue..not to mention campus security always fun...

objectivty. try it.

that car really knocked the hate into you . . . though I feel it was already there.  enjoy, the quiet things in life.

I'm back baby! Get used to it.

 ;D

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 07:26:28 pm
I mean WTF? The Ottobar sucks because it happens to be in Baltimore but Patriot Center is great cause there is a Dennys somewhere where you can get their shit food?

You ever even been to the Patriot Center? You have to go to a special designated place to get a wrist band by some campus securitit/staff to get a wrist band even to get a beer... yeah , very rock and roll..

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 03, 2014, 07:42:26 pm
the milkshakes at dennys, are great.  you obviously, are lactose racist.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 03, 2014, 08:00:38 pm
the milkshakes at dennys, are great.  you obviously, are lactose racist.


that is true....i cannot deny that...sorry.

I don't think I have ever had a milkshake.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 03, 2014, 10:19:40 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGL2rytTraA
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 04, 2014, 09:30:12 am
I mean WTF? The Ottobar sucks because it happens to be in Baltimore but Patriot Center is great cause there is a Dennys somewhere where you can get their shit food?

You ever even been to the Patriot Center? You have to go to a special designated place to get a wrist band by some campus securitit/staff to get a wrist band even to get a beer... yeah , very rock and roll..




You complain too much about venues.  But the closer a venue is to my house the better the venue.  Ottobar is the closest so it is the best. If the 930 club moved to Baltimore it woudl improve 100 percent in my opinion.  My main complaint about the Patriot Center is its location.  I have only been to one show there in the last 10 years (Sigur Ros) as it is just too far of a drive.  It sucks unless there is someone incredible there that I have never seen before I won't be attending. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 04, 2014, 06:51:52 pm
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/289-where-you-stand-at-a-show-and-what-it-says-about-you/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 05, 2014, 07:47:26 am
You know that every artists covering every other artists thing going on right now?  Considered it over...


http://www.stereogum.com/1673689/lives-ed-kowalczyk-is-still-around-and-hes-covering-imagine-dragons/video/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on April 05, 2014, 12:45:25 pm
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/289-where-you-stand-at-a-show-and-what-it-says-about-you/
that was stupid
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 05, 2014, 10:15:47 pm
"I once accidentally downloaded a Lumineers song. I had to throw away my computer to be safe" - Tom Haverford
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 06, 2014, 12:35:08 am
"I once accidentally downloaded a Lumineers song. I had to throw away my computer to be safe" - Tom Haverford

You are quoting a fictional character.  The guy likes Kanye West in real life.  You don't get much worse taste in music.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on April 07, 2014, 12:18:09 am
Buy the copyrights of this song! (http://www.ebay.com/itm/MUSIC-COPYRIGHTS-FOR-SALE-1-/131155037602?pt=Music_Other_Formats&hash=item1e89730da2)

Only $26,000!  :D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on April 07, 2014, 12:21:34 am
Buy the copyrights of this song! (http://www.ebay.com/itm/MUSIC-COPYRIGHTS-FOR-SALE-1-/131155037602?pt=Music_Other_Formats&hash=item1e89730da2)

Only $26,000!  :D
Sorry, not interested. I'm only interested in purchasing the rights to Your Song by Elton John, as the song foretold!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on April 07, 2014, 09:06:09 am
"I once accidentally downloaded a Lumineers song. I had to throw away my computer to be safe" - Tom Haverford

You are quoting a fictional character.  The guy likes Kanye West in real life.  You don't get much worse taste in music.

You are a fictional character.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 07, 2014, 11:12:02 am
"I once accidentally downloaded a Lumineers song. I had to throw away my computer to be safe" - Tom Haverford

You are quoting a fictional character.  The guy likes Kanye West in real life.  You don't get much worse taste in music.

You are a fictional character.


This
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 07, 2014, 03:20:23 pm
http://www.ebay.com/itm/111319809947
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 09, 2014, 06:17:36 pm
https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/music-news/looks-joan-jett-join-nirvana-onstage-rock-roll-174207037.html

joan jett, becomes nirvana
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 09, 2014, 08:04:49 pm
https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/music-news/looks-joan-jett-join-nirvana-onstage-rock-roll-174207037.html

joan jett, becomes nirvana

I don't get why they call grohl/novolesic (sic) nirvana...

there is no nirvana without kurt cobain
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 09, 2014, 08:59:28 pm
what should they call themselves . . . cinnabon?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on April 09, 2014, 09:04:10 pm
what should they call themselves . . . cinnabon?
don't be ridiculous... They should call themselves Sbarro.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 09, 2014, 10:19:40 pm
Joan Jett and The Black Hearts 2.0
Or Davie and the Jetts.

what should they call themselves . . . cinnabon?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 09, 2014, 10:30:05 pm
OMG so obvious!

Joan Jett's Black Heart Shaped Box.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: gaaaaaaaaah on April 10, 2014, 01:05:39 am
https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/music-news/looks-joan-jett-join-nirvana-onstage-rock-roll-174207037.html

joan jett, becomes nirvana

I don't get why they call grohl/novolesic (sic) nirvana...

there is no nirvana without kurt cobain
because "nirvana" is being inducted into the hof and dave and krist (and pat) are the surviving members

obviously without kurt there was no nirvana but they werent a one man show
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 10, 2014, 07:45:56 am
is Pat Smear getting in??? That would be awesome....


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 10, 2014, 10:30:35 am
is Pat Smear getting in??? That would be awesome....




Why would that be awesome.  More like stupid.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: gaaaaaaaaah on April 10, 2014, 11:10:07 am
is Pat Smear getting in??? That would be awesome....



i dont think so, which i dont agree with. when the band ended he was an official member

chad channing was supposed to go in but then gene simmons threw a hissy fit and the hof folks changed their mind

would have been cool to see pat (and dale crover, now that i think about it) inducted but oh well
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 10, 2014, 11:13:39 am
Anyway why is Nirvana in already?  What about the Cure and Depeche Mode?  They pre-date Nirvana by quite a bit and are much better bands with much bigger catalogs.  Rock n Roll of fame is a joke.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 10, 2014, 11:21:28 am
Wait look at all these acts that aren't in: T-Rex, ELO, Duran Duran, Carpenters, Harry Nillson, The Jam, The Smiths, Jim Croce, The Monkees, Roxy Music, Siouxsie and the Banshees, B-52's.

Looks like the skipped every band from the 80's from the UK.  Yet this year they have Linda Rondstadt and Peter Gabriel???? 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on April 10, 2014, 11:47:46 pm


It took them a good 24 hours to figure out how to block me. It was fun while it lasted.

"The Fall - band March 13 · Edited
Our lead vocalist JD Davis somewhere in the backwoods of OKLAHOMA with a prize pig!
You can take the boy out the country....but you sure can't take the country out the boy!!"

Slappy Maxwell
I bet he swiped it from another hunter.
Like · Reply · 18 hours ago


i'm enjoying trolling them


It's funny that they say that they've tried to contact The Fall but so far no success. No reply is necessary; the problem will take care of itself. These guys might get a few gigs around KC but nowhere else. They would probably have trouble getting recordings pressed, and none of the digital services will take them with that name. If they're at all serious they'll change their name soon.

Change has come. (https://www.facebook.com/thefallkc)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on April 11, 2014, 01:17:08 pm
Why do you all care who is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  Does it really matter? 

Wait - you are the same lot who think they can do a better job running baseball teams and picking Oscar winners; never mind - carry on.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 11, 2014, 01:20:42 pm
Why do you all care who is inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame?  Does it really matter? 

Wait - you are the same lot who think they can do a better job running baseball teams and picking Oscar winners; never mind - carry on.

At least we dont' care who wins a make believe wrestling match.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on April 11, 2014, 01:30:08 pm
OOOOHHHH BURN

Do you not watch movies?  Do you not cheer for the hero?  Hope he survives and saves the day? 

GASP

It is SCRIPTED as well.

OMG - Entertainment
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 11, 2014, 01:33:29 pm
OOOOHHHH BURN

Do you not watch movies?  Do you not cheer for the hero?  Hope he survives and saves the day? 

GASP

It is SCRIPTED as well.

OMG - Entertainment

I don't watch action movies.  I would rate wrestling below that.   
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on April 11, 2014, 01:42:57 pm
Wait - you are the same lot who think they can do a better job running baseball teams ... ; never mind - carry on.
This is actually a fantastic burn but you didn't direct it at the right poster. Still awesome.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on April 11, 2014, 01:46:20 pm
Wait - you are the same lot who think they can do a better job running baseball teams ... ; never mind - carry on.
This is actually a fantastic burn but you didn't direct it at the right poster. Still awesome.

It might be a fantastic burn if the poster didn't drive to New Orleans to watch a wrestling match. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on April 11, 2014, 03:14:48 pm
Atomic, why are you obsessed with what I enjoy?

Now back on topic... What is this?
http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/bestofdc/poll/artsandentertainment/2014/best-place-to-see-local-music

People voted 930 Club on Washington City paper as... Best place to see local music?  It deserves the best music venue spot, but best place to see local music?  I am not being a hater, just being real.  Look at the list of bands that are playing the 930 Club over the next few months.  The most "local" it gets are a couple from Baltimore, the rest are from anywhere else.  Maybe the people who voted didn't understand the category.  930 Club does host local bands every now and then, but still.  I am surprised it wasn't voted "best outdoors venue."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on April 11, 2014, 03:17:41 pm
People voted 930 Club on Washington City paper as... Best place to see local music?  It deserves the best music venue spot, but best place to see local music?  I am not being a hater, just being real.  Look at the list of bands that are playing the 930 Club over the next few months.  The most "local" it gets are a couple from Baltimore, the rest are from anywhere else.  Maybe the people who voted didn't understand the category.  930 Club does host local bands every now and then, but still.
that is funny. A few years back here in Richmond, Style Weekly did their annual poll and The National won best large venue, best small venue, and best venue to see local music. I chalk it up to being the only venue people who lived out the suburbs could name.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 11, 2014, 04:07:19 pm
i think the club also wins the cutest owner, award, as well . . . or maybe that in my dreamed award ceremony with finger sandwiches and punch, thread.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on April 11, 2014, 04:09:50 pm
i think the club also wins the cutest owner, award, as well . . . or maybe that in my dreamed award ceremony with finger sandwiches and punch, thread.

(http://i88.photobucket.com/albums/k168/mitchell1533/Mad%20Max/bvbv.jpg)

oh hai.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 11, 2014, 04:45:23 pm
That "best place to see local music" result is laughable. Julian might be onto something.


Staff picks are great, though. Especially "best overlooked jazz elder." I've known Aaron for a good while. Always a pleasure to hear play and talk to.


http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/bestofdc/artsandentertainment/2014/best-overlooked-jazz-elder
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 12, 2014, 12:39:09 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BlCD7PQCUAA5xSc.jpg:large)

trey sitting in with allman brothers band, at wanne festival.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 12, 2014, 12:42:57 pm
sufjan, does a ballet

http://www.vulture.com/2014/04/justin-peck-sufjan-stevens-ballet.html?mid=twitter_vulture
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 13, 2014, 07:17:31 pm
Woah Detroit Cobras came out of hibernation and out touring again, sadly nothing as close as Philly so far.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Vas Deferens on April 14, 2014, 08:54:12 am
^ that was January 2014.....or did they announce another Philly date?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 14, 2014, 09:02:25 am
so i like pitchfork on facebook . . . and i had a delightful time watching full sets of coachella acts, such as

beck

http://pitchfork.com/news/54771-beck-plays-coachella-full-set-video/

future islands

http://pitchfork.com/news/54766-future-islands-hit-coachella-full-set-video/

queens of teh stone age

http://pitchfork.com/news/54765-queens-of-the-stone-age-run-through-hits-at-coachella-full-set-video/

pharrell

http://pitchfork.com/news/54763-pharrells-coachella-set-loaded-with-guests-snoop-dogg-tyler-the-creator-busta-diplo-gwen-stefani/

haim

http://pitchfork.com/news/54753-haim-rock-coachella-full-set-video/

outkast

http://pitchfork.com/news/54751-outkast-bring-out-janelle-monae-and-future-at-coachella/

lorde

http://pitchfork.com/news/54764-lorde-hits-coachella-full-set-video/

nas

http://pitchfork.com/news/54762-nas-joined-by-jay-z-and-diddy-at-coachella-full-set-video/

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 14, 2014, 09:33:19 am
^ that was January 2014.....or did they announce another Philly date?

I was skimming through the dates posted on their facebook page and got their upcoming spring tour mixed up with their brief run in the north east in January.  Sure hope they can play in the area soon...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 14, 2014, 07:42:14 pm
and another

arcade fire

http://pitchfork.com/news/54769-arcade-fire-close-out-coachella-with-set-featuring-blondies-debbie-harry/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 14, 2014, 07:56:48 pm
http://m.noisey.vice.com/blog/nirvana-saint-vitus-april-10-2014-review

joan jett and j as kurt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=092bFcVqT5s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOI4rKvdrDQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkNmPWZijKk&list=UUGACMBdjlTIqNpA2oxOSboQ
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on April 14, 2014, 09:52:35 pm
Woah Detroit Cobras came out of hibernation and out touring again, sadly nothing as close as Philly so far.
please keep us posted if you hear any thing as I'd love to see them again, caught them at Iota years ago.
They came to SF a bunch of times, but they would play the bottom of the hill and sell out and I kept missing them

Maybe a kickstarter campaign  ::)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 16, 2014, 04:16:29 pm
Melissa Etheridge likes Diarrhea Planet. (https://twitter.com/metheridge/status/456521018614370304)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on April 16, 2014, 04:19:58 pm
Melissa Etheridge likes Diarrhea Planet. (https://twitter.com/metheridge/status/456521018614370304)


Pretty sure they played some covers together at SXSW as well.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on April 16, 2014, 04:58:32 pm
Melissa Etheridge likes Diarrhea Planet. (https://twitter.com/metheridge/status/456521018614370304)


She also chose David Crosby as a sperm donor, so her track record's a little suspect.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 16, 2014, 05:27:58 pm
Melissa Etheridge likes Diarrhea Planet. (https://twitter.com/metheridge/status/456521018614370304)


She also chose David Crosby as a sperm donor, so her track record's a little suspect.
This is true.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on April 21, 2014, 02:48:31 pm
Record Store day is for lemmings, man.
I need an earthy sound for my listening pleasure.
VU on maple!
- DJ Splinter
http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Cut-Record/ (http://www.instructables.com/id/Laser-Cut-Record/)

(http://cdn.instructables.com/FCJ/IU8F/HLJUXJDU/FCJIU8FHLJUXJDU.MEDIUM.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on April 21, 2014, 03:23:28 pm
I prefer the warmer tones of a larch or a sweetgum.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on April 21, 2014, 04:15:48 pm
Woah Detroit Cobras came out of hibernation and out touring again, sadly nothing as close as Philly so far.
please keep us posted if you hear any thing as I'd love to see them again, caught them at Iota years ago.
They came to SF a bunch of times, but they would play the bottom of the hill and sell out and I kept missing them

Maybe a kickstarter campaign  ::)

the cobras are a dead band.. in fact they were never a band..they are two women and whoever they pick

they never got even close to the second album in terms of quality...i think its called life , love and leaving

they had a good following at their black cat shows but then they just stopped playing..

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on April 21, 2014, 07:30:43 pm
http://www.vox.com/2014/4/19/5626058/vinyls-great-but-its-not-better-than-cds

Interesting article on format quality.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 22, 2014, 11:15:51 am
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/burning-man-organizer-plans-anything-goes-bundyfest-to-mock-scofflaw-rancher/

well . . . this just got a lot more, interesting
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on April 22, 2014, 11:49:23 am
Has Ratbastard left to join that Bundy guy's cult yet?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 23, 2014, 01:39:10 pm
Wow this Liv Warfield album is really good...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on April 23, 2014, 08:28:06 pm
The D.C. Punk and Indie Fanzine Collection (http://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/26175)

Abstract

Title: D.C. Punk and Indie Fanzine Collection, The
Author/Creator: D.C. Punk and Indie Fanzine Collection, The
Collection number: 14-91-DCPIFC
Bulk dates: 1994-1995
Inclusive dates: 1979-2012
Collection Area: Special Collections in Performing Arts
Repository: Special Collections in Performing Arts, Michelle Smith Performing Arts Library, Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742.
Contact the curator: http://www.lib.umd.edu/scpa/contact

Abstract:
The Washington, D.C. Punk and Indie Fanzine Collection (DCPIFC) seeks to document the variety of publications that were created by fans of and participants in the punk and indie music scenes that have thrived in the Washington, D.C.-area since the late 1970s. The DCPIFC contains fanzines - publications produced by enthusiasts, generally in small runs - created by members of the D.C. punk and indie music communities, as well as fanzines from outside of D.C. that include coverage of D.C. punk and indie music. The collection includes primarily paper fanzines, but it also includes born digital fanzines and digitized PDFs of some paper fanzine materials.

cont.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on April 24, 2014, 08:03:13 am
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/burning-man-organizer-plans-anything-goes-bundyfest-to-mock-scofflaw-rancher/

well . . . this just got a lot more, interesting

I went to the great went, where they had enough bathrooms for 25,000 people and there were 75,000 people there.  It was the most horrible experience.  I cannot even imagine what that place will look like after a day....gross.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on April 24, 2014, 09:03:06 am
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/22/burning-man-organizer-plans-anything-goes-bundyfest-to-mock-scofflaw-rancher/

well . . . this just got a lot more, interesting

I went to the great went, where they had enough bathrooms for 25,000 people and there were 75,000 people there.  It was the most horrible experience.  I cannot even imagine what that place will look like after a day....gross.

More evidence for the need of a poop tent.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 02, 2014, 12:39:26 pm
Jenn Pelly is a great interviewer but Courtney Love is a tedious interview. (http://pitchfork.com/features/interviews/9395-courtney-love/)

P.S. Courtney Love is a Wolf Eyes fan.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on May 05, 2014, 01:36:54 pm
The group of 'country musicians' that named themselves The Fall have given in and are now called Bandana.

Now they must fight with these doods http://www.bandanaband.com/ (http://www.bandanaband.com/) for the Bandana name before their lead singer decides to quit and join Gravy Antebellum, a Lady Antebellum tribute band.

Bein' in a band is hard.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on May 06, 2014, 04:09:47 pm
The Gold Bar just announced they are closing...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 07, 2014, 08:17:59 pm
http://gawker.com/an-enterprising-band-made-20-000-scamming-spotify-1573217228
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 07, 2014, 09:42:11 pm
http://gawker.com/an-enterprising-band-made-20-000-scamming-spotify-1573217228

Hutch'd
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 08, 2014, 09:58:47 am
http://gawker.com/an-enterprising-band-made-20-000-scamming-spotify-1573217228

Hmm...don't we think we could do something like this too?
I mean I'm sure that Spotify is on to this now....but what a great way to raise a few thousand bucks
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 08, 2014, 10:03:43 am
http://gawker.com/an-enterprising-band-made-20-000-scamming-spotify-1573217228

Hmm...don't we think we could do something like this too?
I mean I'm sure that Spotify is on to this now....but what a great way to raise a few thousand bucks

I read something else about bands putting out songs that were the same name as popular songs in hopes of getting a lot of streams.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on May 12, 2014, 01:28:14 pm
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1.0-9/10250196_10152423546108817_2271965307059012982_n.jpg)

This venn diagram explains everything.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 13, 2014, 10:03:45 am
http://www.newsweek.com/coming-clean-gene-ween-weens-former-frontman-talks-sobriety-and-miley-cyrus-250774
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 13, 2014, 10:07:00 am
Good Priests profile piece (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/style/wp/2014/05/12/noise-and-sweat-and-marx-and-chipotle-d-c-s-priests-redefine-punk-for-2014/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on May 13, 2014, 03:45:25 pm
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10364081_10152167371291633_5477769911656545095_n.jpg)
Expanded to include Dan Deacon and rainbow rock...

I just realized only probably Azag would find this funny.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 14, 2014, 12:14:06 pm
wouldn't he have a hard time seeing the graphic?

...edit
oooh...just broke 500!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 14, 2014, 12:48:11 pm
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 14, 2014, 12:56:22 pm
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 14, 2014, 06:55:57 pm
(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1.0-9/10364081_10152167371291633_5477769911656545095_n.jpg)
Expanded to include Dan Deacon and rainbow rock...

I just realized only probably Azag would find this funny.

Azag is blind dude. for christ's sake.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 14, 2014, 07:00:00 pm
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on May 14, 2014, 07:02:29 pm
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...

Why?  When I saw them I wanted to hear Creep but instead they played a bunch of lame songs.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 14, 2014, 07:15:27 pm
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...

Why?  When I saw them I wanted to hear Creep but instead they played a bunch of lame songs.

I rest my case
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 14, 2014, 08:20:25 pm
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...

Why?  When I saw them I wanted to hear Creep but instead they played a bunch of lame songs.

I rest my case

A+. Atomic's null and void opinion lives on.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on May 15, 2014, 12:30:55 am
forum at it's very best right here.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on May 15, 2014, 11:40:06 am
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...

Why?  When I saw them I wanted to hear Creep but instead they played a bunch of lame songs.

I rest my case

A+. Atomic's null and void opinion lives on.




They didn't play Fake Plastic Trees either.  Lame band.  And the crowd was full of bro's shoving into people.  They mostly played stuff from In Rainbows which is one of the worst albums of all time IMHO.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 15, 2014, 11:44:30 am
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...

Why?  When I saw them I wanted to hear Creep but instead they played a bunch of lame songs.

I rest my case

A+. Atomic's null and void opinion lives on.




They didn't play Fake Plastic Trees either.  Lame band.  And the crowd was full of bro's shoving into people.  They mostly played stuff from In Rainbows which is one of the worst albums of all time IMHO.

you should've got a seat rather than standing with savages like hutch.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on May 15, 2014, 11:53:50 am
Frank Turner somehow get's in to an online squabble about radiohead
but his response (http://www.gigwise.com/news/90981/frank-turner-on-radiohead-comments-they-can-play-what-they-want) is solid
Think it's lame when bands don't play some of the fans favorite songs while on tour

I can't think of many Radiohead fans that would actually want to hear Creep.

exactly...

Why?  When I saw them I wanted to hear Creep but instead they played a bunch of lame songs.

I rest my case

A+. Atomic's null and void opinion lives on.




They didn't play Fake Plastic Trees either.  Lame band.  And the crowd was full of bro's shoving into people.  They mostly played stuff from In Rainbows which is one of the worst albums of all time IMHO.

you should've got a seat rather than standing with savages like hutch.

It was at a music festival that did not allow chairs.  Newport allows you to bring chairs which I think is nice.   You just get their early put your chair out and go about your business.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 15, 2014, 12:50:01 pm
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/dave-grohl-confirms-new-foo-fighters-album-details-hbo-doc-series-20140515
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 15, 2014, 12:54:28 pm
for yada . . . have a beer, and enjoy

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/flaming-lips-sgt-peppers-tribute-album-out-this-fall-20140515
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on May 15, 2014, 01:25:22 pm
You should put both of those links in one of the many threads about new albums...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 15, 2014, 01:29:31 pm
i shoulda, i coulda, but i didnta
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 27, 2014, 12:13:51 pm
Looking forward to this.

33 1/3: Psychocandy (http://333sound.com/2014/05/27/new-33-13-title-the-jesus-and-mary-chains-psychocandy/)

Also cool that a DC-based writer is writing it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 31, 2014, 12:11:07 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/55378-jack-white-slams-the-black-keys-suggests-once-again-that-theyve-ripped-off-his-sound/

do the black keys, rip off, the white stripes?  i dont know, i dont listen to the black keys.  they do have two members each, three words in their name, both starting with 'the', then a 'color', then a word which could describe the two sets of playable parts of a piano.  odd.  and both lead singers kids go to the same school.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 31, 2014, 12:15:54 pm
well, darn

http://pitchfork.com/news/55380-jack-white-apologizes-for-comments-about-meg-white-the-black-keys-lana-del-rey-adele/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on May 31, 2014, 01:13:45 pm
i don't disagree with him.  i like there music, but when i saw those guys years back, it's like they were a blues rock cover band, never straying too far from the course.  you can tell the guys that it comes naturally, and for the black keys, that's not the case. those guys seem like they are very hardworking musicians, but they aren't creating anything original.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 01, 2014, 02:31:47 pm
I'd prefer to listen to the Black Keys for the rest of eternity than hear one note from Jack White.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 01, 2014, 02:49:29 pm
i don't disagree with him.  i like there music, but when i saw those guys years back, it's like they were a blues rock cover band, never straying too far from the course.  you can tell the guys that it comes naturally, and for the black keys, that's not the case. those guys seem like they are very hardworking musicians, but they aren't creating anything original.

I think it depends on what you're talking about.. I mean the early black keys albums are so stripped down....the lead singer dude sounds like paul rodgers of free/bad co on them... they've changed since..

the last few are almost "Dangermouse with the Black Keys" albums.... since I think Dangermouse is the best producer in the world right now its fine by me..

and Auerbach gets my thanks based alone on his production of Dr John's Locked Down..heck of an album

I find originality is a term often misapplied..... you can be original while working within established forms..... Are we saying if someone came out with an album as great as Back in Black but with different songs we wouldn't like it? It wouldn't be "original"?  The Hellacopters High Visibility is the greatest album Thin Lizzy never made..doesn't make it any less great..

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on June 01, 2014, 03:34:45 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/55378-jack-white-slams-the-black-keys-suggests-once-again-that-theyve-ripped-off-his-sound/

do the black keys, rip off, the white stripes?  i dont know, i dont listen to the black keys.  they do have two members each, three words in their name, both starting with 'the', then a 'color', then a word which could describe the two sets of playable parts of a piano.  odd.  and both lead singers kids go to the same school.

Stating Lana Del Rey is ripping off Amy Winehouse is quite a stretch.  Could you imagine if the Beatles had spent all their time accusing people of ripping them off?  Sounds like he has some emotional problems.  I don't like the Black Keys so whatever but he needs to let it go. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on June 01, 2014, 03:36:46 pm
i don't disagree with him.  i like there music, but when i saw those guys years back, it's like they were a blues rock cover band, never straying too far from the course.  you can tell the guys that it comes naturally, and for the black keys, that's not the case. those guys seem like they are very hardworking musicians, but they aren't creating anything original.

I think it depends on what you're talking about.. I mean the early black keys albums are so stripped down....the lead singer dude sounds like paul rodgers of free/bad co on them... they've changed since..

the last few are almost "Dangermouse with the Black Keys" albums.... since I think Dangermouse is the best producer in the world right now its fine by me..

and Auerbach gets my thanks based alone on his production of Dr John's Locked Down..heck of an album

I find originality is a term often misapplied..... you can be original while working within established forms..... Are we saying if someone came out with an album as great as Back in Black but with different songs we wouldn't like it? It wouldn't be "original"?  The Hellacopters High Visibility is the greatest album Thin Lizzy never made..doesn't make it any less great..



Do you mean as good as "back to black"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on June 01, 2014, 04:07:15 pm
i don't disagree with him.  i like there music, but when i saw those guys years back, it's like they were a blues rock cover band, never straying too far from the course.  you can tell the guys that it comes naturally, and for the black keys, that's not the case. those guys seem like they are very hardworking musicians, but they aren't creating anything original.

I think it depends on what you're talking about.. I mean the early black keys albums are so stripped down....the lead singer dude sounds like paul rodgers of free/bad co on them... they've changed since..

the last few are almost "Dangermouse with the Black Keys" albums.... since I think Dangermouse is the best producer in the world right now its fine by me..

and Auerbach gets my thanks based alone on his production of Dr John's Locked Down..heck of an album

I find originality is a term often misapplied..... you can be original while working within established forms..... Are we saying if someone came out with an album as great as Back in Black but with different songs we wouldn't like it? It wouldn't be "original"?  The Hellacopters High Visibility is the greatest album Thin Lizzy never made..doesn't make it any less great..

i guess they kind of fell off with me after attack and release, so i missed all the danger mouse produced music. originality maybe wasn't the right term. their "established form" just came off as a total replica. nothing new.  i feel like it's a 2-man novelty group, and i just expected them to feed off each other more live, and i never saw it happen.  and this was a band that had been playing together since 2001.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 01, 2014, 05:07:04 pm
i don't disagree with him.  i like there music, but when i saw those guys years back, it's like they were a blues rock cover band, never straying too far from the course.  you can tell the guys that it comes naturally, and for the black keys, that's not the case. those guys seem like they are very hardworking musicians, but they aren't creating anything original.

I think it depends on what you're talking about.. I mean the early black keys albums are so stripped down....the lead singer dude sounds like paul rodgers of free/bad co on them... they've changed since..

the last few are almost "Dangermouse with the Black Keys" albums.... since I think Dangermouse is the best producer in the world right now its fine by me..

and Auerbach gets my thanks based alone on his production of Dr John's Locked Down..heck of an album

I find originality is a term often misapplied..... you can be original while working within established forms..... Are we saying if someone came out with an album as great as Back in Black but with different songs we wouldn't like it? It wouldn't be "original"?  The Hellacopters High Visibility is the greatest album Thin Lizzy never made..doesn't make it any less great..

i guess they kind of fell off with me after attack and release, so i missed all the danger mouse produced music. originality maybe wasn't the right term. their "established form" just came off as a total replica. nothing new.  i feel like it's a 2-man novelty group, and i just expected them to feed off each other more live, and i never saw it happen.  and this was a band that had been playing together since 2001.

I lost interest with Magic Potion and Attack and Release, but the album Brothers was damn near perfect.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 01, 2014, 05:46:41 pm
So this is also pretty fucking cool.
33 1/3: The Raincoats - S/T  (http://333sound.com/2014/06/01/new-33-13-title-the-raincoats-the-raincoats/)

And a friend's writing it!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 01, 2014, 06:02:14 pm
i don't disagree with him.  i like there music, but when i saw those guys years back, it's like they were a blues rock cover band, never straying too far from the course.  you can tell the guys that it comes naturally, and for the black keys, that's not the case. those guys seem like they are very hardworking musicians, but they aren't creating anything original.

I think it depends on what you're talking about.. I mean the early black keys albums are so stripped down....the lead singer dude sounds like paul rodgers of free/bad co on them... they've changed since..

the last few are almost "Dangermouse with the Black Keys" albums.... since I think Dangermouse is the best producer in the world right now its fine by me..

and Auerbach gets my thanks based alone on his production of Dr John's Locked Down..heck of an album

I find originality is a term often misapplied..... you can be original while working within established forms..... Are we saying if someone came out with an album as great as Back in Black but with different songs we wouldn't like it? It wouldn't be "original"?  The Hellacopters High Visibility is the greatest album Thin Lizzy never made..doesn't make it any less great..

i guess they kind of fell off with me after attack and release, so i missed all the danger mouse produced music. originality maybe wasn't the right term. their "established form" just came off as a total replica. nothing new.  i feel like it's a 2-man novelty group, and i just expected them to feed off each other more live, and i never saw it happen.  and this was a band that had been playing together since 2001.

oh its totally changed... the latest album sounds more like Pink Floyd than anything else to me....mixed in with Dangermouse putting in that David Axelrod type phat bass everywhere... really Jack White has no case as of late....they've moved on from earlier when he did have some sorta case.. i mean you got a group called the white stripes..duo and then another duo comes along ...called the black keys....and they play the same rough loud bash a blues? but like i said they have totally moved on from that
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Hexenjagd on June 04, 2014, 12:08:28 pm
http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/354-baltimore-club/
Pitchfork article on the current state of Baltimore Club
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on June 19, 2014, 01:42:27 pm
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on June 19, 2014, 03:09:29 pm
i blame, professor griff
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 19, 2014, 03:38:49 pm
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.

In general, I've found that rap doesn't' age all too well.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 19, 2014, 03:55:07 pm
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.

In general, I've found that rap doesn't' age all too well.


aint that the truth
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 19, 2014, 03:57:11 pm
I don't know...
I can listen to: Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five, Run-DMC and Tribe Called Quest any day of the week

PE...well some of it has aged poorly, but "Public Enemy No. 1" never gets old to me
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Unsanity on June 19, 2014, 04:02:27 pm
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.

In general, I've found that rap doesn't' age all too well.

I still listen to PE's 80's and early 90's stuff. I give up after "Muse Sick N Hour Mess Age" which only had one good song. Flavor Flav has been a big joke for a long ass time now. I saw them at Rock The Bells 2007 and Flav ruined the show. He kept plugging TV shows and forgot the name of some of his band members. There are a few exceptions to rap not aging well. To me, A Tribe Called Quest's classic albums still sound fresh. Much of OutKast's stuff too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 25, 2014, 09:13:19 am
ryan adams...at the club please

really don't want to see him at the DAR or Strathmore, but understand if you can't


I would hazard a guess that the Lincoln Theatre is the likelier option actually Mr Sidehatch...

Mr. Sidehatch, do you continue to listen to his new albums.. is his last one really good? or is he a legacy act now (Rolling Stones) and it doesn't matter anymore?

Last time I saw Ryan he was at the Patriot Center actually..opening for Oasis.. pretty good..

Loved ashes & fire.
He just released a new song to come out 7/1...Gimme Something Good (7" vinyl---only)

just glad to that his Meniere's disease didn't totally take him out of making/performing music forever
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on June 25, 2014, 09:24:58 am
Ryan Adams hasn't released anything worthwhile since the demise of Whiskeytown.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 25, 2014, 09:31:34 am
Ryan Adams hasn't released anything worthwhile since the demise of Whiskeytown.

I think Heartbreaker and Gold are darn near perfect, IMO.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: shemptiness on June 25, 2014, 09:41:51 am
The 30 year anniversary of Purple Rain??  Damn.  Where has the time gone?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on June 25, 2014, 11:34:03 am

For me, Heartbreaker (though it initially had some appeal) just doesn't stand up as anything I'd listen to in 2014. And I hated Gold from the beginning.

The early Whiskeytown stuff (Faithless Street, Stanger's Almanac) I listen to on rare occasion for vintage sake.


Ryan Adams hasn't released anything worthwhile since the demise of Whiskeytown.

I think Heartbreaker and Gold are darn near perfect, IMO.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 25, 2014, 01:07:25 pm
This thread just inspired me to listen to Rock N Roll (however, I don't think I've heard one tune off that album since 2003 or so) on a quick three mile run at lunch.

I guess I could say I like up to Cold Roses... after that, a bunch of quantity over quality.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on June 25, 2014, 02:30:35 pm
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.
In general, I've found that rap doesn't' age all too well.
aint that the truth

counterpoint: aquemini, reachin', blowout comb, the chronic, ready to die (to name a few) all aged beautifully. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 25, 2014, 03:11:55 pm

I guess I could say I like up to Cold Roses... after that, a bunch of quantity over quality.
the truth, but ashes and fire is still really strong.

That cold roses tour was awesome, one of my favorite shows.  Had front row seats in a Berkley auditorium and it was just the naz.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on June 25, 2014, 03:14:59 pm
You were probably in diapers when those albums came out.
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.
In general, I've found that rap doesn't' age all too well.
aint that the truth

counterpoint: aquemini, reachin', blowout comb, the chronic, ready to die (to name a few) all aged beautifully. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: StoneTheCrow on June 25, 2014, 03:24:15 pm
PE is ok in small doses.

I still listen to Tribe regularly. I thought De La's stuff sounded good after listening to the catalog they kindly gave away.  Wu Tang hasn't aged well, imo.

Jurassic 5 was old school style from the get go and I still listen to them regularly,  too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: atomic on June 25, 2014, 03:25:58 pm
Ryan Adams hasn't released anything worthwhile.

Edited that for accuracy.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 25, 2014, 04:50:11 pm

I guess I could say I like up to Cold Roses... after that, a bunch of quantity over quality.
the truth, but ashes and fire is still really strong.

That cold roses tour was awesome, one of my favorite shows.  Had front row seats in a Berkley auditorium and it was just the naz.

Yeah... I dug it too when he was in his dead phase during those years.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 25, 2014, 04:50:29 pm
Ryan Adams hasn't released anything worthwhile.

Edited that for accuracy.

^^like the lumineers^^
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on June 26, 2014, 04:48:20 pm
Does anybody listen to their old Public Enemy cd's/lp's/cassettes? Talk about a band whose music did not age well.
In general, I've found that rap doesn't' age all too well.
aint that the truth

counterpoint: aquemini, reachin', blowout comb, the chronic, ready to die (to name a few) all aged beautifully. 
more counterpoint: most all of j dilla's work, paul's boutique, any MF Doom, 3rd Eye Vision - Hieroglyphics
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: RatBastard on June 26, 2014, 08:41:08 pm
It was twenty years ago today (OK well actually tomorrow)...

https://music.yahoo.com/blogs/music-news/just-push-play--remembering-the-first-commercially-available-song-download-232055357.html
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 26, 2014, 11:11:17 pm
^that was a great article

This was hysterical
 "If our fans are out there driving down that information superhighway, then we want to be playing at the truck stop. This is the future ? so let's get it going," Aerosmith frontman Steven Tyler said in a press release back in '94...  it took users an hour to download the three-minute, 14-second track.

amazing how foreign it seemed only 20 years ago and how pedestrian it is today
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 27, 2014, 01:43:25 pm
Looks like the new album is done and back from the manufacturer ready to be sold
Saw a release date of 7/22

(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10469048_762895377094324_6875356890633310389_n.jpg)

FREEMAN is Aaron Freeman's first album of original material since disbanding Ween and getting sober, but it's not a record mired in its maker's private struggles. It's a collection of gorgeous, subtly offbeat songs. The lush psych pop of "...Stallion"; the melancholy plea of "More Than the World"; the unflappable, Plastic Ono Band esque blues-rock of "Gimmie One More." FREEMAN distills the Aaron Freeman aesthetic equal parts wonder & malaise, frankness & mysticism, defiance & vulnerability to its headiest essence, proving that this man, known for so long by another name, is finally free.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on June 27, 2014, 02:18:24 pm
Looks like the new album is done and back from the manufacturer ready to be sold
Saw a release date of 7/22

(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10469048_762895377094324_6875356890633310389_n.jpg)

FREEMAN is Aaron Freeman's first album of original material since disbanding Ween and getting sober, but it's not a record mired in its maker's private struggles. It's a collection of gorgeous, subtly offbeat songs. The lush psych pop of "...Stallion"; the melancholy plea of "More Than the World"; the unflappable, Plastic Ono Band esque blues-rock of "Gimmie One More." FREEMAN distills the Aaron Freeman aesthetic equal parts wonder & malaise, frankness & mysticism, defiance & vulnerability to its headiest essence, proving that this man, known for so long by another name, is finally free.

Are you and hutch hitting this show up?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 27, 2014, 03:05:58 pm
Pretty sure Hutch grabbed a ticket
I'm debating...I kinda wanna see King Khan/Black Lips
but I probably should go to this Freeman show
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 27, 2014, 05:34:58 pm
well yeah i grabbed a ticket!!!

gotta say my attendance is conditional on not getting hit by any more cars and whatever my kids may be up to...but i'm fully planning to go..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 08, 2014, 10:03:29 am
so I see, that frampton, is playing, lincoln.  i just recently read, that his shows lately are horrible, "mailed in" performances, where he plays about ten song, in roughly an hour, and thats it.  sad. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 10, 2014, 09:57:43 am
Video: What Phish Sounds Like to People That Don?t Like Phish (http://livemusicblog.com/2010/08/02/video-what-phish-sounds-like-to-people-that-dont-like-phish/)

Funny, but it goes on too long. Just like....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on July 10, 2014, 01:56:24 pm
A very fun read about the See the Light Tour: Moby, Orbital, Aphex Twin, Vapourspace. And a nice mention about the 9:30 Club show:

http://inthemix.com/features/how-i-survived-americas-first-ever-rave-tour/582
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 10, 2014, 09:38:24 pm
something called "A Motown Tribute to Nickleback" exists..  WHY WHY WHY WHY
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2014, 09:39:22 pm
something called "A Motown Tribute to Nickleback" exists..  WHY WHY WHY WHY
DO NOT WANT.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 15, 2014, 12:33:59 pm
Looks like the new album is done and back from the manufacturer ready to be sold
Saw a release date of 7/22

(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/t1.0-9/p526x296/10469048_762895377094324_6875356890633310389_n.jpg)

FREEMAN is Aaron Freeman's first album of original material since disbanding Ween and getting sober, but it's not a record mired in its maker's private struggles. It's a collection of gorgeous, subtly offbeat songs. The lush psych pop of "...Stallion"; the melancholy plea of "More Than the World"; the unflappable, Plastic Ono Band esque blues-rock of "Gimmie One More." FREEMAN distills the Aaron Freeman aesthetic equal parts wonder & malaise, frankness & mysticism, defiance & vulnerability to its headiest essence, proving that this man, known for so long by another name, is finally free.

Are you and hutch hitting this show up?

 New record now streaming from SPIN Magazine: Freeman new album (http://www.spin.com/articles/aaron-freeman-ween-self-titled-debut-partisan-records-stream/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 16, 2014, 02:47:54 pm
Adele announces new album.PBS fans, Lite FM stations and big box retailers are ecstatic.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 16, 2014, 04:17:45 pm
Adele announces new album.PBS fans, Lite FM stations and big box retailers are ecstatic.
and my kids  ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 17, 2014, 09:55:07 am
Adele announces new album.PBS fans, Lite FM stations and big box retailers are ecstatic.
and my kids  ;D

well the label is now denying that info, which means they didn't hear a hit single on it ;)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 17, 2014, 10:15:07 am
The Bombay Royale's new album "The Island Of Dr. Electrico is pretty much the album of the year for me.  Where else are you going to hear great moments of a Bollywood verses Spaghetti Western track or when a sitar kicks on top of a solid Curtis Mayfield funk groove.  So epic and fun at the same time.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 17, 2014, 06:41:11 pm
Always fun to find a cover with a really different take on a classic...

Merrymouth, which i guess one could call a Ocean Colour Scene side project head by the OSC lead singer, do  a piano driven with string quartet folk take on the Stone Roses classic "I Am The Resurrection.

https://soundcloud.com/proper-music-distribution/i-am-the-resurrection
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on July 17, 2014, 06:48:35 pm
Adele announces new album.

I never should have dumped her.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 17, 2014, 08:48:18 pm
Adele announces new album.

I never should have dumped her.

Probably right. The new album's called "Smackie".
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 22, 2014, 09:40:29 am
Slowdive is having every shoegaze bands nightmare.  Their pedals and effects are on a different continent then they are.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 26, 2014, 02:03:45 pm
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/13881_721527111234953_3017566653734905138_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 29, 2014, 07:16:58 pm
Quite possibly the one of the greatest review ever written

http://usa.djmag.com/content/tiesto-wasted-opportunity

Tiësto
A Town Called Paradise
PM: AM Recordings
1.0
Just shit

One of the difficult things about reviewing a Tiësto album ? apart from actually listening to it ? is that there are only so many ways to describe rubbish. However, on the Dutchman?s fifth album he?s made it slightly easier by delivering 14 identical piles of crap: lumpen trance that stomps on your will to live like candy ravers in furry boots, and breakdowns that feel like jumping off a cliff. Which it might seriously drive you to do. Then there are the singers bellowing ?empowering? lyrics Gwyneth Paltrow would consider trite. Speaking of whom, this is all so awful it makes Coldplay?s collaboration with Avicii sound inspired. Produced with apparent contempt for anyone?s ears or intelligence, it?s lowest common denominator bullshit of the most cynical kind. But the most galling thing is that like some evil alchemist Tiësto will somehow turn this trash into millions of dollars. Paul Clarke

What's so great about this review is how it can be used as a template for other records...

Arcade Fire
Reflektor
1.0
Just shit


One of the difficult things about reviewing an Arcade Fire album ? apart from actually listening to it ? is that there are only so many ways to describe rubbish.  However, on the Canadians fourth album they've made it slightly easier by delivering 13 identical piles of crap: lumpen indie rock that stomps on your will to live like Juggalos in a mosh pit, and percussion playing that sounds like lemmings diving off a cliff. Which it might seriously drive you to do. Then there are the singers bellowing ?empowering? lyrics Gwyneth Paltrow would consider trite. Speaking of whom, this is all so awful it makes The Doors?s collaboration with Skrillex sound inspired. Produced with apparent contempt for anyone?s ears or intelligence, it?s lowest common denominator bullshit of the most cynical kind. But the most galling thing is that like some evil alchemist Arcade Fire will somehow turn this trash into millions of dollars.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 29, 2014, 08:15:07 pm
i wonder, how many albums, that reviewer has released?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 30, 2014, 01:17:02 am
I always wonder why people ask this question upon encountering a negative review.
You don't have to be a musician in order to have an opinion about music.
i wonder, how many albums, that reviewer has released?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 30, 2014, 07:50:46 am
yes, but you should have, at least musical talent enough to put out music to be reviewed, if you are going to trash other peoples talent, as shit.

having an opinion . . . and putting out your opinion into the world to be accepted and deciphered as the truth, are two separate things.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 30, 2014, 10:59:44 am
yes, but you should have, at least musical talent enough to put out music to be reviewed, if you are going to trash other peoples talent, as shit.

having an opinion . . . and putting out your opinion into the world to be accepted and deciphered as the truth, are two separate things.
That's idiotic. Absolutely nothing you said in your comma delimited rant is remotely reasonable.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on July 30, 2014, 11:04:49 am
your comma delimited rant

this made me LOL.

drop anything walkie posts into a text editor, save as .csv, and import into Excel!!!

slowly diverting this thread to geekological banter...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 30, 2014, 11:12:05 am
drop anything walkie posts into a text editor, save as .csv, and import into Excel!!!
Format Text/Space Delimited all the way. I didn't used to be Julian, .prn CONNOISSEUR for nothing.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on July 30, 2014, 01:29:06 pm
yes, but you should have, at least musical talent enough to put out music to be reviewed, if you are going to trash other peoples talent, as shit.

having an opinion . . . and putting out your opinion into the world to be accepted and deciphered as the truth, are two separate things.
That's idiotic. Absolutely nothing you said in your comma delimited rant is remotely reasonable.


im enjoying, your alliteration, at the end of that sentence.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 30, 2014, 06:39:23 pm
i'll fully admin my intentions of posting that review weren't entirely pure... but there is some irony in the fact that Tiesto apparently only produced his album and left all the actual creating of the tracks to others...

another classic review i saw recently, basically took one band to task because a former band member is now in another group with a bigger buzz and included that info in the review.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 30, 2014, 08:08:49 pm
Yeah, I'll admit picking on Tiesto is like shooting monkeys in a barrel.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 31, 2014, 09:11:00 am
David Thomas geeking out on old Macs has already made my day (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203601258385676&set=a.1024993918747.4899.1642234398&type=1&relevant_count=1)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on July 31, 2014, 01:55:42 pm
Weird Al Yankovic has the number one album in the USA!!

woo hoo

i was the coolest kid in school for a day -I must admit not a common event- in the 8th grade when i recorded Eat It off of American top 40 and took it to school on my walkman (this was in japan and nobody had heard it)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 31, 2014, 02:02:05 pm
sad that it only lasted for a day  ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on July 31, 2014, 02:08:37 pm
sad that it only lasted for a day  ;D

I agree...I blame my parents!

I suppose I can think of a few other highlights...but some of them are pretty lame... why did being cool seem to go hand in hand with being an idiot?

I was cool when I stole a test before the test and shared it with the people on my school bus.....cool until someone snitched on me...

I guess I was cool when I was elected high school student body president but not really...

I sure would have loved to have been able to play soccer well....or dated the hot swedish or even english chick in my class....

I've come to realize these things are so often predetermined by your genetics and your upbringing you hardly have a chance to be anything other than what you end up being.



Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 31, 2014, 02:35:40 pm
don't worry dude, you're cool in my book
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 31, 2014, 02:51:43 pm
I was cool when I stole a test before the test and shared it with the people on my school bus.....cool until someone snitched on me...
Something similar happened to me. I was at an afterschool "something" (I forget what) and I was in a utility room with a copy machine. This was like 5th grade. And the science teacher, Mr. Vest, had left the test for the next day sitting on top of the copy machine. I thought it was funny, put it in my pocket, told no one, and the next day, first thing I went to his classroom and returned it. He asked where I got it and I said it was on the copy machine. He called my parents and made a big stink about it and postponed the test for a day until he could come up with new questions about the same material. I remember my dad coming to school and going "you left something somewhere, and he returned it to you and didn't show it to anyone else? What did you want him to do exactly?"

I think I turned up getting lunch detention or something over it still, but I'm not 100% on the details.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on July 31, 2014, 04:51:49 pm
in first year of grad school, we would ask second year students for their old tests to do them as practice tests.  for one exam, the prof was a lazy goofball and used 90% of the questions from the previous year's test.  the average on that test was over 90%.  after much deliberation, the prof decided to let the marks stand since it was "his fault" (laziness) that we all did so well.  much debate ensued...

Musicological --> geekological --> academic... what's next?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 01, 2014, 08:41:09 am
weird al would cry with happiness if he knew what he has inspired
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 01, 2014, 08:27:55 pm
yes, but you should have, at least musical talent enough to put out music to be reviewed, if you are going to trash other peoples talent, as shit.

having an opinion . . . and putting out your opinion into the world to be accepted and deciphered as the truth, are two separate things.
That's idiotic. Absolutely nothing you said in your comma delimited rant is remotely reasonable.


im enjoying, your alliteration, at the end of that sentence.

I've! figured it out, Walkie, is actually a Christopher Walken, bot!


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bt5xw0QCQAAO5I7.jpg:large)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on August 01, 2014, 08:32:20 pm
im, fish and chips, loving, that telephone number.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 03, 2014, 04:37:42 pm
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/t1.0-9/10384930_10152567227233818_5617401993528958256_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on August 03, 2014, 04:51:32 pm
Want.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 04, 2014, 12:00:51 pm
Could be interesting ...

THURSTON MOORE ENLISTS SONIC YOUTH?S STEVE SHELLEY AND MBV?S DEBBIE GOOGE FOR NEW BAND
http://www.factmag.com/2014/08/04/thurston-moore-enlists-sonic-youths-steve-shelley-and-mbvs-debbie-googe-for-new-band/ (http://www.factmag.com/2014/08/04/thurston-moore-enlists-sonic-youths-steve-shelley-and-mbvs-debbie-googe-for-new-band/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on August 04, 2014, 03:34:34 pm
Kathleen Hannah Montana (http://pitchfork.com/news/56161-kathleen-hanna-reaches-out-to-miley-cyrus-for-collaboration-after-miley-instagrams-bikini-kill-pics/)

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 11, 2014, 08:23:12 pm
Slug Solos

http://slugsolos.tumblr.com/

Guitar solo face + slug

(http://37.media.tumblr.com/e2e90d62dbf340f5368e4ebc5d009984/tumblr_n9wmh7YNIP1thoekio1_1280.jpg)

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/0e9734f563428bbce569b87f8c9d1368/tumblr_n9jbhdRXow1thoekio1_500.jpg)

(http://38.media.tumblr.com/552bf8ebdb9d466779ba812d21525d86/tumblr_n9ccbxluR41thoekio1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 14, 2014, 09:51:44 pm
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvAmU0zIQAABjL1.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 15, 2014, 08:42:37 am
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvAmU0zIQAABjL1.jpg)

I have that shirt.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on August 15, 2014, 04:46:17 pm
white lung, kicks major, ass
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 18, 2014, 07:16:53 pm
Any band doing a "Waiting Room" cover should be forced to listen to "Afternoon Delight" on repeat.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: challenged on August 18, 2014, 07:37:43 pm
Any band doing a "Waiting Room" cover should be forced to listen to "Afternoon Delight" on repeat.

I really enjoyed Arcade Fire the show...

you are saying Fugazi was too obvious a cover...?

http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2014/08/arcade_fire_cov_3.html

i would have enjoyed "afternoon delight," but would have been more happier with some Trouble Funk:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buXt-yyZEss

they certainly had the percussion section necessary for such...


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Vas Deferens on August 18, 2014, 07:41:26 pm
https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/501353091992924162
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on August 21, 2014, 12:27:45 pm
The Knife are breaking up once their your is done.

Someone check on Walkie.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 21, 2014, 01:26:13 pm
https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/501353091992924162
from this link on a internet worm hole I reached this story about fugazi releasing it's first demo (http://www.brooklynvegan.com/archives/2014/08/fugazi_releasin_1.html) which has one of my favorite quotes of the week

"The cover, about the growing Libertarian movement within the republican party, uses the association between classic DC hardcore and politics to great effect. The story apparently compares Rand Paul to Pearl Jam, Ron Paul to Nirvana, and Ted Cruz to the Stone Temple Pilots,"

So does that make Barry Goldwater the Ramones and Ayn Rand Iggy?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on August 21, 2014, 01:35:03 pm
The Knife are breaking up once their your is done.

Someone check on Walkie.

(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i0SoMgWPUE4/UGzxB67WJrI/AAAAAAAABoc/cfX3DmJIEFU/s400/Deathcat.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 21, 2014, 01:56:20 pm
Walkie, wins, again,
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on August 21, 2014, 02:24:58 pm
If one of us convincingly faked our own death on here, and it didn't slip out until the big reveal, that'd be a first-ballot (META: User-curated) Hall of Fame event.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 21, 2014, 03:10:58 pm
RIP: Atomic
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on August 21, 2014, 03:32:33 pm
RIP: Atomic
He died in a horrible auto-erotic masturbatory asphyxiation accident! Why, Lord, why!? Why do you take the tall, Germanic assholes from us in their prime, Lord?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 21, 2014, 03:48:51 pm
evil santa is dead inside
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on August 21, 2014, 03:56:30 pm
evil santa is dead inside
You're too hard on him. At worst, he's an emotional anorexic. Nowhere close to full blown dead inside.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 21, 2014, 04:06:32 pm
Sez you..I don't know how he got a hold of a lute, but he's locked away working on something he's calling Consortstep.  His soundcloud page is a horror of turning anything he can think off into step
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on August 22, 2014, 12:24:36 am
https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/501353091992924162

i wish i could unsee this
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 22, 2014, 10:49:01 am
Henry Rollins ...  ::)
his 17 year old jock psyche just won't leave him.
http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2014/08/21/henry-rollins-fuck-suicide (http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2014/08/21/henry-rollins-fuck-suicide)

"I have life by the neck and drag it along. Rarely does it move fast enough. Raw Power forever."

I think he needs a cat. People with cats don't say such douchetastic things.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on August 22, 2014, 12:35:35 pm
While that quote is silly, he's spot on with the rest of the article.

Henry Rollins ...  ::)
his 17 year old jock psyche just won't leave him.
http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2014/08/21/henry-rollins-fuck-suicide (http://www.laweekly.com/westcoastsound/2014/08/21/henry-rollins-fuck-suicide)

"I have life by the neck and drag it along. Rarely does it move fast enough. Raw Power forever."

I think he needs a cat. People with cats don't say such douchetastic things.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 22, 2014, 12:59:28 pm
I agree with the article too... even though Rollins is one of the biggest nozzles out there.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on August 22, 2014, 01:03:01 pm
I especially agree with the part about not taking your life if you have kids. But his youngest kid is 23, so maybe the rules change once your youngest is an adult (?) You're going to die at some point, 63 with your kids grown is not that young anyway...

I agree with the article too... even though Rollins is one of the biggest nozzles out there.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 22, 2014, 01:12:53 pm
I especially agree with the part about not taking your life if you have kids. But his youngest kid is 23, so maybe the rules change once your youngest is an adult (?) You're going to die at some point, 63 with your kids grown is not that young anyway...

I agree with the article too... even though Rollins is one of the biggest nozzles out there.

That's  part I agree with, if you have kids... don't be selfish and leave them.   
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 22, 2014, 01:37:33 pm
He is not spot on about anything...

Severe depression can lead people to kill themselves..its a disease...

he's about as right as the people who are convinced that some people beat cancer cause they wanted to and others don't because they didn't...

its seriously so moronic that i'm shocked to read people agree with on this site..

obviouslyt he man was seriously sick... nobody kills themselves and leaves kids behind because they are thinking rationally...its an illness and even if you seek out treatment sometimes it doesn't work...its very complex

but to say people who kill themselves are dicks?? WTF?

nobody disputes that killing yourself when you have kids is a terrible thing to do..heck, just killing yourself even if you don't! i mean what about the people who love a person that kills themselves? BUT that is not the issue.. the issue is that its an illness that leads people to feel so desperate that there is nothing else to be done...

moreover, nobody knows Robin Williams or any other man, other than themself (and in many cases not even that), to be able to sit around judging others and what they "did"... i mean what the fuck do you all know about robin williams??? you thinkk cause you saw a few movies you know shit?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 22, 2014, 01:54:10 pm
He is not spot on about anything...

Severe depression can lead people to kill themselves..its a disease...

he's about as right as the people who are convinced that some people beat cancer cause they wanted to and others don't because they didn't...

its seriously so moronic that i'm shocked to read people agree with on this site..

obviouslyt he man was seriously sick... nobody kills themselves and leaves kids behind because they are thinking rationally...its an illness and even if you seek out treatment sometimes it doesn't work...its very complex

but to say people who kill themselves are dicks?? WTF?

nobody disputes that killing yourself when you have kids is a terrible thing to do..heck, just killing yourself even if you don't! i mean what about the people who love a person that kills themselves? BUT that is not the issue.. the issue is that its an illness that leads people to feel so desperate that there is nothing else to be done...

moreover, nobody knows Robin Williams or any other man, other than themself (and in many cases not even that), to be able to sit around judging others and what they "did"... i mean what the fuck do you all know about robin williams??? you thinkk cause you saw a few movies you know shit?

My judgment isn't based on me thinking I know Robin WIlliams, it's based on personal experiences that I've had in my life where people have left children behind.

I understand it's a disease and not something you can just "turn off", but in some situations it's just not acceptable IMO.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 22, 2014, 02:17:09 pm


My judgment isn't based on me thinking I know Robin WIlliams, it's based on personal experiences that I've had in my life where people have left children behind.

I understand it's a disease and not something you can just "turn off", but in some situations it's just not acceptable IMO.

well I don't know what you mean when you say "its just not acceptable"... you'd have to define your words very precisely..it could be read any number of ways..

its not acceptable so he's a dick could be one reading.... if that is what you're saying you ought to take a big step back...

its not acceptable so people shouldn't do it if they can at all avoid it could be another reading.... a more human one i would add


the fact you know people who did it means nothing just as it means nothing that henry rollins had a roomate who was depressed......sorry to say.... its not the same... you can't extrapolate one case and make it emblematic of all cases and then draw a judgment....

you really ought to focus a bit more on empathy and be less judgmental of people you don't know...

depression is an illness...very often genetically transmitted and which people often times have no ability to control.... even if they do seek treatment.. it is incredibly complex...certainly more complex than "oh, he took the easy way out, what a dick"......
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 22, 2014, 02:22:15 pm
empathy is an interesting concept..... having a child with autism (maybe two) i never thought all that much about it.. i think i'm lacking in it at times.. i know my father is..... i dont mean to lack in it but i do.. i think about it more...the ability to look at things from other people's shoes...its really a great ability isn't it...to see things as others do.... its so weird how so much comes down to those pesky genes..and that winning sperm
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on August 22, 2014, 02:55:35 pm


My judgment isn't based on me thinking I know Robin WIlliams, it's based on personal experiences that I've had in my life where people have left children behind.

I understand it's a disease and not something you can just "turn off", but in some situations it's just not acceptable IMO.

well I don't know what you mean when you say "its just not acceptable"... you'd have to define your words very precisely..it could be read any number of ways..

its not acceptable so he's a dick could be one reading.... if that is what you're saying you ought to take a big step back...

its not acceptable so people shouldn't do it if they can at all avoid it could be another reading.... a more human one i would add


the fact you know people who did it means nothing just as it means nothing that henry rollins had a roomate who was depressed......sorry to say.... its not the same... you can't extrapolate one case and make it emblematic of all cases and then draw a judgment....

you really ought to focus a bit more on empathy and be less judgmental of people you don't know...

depression is an illness...very often genetically transmitted and which people often times have no ability to control.... even if they do seek treatment.. it is incredibly complex...certainly more complex than "oh, he took the easy way out, what a dick"......

Without exposing too much personal information on this here website, believe me... I know all the ins and outs of these illnesses.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on August 22, 2014, 03:53:27 pm
I reckon some choose to empathize with the dead guy who is now in no pain (assuming he's not burning in Hell*), while others choose to empathize with those whose actions the dead guy brought current pain to.

*Disclaimer: I don't believe in Hell


empathy is an interesting concept..... having a child with autism (maybe two) i never thought all that much about it.. i think i'm lacking in it at times.. i know my father is..... i dont mean to lack in it but i do.. i think about it more...the ability to look at things from other people's shoes...its really a great ability isn't it...to see things as others do.... its so weird how so much comes down to those pesky genes..and that winning sperm
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 22, 2014, 08:30:34 pm
I reckon some choose to empathize with the dead guy who is now in no pain (assuming he's not burning in Hell*), while others choose to empathize with those whose actions the dead guy brought current pain to.

*Disclaimer: I don't believe in Hell


empathy is an interesting concept..... having a child with autism (maybe two) i never thought all that much about it.. i think i'm lacking in it at times.. i know my father is..... i dont mean to lack in it but i do.. i think about it more...the ability to look at things from other people's shoes...its really a great ability isn't it...to see things as others do.... its so weird how so much comes down to those pesky genes..and that winning sperm

what a silly thing to write james ford...why do you have to choose to empathize with one "side" or "another"...this ain't a ballgame buddy...this isn't israel vs gaza..this is one man's life.... of course one is sad for his survivors.. heck even for the world really... but at the end of the day i'm sad that robin williams felt that was the only thing he could do..... calling him a dick/coward for it is just unecessary...nobody appointed any of you judge and you don't know any of the actual facts..

the only thing i can say is a great artist died.. who gave me pleasure, and I gave him nothing, and I'm sad for his loss and the folks that loved and cared about him.. i have no idea what his relationships with his loved ones where... or even how many children he had.. i dont' concern myself with his personal life... just sad for his loss and that he was in such pain...

kurt cobain blew his brains off.. he was a very sick man.... I'm not going to say he was an evil man for doing that.. I have no idea what his demons were.....  could i ever bring myself to kill myself? no, first of all i lack the courage, second of all i could never do that to my children... but I am not mentally ill or at least not to that degree...:)

my reaction to kurt dying is pretty similar to robin....i'm sorry he felt that was what he had to do.. i don't sit around and judge him.. how can you judge someone you don't even know as some of you, and henry rollins, are doing..


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on August 22, 2014, 09:08:32 pm
Pretty sure you gave him something. $$$

I never called him a dick.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on August 22, 2014, 09:20:00 pm
Pretty sure you gave him something. $$$

I never called him a dick.

i'll call rollins a dick.  he's a dick and he's ignorant and anyone who agrees with what he wrote should stick with what they know.  i normally don't mind rollins, i was never really a fan of his music, but i appreciate that he's candid and he expressed how he felt, but he is standing on the wrong side and his words read to me like he has no fucking clue what it means to have a mental illness.

we are all just trying to get through life, some of us finding more meaning in it than others, and by no means does that give anyone the fucking right to point a finger at the other side and say "you're doing it wrong, asshole".  as a relatively young boardie, i can tell you that after 18, there's very little parenting to do, and parents really struggle with finding meaning in life after their children have grown up.  the fact that rollins props up robin williams to get his point across about suicide is disgusting... his child is an adult at this point. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on August 22, 2014, 09:23:43 pm
So nobody has the right to point a finger and tell someone they fucked up? Puh-leeeze.  Some of us get criticized for our actions every day of the week. If we can take the criticism, so can Robin.

Pretty sure you gave him something. $$$

I never called him a dick.

i'll call him a dick.  he's a dick and he's ignorant and anyone who agrees with what he wrote should stick with what they know.  i normally don't mind rollins, i was never really a fan of his music, but i appreciate that he's candid and he expressed how he felt, but he is standing on the wrong side and his words read to me like he has no fucking clue what it means to have a mental illness.

we are all just trying to get through life, some of us finding more meaning in it than others, and by no means does that give anyone the fucking right to point a finger at the other side and say "you're doing it wrong, asshole".  fuck henry rollins here.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on August 22, 2014, 09:29:19 pm
So nobody has the right to point a finger and tell someone they fucked up? Puh-leeeze.  Some of us get criticized for our actions every day of the week. If we can take the criticism, so can Robin.

Pretty sure you gave him something. $$$

I never called him a dick.

i'll call him a dick.  he's a dick and he's ignorant and anyone who agrees with what he wrote should stick with what they know.  i normally don't mind rollins, i was never really a fan of his music, but i appreciate that he's candid and he expressed how he felt, but he is standing on the wrong side and his words read to me like he has no fucking clue what it means to have a mental illness.

we are all just trying to get through life, some of us finding more meaning in it than others, and by no means does that give anyone the fucking right to point a finger at the other side and say "you're doing it wrong, asshole".  fuck henry rollins here.


i edited my original post a little bit for clarification.

but to respond to the question posed... i think it goes without saying "you've fucked up" if you end your life.  there's more humility in self reflection that death is final.  nobody has to write an op-ed about it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 25, 2014, 09:21:42 am
Your Logo Is Not Hardcore (http://yourlogoisnothardcore.tumblr.com/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 25, 2014, 01:14:13 pm
Your Logo Is Not Hardcore (http://yourlogoisnothardcore.tumblr.com/)

Your link is not musicological.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 25, 2014, 01:20:17 pm
And now the ones that agree with the first Rollins are left by themselves.

http://henryrollins.com/news (http://henryrollins.com/news)

August 22 2014

2016 PST

For the last 9+ hours, I have been answering letters from people from all over the world. The anger is off the scale and in my opinion, well placed.

The article I wrote in the LA Weekly about suicide caused a lot of hurt. This is perhaps one of the bigger understatements of all time. I read all the letters. Some of them were very long and the disappointment, resentment and ringing clarity was jarring.

That I hurt anyone by what I said, and I did hurt many, disgusts me. It was not at all my intent but it most certainly was the result.

I have had a life of depression. Some days are excruciating. Knowing what I know and having been through what I have, I should have known better but I obviously did not. I get so mad when I hear that someone has died this way. Not mad at them, mad at whatever got them there and that no one magically appeared to somehow save them.

I am not asking for a break from the caning, take me to the woodshed as much as you see fit. If what I said has caused you to be done with me, I get it.

I wrote something for the LA Weekly that they will post on Monday.

I wanted to get this out at this moment.

I am deeply sorry. Down to my marrow. I can?t think that means anything to you, but I am. Completely sorry. It is not of my interest to hurt anyone but I know I did. Thank you for reading this. Henry
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 25, 2014, 02:17:14 pm
Your Logo Is Not Hardcore (http://yourlogoisnothardcore.tumblr.com/)

Your link is not musicological.

Musicology also considers the culture surrounding music.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on August 25, 2014, 10:37:37 pm
vmas

two words . . . riff raff
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 26, 2014, 04:10:44 pm
Your Logo Is Not Hardcore (http://yourlogoisnothardcore.tumblr.com/)

Your link is not musicological.

Musicology also considers the culture surrounding music.

I see, since all culture surrounds music, you interpret this as an anything goes zone.

I was goofing on the title more than anything, but I'll add 'Hardcore' isn't really the best description in which to base the whole Tumblr. The logos are really all intending to promote a hipster vibe not hardcore.

Although in twenty years when 'hipster' comes back around to being hip. There will be a Hipster Hardcore sub genre of music that will be based somewhere like Albuquerque. They will all create their own instruments out of locally sourced wood with artisanal strings. There will be a Hipster Hardcore tribute album to Henry Rollins, who will off himself in ten years when he learns the tragic combination of being diagnosed with hemorrhoids and the news Häagen-Daz has filed chapter 11.

Book that shit.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 27, 2014, 11:53:55 am
I see, since all culture surrounds music, you interpret this as an anything goes zone.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/10622815_10153071416270278_6846778212657419623_n.jpg?oh=1d1ccc42edd548e268727bd2a28eac8f&oe=5478CE3B&__gda__=1417347629_42fa084cd013ac1825a19a10f9808b8b)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 27, 2014, 01:54:31 pm
PetSmart is my first destination after I renew my policy.
(http://planetivy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/iggy-pop.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on August 27, 2014, 02:58:35 pm
That's the first time I've seen that ad and I wanted to check it out. Sadly, I found that Mr. Pop is not the first hit in Google when typing Iggy.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on August 27, 2014, 11:57:35 pm
That's the first time I've seen that ad and I wanted to check it out. Sadly, I found that Mr. Pop is not the first hit in Google when typing Iggy.

Well then, welcome to the world of Iggy pitching insurance with a puppet from those UK puppet guys from the 80s. I don't remember the name of their show/brand especially after Genesis inflicted one of their music videos with them.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBnEV3ElvY (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MhBnEV3ElvY)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 29, 2014, 08:17:50 am
930 is now a record label record label (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/dc/930-club-to-launch-record-labe.html)

not sure I'm interested in this show, but who are "9:30 Club subscribers" that will have a chance to win tickets through a lottery?

for some reason I can't seem to get any emails from the 930, I even subscribed under different e-mails and such.
On that note, like the low ticket warning, I think there should be a 930/IMP email thread
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on August 29, 2014, 08:35:18 am
for some reason I can't seem to get any emails from the 930, I even subscribed under different e-mails and such.
On that note, like the low ticket warning, I think there should be a 930/IMP email thread
I received mail and email from 930 consistently for years, then ThatGuy got his panties in a bunch and banned me, and both immediately stopped. I've tried signing back up, nothing. That's pretty much the height of pettiness.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 29, 2014, 08:37:42 am
for some reason I can't seem to get any emails from the 930, I even subscribed under different e-mails and such.
On that note, like the low ticket warning, I think there should be a 930/IMP email thread
I received mail and email from 930 consistently for years, then ThatGuy got his panties in a bunch and banned me, and both immediately stopped. I've tried signing back up, nothing. That's pretty much the height of pettiness.
heck, I don't think I've burned any bridges with 930 (I'm sure there are a few bordies I've pissed off) But I've sent emails to human@930 and even the staff a FWB and still nothing. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on August 29, 2014, 07:07:28 pm
930 is now a record label record label (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/dc/930-club-to-launch-record-labe.html)

not sure I'm interested in this show, but who are "9:30 Club subscribers" that will have a chance to win tickets through a lottery?

for some reason I can't seem to get any emails from the 930, I even subscribed under different e-mails and such.
On that note, like the low ticket warning, I think there should be a 930/IMP email thread

Did you not see the date on the story?  It's from four years ago....  I was beginning to wonder if I had missed a memo about the label expanding or something.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on August 29, 2014, 07:12:39 pm
930 is now a record label record label (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/local-breaking-news/dc/930-club-to-launch-record-labe.html)

not sure I'm interested in this show, but who are "9:30 Club subscribers" that will have a chance to win tickets through a lottery?

for some reason I can't seem to get any emails from the 930, I even subscribed under different e-mails and such.
On that note, like the low ticket warning, I think there should be a 930/IMP email thread

Did you not see the date on the story?  It's from four years ago....  I was beginning to wonder if I had missed a memo about the label expanding or something.

yeah he started it to put out the justin jones thing..not sure if they released anything else...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on August 29, 2014, 07:14:30 pm
I left DC 10 11 years ago and I still get all my 930 emails.  On two different accounts....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on August 30, 2014, 10:45:43 am
Julian, deserves, every thing that, happens to him.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on August 30, 2014, 10:20:38 pm
Did you not see the date on the story? 

jea-zus, second time this has happened.  No I didn't check the date!
was surprised no one else had said anything about it

add that to the list I need to do in life, check the date
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on September 02, 2014, 10:14:32 pm
Buzzcocks

        thursday

               Black Cat

                        not sold out

                                  isn't that odd?!?  - kinda pictured them packing da club
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on September 03, 2014, 12:12:05 am
Word style, is imper,ative
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 06, 2014, 11:24:45 am
Honestly indifferent on Frank Turner's music but this is pretty damn cool. http://thequietus.com/articles/16135-frank-turner-live-review-barnsley
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 08, 2014, 01:28:37 pm
RIP Death by Audio (the venue... the pedal company will continue)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 08, 2014, 01:31:30 pm
Supposedly Vice are taking over the building.


Maybe some of the idiots who read it will start to see that it's not as cool as it tries (way too hard) to portray itself now.

http://gothamist.com/2014/07/02/vice_media_glasslands.php
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 09, 2014, 10:00:41 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/56630-aphex-twins-list-of-gear-used-on-syro-surfaces/
Wow.
Quote

    A Designs Reddi
    A Designs Pacifica
    ADT Toolkit x4
    Akai S950HXC
    AKG Contact Mics
    Alice Mixer
    Allen Heath Mix Wizard
    Allen Organ Spring Reverb
    AMS RM16
    API 3124+
    API 550A
    API 550A orig
    API 550B API 560
    API 8200A
    ARP 2500
    Atari 1040 + Midi Expansions + HXC
    Avedis E27
    Bode Vocoder
    Boss BX16
    Boss BX8
    Boss GE7
    Buzz Audio Arc1.1
    Calrec Minimixer
    Calrec RQP3200
    Casio FZ10 + FZ20M + NXC
    Chandler Delay Black
    Chandler Delay Cream
    Chandler Zoner Limiter
    Cirklon Sequencer
    Court Acoustics Graphic
    Crumar Bit01 White
    Cwejman RES4 x3
    Cwejman VC06
    Disklavier MKIV Pro Custom
    DPA 4052
    Drawner Stereo Gate Dytronics FS1
    Elysia Mpressor
    EML 101. modded
    EMS 2000 Vocoder
    EMT 140 Plate/Stereo/Tube
    EMT 240 Gold Foil
    EMT 252 FX
    EMT 258 x4 Filters
    Ensoniq ASR10 Eventide DSP4000
    Eventide H3000 DSE
    Eventide H949 x4
    Focusrite ISA110 Orig x8
    Focusrite ISA430
    Fulltone Tape Echo
    Harrison 32EQ GR500
    HAT Mechanical Drums
    Helios x2
    Intellijel Rubicon
    JH ARP Quadra Phaser
    JH Storm Tide FLanger x2
    JH Tau Phaser
    Jomox Sunsyn V1 x2
    Kawai K5000R
    Klark Teknik DN780
    Korg DS8
    Korg Minipops7 Midi. sepouts
    Korg PS3200
    Korg PS3300 x3
    Lexicon 480L
    Lexicon PCM70
    LPG
    Lynx Aurora 16
    Make Noise DPO
    Marion PROSynth x2
    Meinl Water UDU
    Micmix Dynaflanger
    Micmix Masteroom 2
    Midas Venice Desk
    Midimoogs x2
    Modular Systems/Eurorack
    Moog Memory Lintronics
    MIT Ensemble
    Mum & Dad Vocals
    Musicmaid Claptrap x4
    Nagra IV-S
    Neotek Elite 64 Channel Custom
    Neumann V473 x2
    Oberheim OBX, racked
    Oberheim Modular SEMs, racked
    Orla DSE24
    Pearl SC40
    Pearl Syncussion, racked/midi/mod x4
    Plugins, various
    Pultec EQP-1A3
    Quad Eight 248 x2
    Quantec Room Simulator
    Retro Instruments Powerstrip
    Rhodes Chroma
    RME Fireface800
    RMI Harmonic Synth
    Roland 101s, modded
    Roland CE1
    Roland D550
    Roland MK550
    Roland MK570
    Roland R8/ROM(?)
    Roland TR606 / 666?, modded
    Roland TR808
    Sci Prophet VS
    Sci Prophet5, racked/keyboard
    Sennheiser VSM201
    Serge Modular 9-panel
    Shure Auxpander
    Siemens V78 x2
    Simmons SD53(??)
    SM Pro PEQ505
    Songbird Tri Chorus x2
    Sound Devices 772
    Soundcraft Ghost
    Soundworkshop 262
    SPL TD4
    SSL 4000 Channel Strips x5
    SSL X desk
    Studio Electronics Code8 Full
    Synthoma Elkorus
    Synton Syntovox 221 x2
    Tantek Flanger/Delay
    TC1210
    Tongue Drums
    TR727
    TR9090
    Valley People Gain Brains
    Valley People Kepex x10
    Wildlife
    Yamaha CS80
    Yamaha D5000
    Yamaha DX100, modded
    Yamaha DX11
    Yamaha EX42
    Yamaha FS1R
    Yamaha RX11
    Yamaha TX16W x2
    Zither AFX-scale
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on September 09, 2014, 10:20:02 pm
The cool part was the Syro Surface, not the actual list:

(http://cdn2.pitchfork.com/news/56630/59996e8f.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 10, 2014, 09:28:47 am
Some U2/Apple backlash (http://thequietus.com/articles/16217-bono-u2-songs-of-experience)

Some more (http://twitter.com/dada_drummer")


Pretty much agree with all of it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 10, 2014, 10:28:59 am
A free U2 record? Overpriced.

That band was good, not great, for a three-year stretch over twenty years ago. It is astounding they remain as popular as they are with the glut of terrible material they've put out in the interim and what absolute, unmitigated assholes everyone in the band appears to be.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 10, 2014, 10:40:23 am
A free U2 record? Overpriced.

That band was good, not great, for a three-year stretch over twenty years ago. It is astounding they remain as popular as they are with the glut of terrible material they've put out in the interim and what absolute, unmitigated assholes everyone in the band appears to be.

LOLU2

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maim9sAJRO1qdtw7so4_250.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 10, 2014, 10:48:43 am
A free U2 record? Overpriced.

That band was good, not great, for a three-year stretch over twenty years ago. It is astounding they remain as popular as they are with the glut of terrible material they've put out in the interim and what absolute, unmitigated assholes everyone in the band appears to be.

LOLU2

(http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maim9sAJRO1qdtw7so4_250.gif)
I mean, am I alone on this? I know Smackie loves them, but the more "hip" 80% of this board, we all hate them, right? U2 is a total nostalgia act and a sucky one at that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 10, 2014, 10:55:01 am
I like(d) Rattle and Hum.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 10, 2014, 11:12:55 am
I like(d) Rattle and Hum.

Achtung Baby is the one LP that I have a soft spot for. If I didn't hear "Angel of Harlem" or "Beautiful Day" ever again, I'd be OK with that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on September 10, 2014, 11:27:02 am
U2 had me through Joshua Tree, lost me with Rattle and Hum, got me back with Achtung Baby, and lost me forever after that.

I've never seen them live and never bought a tshirt.

Some of my Irish ancestors had the same last name as Bono.

I wonder if i pass the Sidehatch coolness test?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on September 10, 2014, 11:56:15 am
U2 had me through Joshua Tree, lost me with Rattle and Hum, got me back with Achtung Baby, and lost me forever after that.

I've never seen them live and never bought a tshirt.

Some of my Irish ancestors had the same last name as Bono.

I wonder if i pass the Sidehatch coolness test?

Would have been cooler if you said 'after Boy, I really couldn't get into them anymore, '  'also I was fortunate enough to be in the crowd for  Live at Red Rocks: Under a Blood Red Sky and nabbed his sweaty towel when tossed to the crowd'
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/29/6a/b4/296ab4e860cd63c71fe3b8caa92b5962.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on September 10, 2014, 12:27:35 pm
my peak U2 fandom was Live Under a Blood Red Sky/The Unforgettable Fire

With or without you and I still haven't found what I'm looking for make me want to vommit.....

on the other Where the Streets have no name still has that great buildup...

I have zero interest in U2 these days....that is all I got on U2.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 10, 2014, 01:53:56 pm
http://www.stereogum.com/1704026/isolated-mic-exposes-courtney-loves-earsplitting-guitar-playing/video/

Courtney slaying the guitar!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 10, 2014, 01:59:06 pm
I'm kinda into it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on September 10, 2014, 06:25:29 pm
I  mean, am I alone on this? I know Smackie loves them, but the more "hip" 80% of this board, we all hate them, right? U2 is a total nostalgia act and a sucky one at that.

I've never felt the need to defend my musical tastes,  and certainly won't start now.  However,  if you think my  choice of music defines my hipness,  then I am reassured that I am not the one with an issue.

I have tickets to see Social D,  Cock Sparrer,  Luke Bryan and Slowdive/Low show in the next two months,  and will likely  enjoy each one of them.   It's the beauty of my positive outlook and taking most things at face value,  ignoring the bullshit that gets most people so worked up.

Now if you'll excuse,  I'm going back to my Hall and Oates radio,  and doing so not ironically.   They make my dreams come true.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on September 10, 2014, 06:42:17 pm
The very definition of being hip is listening to whatever you like and not giving a shit what others think...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 11, 2014, 07:38:16 am
The makes me the hippest of the hip then  :o

<cues up Kacey Musgraves for the commute in>
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on September 11, 2014, 08:52:57 am
Ok I lied..I'm actually listening to the Polyrythmics a killer afrofunk outfit with jazzy overtones.  But,I do often listen to ms. Musgraves when I having a lousy morning.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on September 11, 2014, 09:04:11 am
Like my mom, with her collection of American Idol alumni CD's.

The very definition of being hip is listening to whatever you like and not giving a shit what others think...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Bagley on September 11, 2014, 09:05:29 am
"Follow your arrow wherever it points"

KM
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 11, 2014, 09:36:56 am
Like my mom, with her collection of American Idol alumni CD's.

The very definition of being hip is listening to whatever you like and not giving a shit what others think...

**wiggles to ruben studdard**
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on September 15, 2014, 05:51:14 pm
Kiss Army helps raise $1Mil for a us military museum (http://news.yahoo.com/kiss-raises-1-million-oregon-military-museum-212802889.html)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on September 16, 2014, 12:01:31 am
mark kozelek has become the most annoying person in music in 2014. his lyrics are already whiney enough to begin with, and now he's pouring it on with a bunch of pointless, entitled stage banter. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 16, 2014, 09:20:53 am
mark kozelek has become the most annoying person in music in 2014. his lyrics are already whiney enough to begin with, and now he's pouring it on with a bunch of pointless, entitled stage banter. 

I agree... what a boring douche.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 16, 2014, 11:44:02 am
mark kozelek has become the most annoying person in music in 2014. his lyrics are already whiney enough to begin with, and now he's pouring it on with a bunch of pointless, entitled stage banter. 

I agree... what a boring douche.

I think it's pretty funny he's getting all this attention. He has ALWAYS been cranky, bitter, and confrontational. Entitled? More than Kanye? Please. I think Mr. West takes the award for boring douche.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on September 16, 2014, 12:43:28 pm
mark kozelek has become the most annoying person in music in 2014. his lyrics are already whiney enough to begin with, and now he's pouring it on with a bunch of pointless, entitled stage banter. 

I agree... what a boring douche.

I think it's pretty funny he's getting all this attention. He has ALWAYS been cranky, bitter, and confrontational. Entitled? More than Kanye? Please. I think Mr. West takes the award for boring douche.

I'm not arguing that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on September 16, 2014, 01:01:46 pm
mark kozelek has become the most annoying person in music in 2014. his lyrics are already whiney enough to begin with, and now he's pouring it on with a bunch of pointless, entitled stage banter. 

I agree... what a boring douche.

I think it's pretty funny he's getting all this attention. He has ALWAYS been cranky, bitter, and confrontational. Entitled? More than Kanye? Please. I think Mr. West takes the award for boring douche.

I'm not arguing that.

yeah definitely not arguing that.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on September 18, 2014, 10:36:56 am

I saw PG in 2007 or 2008 at Univ of Maryland.

I saw him a few times too. I was surprised that he was not particularly tight on solo piano. I know he is a composer, but I expected that songs he wrote 30 years ago had many years of practice. In any case, I still prefer to see the composer playing than a "cover" artist, as we would say for rock music.

Classical composers are often not very good players of their own works. Mahler wrote some great symphonies but was considered a mediocre conductor of them. After all, much of what they write is for instruments that they themselves cannot play.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 23, 2014, 01:27:15 pm
Can someone please explain why so many of you want to see the Replacements?  Is it for the nostalgia factor?  I watched their song on Fallon the other night, after a coworker raved on and on about it, and I found it to not be something I would pay money to witness live and barely made it through the one song.

I am not hating, I am just curious as to their (current) appeal. 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 23, 2014, 02:55:22 pm
Is it for the nostalgia factor? 
Yes, absolutely. I never got to see them because I was too young and its a total "imagine what it would've been like to be there way back when" thing.

This doesn't preclude them from being really, really good, btw. (Not implying you're saying that, but lots of people want to paint it as an either-or.)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 24, 2014, 07:14:23 am
Bands that were really, really good during reformation:
Mission of Burma
Dinosaur Jr.
My Bloody Valentine

Who else?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 24, 2014, 09:34:41 am
Who else?
Interesting topic.

Guided By Voices
Texas Is The Reason
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on September 24, 2014, 09:39:57 am
Iggy and the Stooges

Who else?
Interesting topic.

Guided By Voices
Texas Is The Reason

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on September 24, 2014, 09:53:22 am
Iggy and the Stooges

depends which incarnation... some were better than others.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on September 24, 2014, 09:55:54 am
This is the one I saw at Bumbershoot 2005.

(http://www.nadamucho.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/The-Stooges-at-Bumbershoot-Photo-by-Peter-Whitfield.jpg)
Iggy and the Stooges

depends which incarnation... some were better than others.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on September 24, 2014, 09:59:35 am
for killsaly/rogue/etc.:

Claiming to like Aphex Twin makes comeback
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/claiming-to-like-aphex-twin-makes-comeback-2014092490978

MUSIC listeners are pretending to enjoy the challenging electronica of Aphex Twin for the first time since the 1990s.

The artist released Syro this week, his first album since 2001 when his fanbase secretly preferred All Saints.

Music blogger Tom Booker said: ?My favourite track? Well, probably CIRCLONT14 [152.97] [shrymoming mix] if I had to choose, but really it?s the kind of album you listen to from start to finish which I?m sure I will one day.

?Let?s just say I like them all.?

Self-styled experimental music fan Stephen Malley said: ?Is it really 13 years since the last Aphex album? Because I still haven?t managed to lose my virginity.

?Cultivating an extensive knowledge of obscure, confrontational electronic music really is the most ineffective way to impress girls.?

Richard D James, who records as Aphex Twin, said: ?I thought recording an album of unabashed EDM stadium bangers, with guest vocals from Miley Cyrus, Olly Murs and Pitbull, would confound the critics.

?But it?s like they all wrote their reviews without even bothering to stick it on.?

lol ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 24, 2014, 03:43:27 pm
The Feelies have put on excellent shows the few times I've caught them since they have been back.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 24, 2014, 06:41:02 pm
Bands that were really, really good during reformation:
Mission of Burma
Dinosaur Jr.
My Bloody Valentine

Who else?
Sebadoh.  Quicksand.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on September 24, 2014, 07:15:20 pm
phish,
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 24, 2014, 07:50:31 pm
Swans
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on September 25, 2014, 12:17:53 am
Urban Outfitters sell more vinyl records than any other retailer (http://www.factmag.com/2014/09/25/urban-outfitters-sell-more-vinyl-records-than-any-other-retailer/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 25, 2014, 09:15:29 am
Love this! (http://thequietus.com/articles/16052-drew-daniel-matmos-soft-pink-truth-anti-favourite-albums-essay)

Drew Daniel's 13 reasons for not making a favorite 13 albums list.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 25, 2014, 12:23:29 pm
Vas needs to read that. He is always talking about best this, worst that, etc in regards to music.

Quote
Reason Eight: It Encourages The False Idea That "Best", "Better Than?" And "Worse Than?" Apply to Art.
Question: What is Neil Young's On The Beach album like?

Answer: It's his best!

If you think this is a not a good answer to that question, you're right. The word "Best" is just a placeholder for a swirl of emotions, a specific historical narrative, a shaky web of criteria, as relayed by a person who is changing all the time as new experiences influence them. All of which is interesting. The "best" part is not. If "best" only begs the question, the same is also true for talk about "better than . . . " or "worse than . . . " that afflicts the scene when we explain why one record is on a list and another is left off. Each record proposes to you the terms by which it might be judged. Some people aim high and wipe out, some people aim low and nail it, but who decides what constitutes these alleged successes or failures? What is the vantage point from which you determine what is high or low as a goal in the first place? What does "easy" and "difficult" mean when making art? Is a record that sets a supposedly modest goal for itself "worse" than a record that takes huge risks, and attempts impossibly ambitious things? From a labour standpoint, an album of two-chord drone rock with muttered vocals about drugs is easier to make than a witty song-cycle about American imperialism set to calypso and Trinidadian steel band arrangements with orchestral strings. But so what? On some days, Spacemen 3's Sound Of Confusion is clearly "better" to me than Van Dyke Parks' Discover America. On other days, the reverse is just as clearly true. At no point are these shifting wins and losses anything other than a subjective report about my whims, pleasures and needs. List making perpetuates the illusion that those whims are facts worth reporting.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on September 26, 2014, 10:38:34 am
Reason for Malcolm checking out of AC/DC is a bummer.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/acdcs-malcolm-young-reportedly-in-care-for-dementia-in-sydney-20140925-10m1hs.html (http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/music/acdcs-malcolm-young-reportedly-in-care-for-dementia-in-sydney-20140925-10m1hs.html)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 26, 2014, 11:06:41 am
Vas needs to read that. He is always talking about best this, worst that, etc in regards to music.

Quote
Reason Eight: It Encourages The False Idea That "Best", "Better Than?" And "Worse Than?" Apply to Art.
Question: What is Neil Young's On The Beach album like?

Answer: It's his best!

If you think this is a not a good answer to that question, you're right. The word "Best" is just a placeholder for a swirl of emotions, a specific historical narrative, a shaky web of criteria, as relayed by a person who is changing all the time as new experiences influence them. All of which is interesting. The "best" part is not. If "best" only begs the question, the same is also true for talk about "better than . . . " or "worse than . . . " that afflicts the scene when we explain why one record is on a list and another is left off. Each record proposes to you the terms by which it might be judged. Some people aim high and wipe out, some people aim low and nail it, but who decides what constitutes these alleged successes or failures? What is the vantage point from which you determine what is high or low as a goal in the first place? What does "easy" and "difficult" mean when making art? Is a record that sets a supposedly modest goal for itself "worse" than a record that takes huge risks, and attempts impossibly ambitious things? From a labour standpoint, an album of two-chord drone rock with muttered vocals about drugs is easier to make than a witty song-cycle about American imperialism set to calypso and Trinidadian steel band arrangements with orchestral strings. But so what? On some days, Spacemen 3's Sound Of Confusion is clearly "better" to me than Van Dyke Parks' Discover America. On other days, the reverse is just as clearly true. At no point are these shifting wins and losses anything other than a subjective report about my whims, pleasures and needs. List making perpetuates the illusion that those whims are facts worth reporting.

I feel like true music fans group albums into "tiers" but do not trifle to attempt to rank records individually.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 26, 2014, 11:29:14 am
What makes one a "true music fan"?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on September 26, 2014, 11:33:26 am
What makes one a "true music fan"?
Its a joke. You (I think it was you) called me out about my proclivity to rank things in tiers a few years back.

Anyway, new Thom Yorke record today, I guess.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on September 26, 2014, 11:42:25 am
I don't think that was me.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on September 30, 2014, 09:24:31 pm
Loved the Descendents/ALL movie "Filmage". Highly recommend it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on September 30, 2014, 11:13:12 pm
This is pretty awesome/funny. (http://nyti.ms/1sA3N8k)

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 01, 2014, 11:47:59 am
This is pretty awesome/funny. (http://nyti.ms/1sA3N8k)


I do think the quote by Krugman is classic
"a young band that makes me want to drop acid and wear tie-died clothing, which is a great feeling when you?re 61."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on October 02, 2014, 03:14:29 pm
(http://www.relix.com/images/sized/images/uploads/ryanbryan-600x299.JPg)

Video: Ryan Adams Covers Bryan Adams, Internet Explodes (http://www.relix.com/blogs/detail/video_ryan_adams_covers_bryan_adams_internet_explodes)

Finally. As Ryan Adams kicked off his U.S. tour in Santa Barbara, CA and surprised everyone when he closed the show with a take on "Run To You" by none other than Bryan Adams from 1984's Reckless whose album cover bares an eerie resemblance to Ryan's new album cover, as you can see above. The bromance has been brewing between these two, as they're both active on Twitter and even found themselves hanging out a the Invictus Games closing ceremony in London.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 02, 2014, 04:10:04 pm
I think he's done summer of 69 too
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on October 02, 2014, 04:12:55 pm
I think he's done summer of 69 too
Considering he famously lost his shit when some guy requested it like 10 years ago, he's really come around.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on October 02, 2014, 04:14:54 pm
I think he's done summer of 69 too
Considering he famously lost his shit when some guy requested it like 10 years ago, he's really come around.

Drugs are a helluva drug.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on October 05, 2014, 10:49:35 am
http://gawker.com/an-adorable-10-year-old-interviewed-j-mascis-and-it-was-1642462364
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on October 05, 2014, 08:35:43 pm
Ha ha!

NFL's Deal with Bose Prohibits Players from Wearing 'Beats by Dre' Headphones (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2221161-nfls-deal-with-bose-prohibits-players-from-wearing-beats-by-dre-headphones)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 05, 2014, 11:43:11 pm
I think he's done summer of 69 too
Considering he famously lost his shit when some guy requested it like 10 years ago, he's really come around.

Drugs are a helluva drug.
Roseland Theater, Portland, OR, USA on November 13, 2001 (http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/ryan-adams/2001/roseland-theater-portland-or-1bde1184.html)
although his anger with the request I'm sure started way back in the 90's
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 06, 2014, 08:49:50 am
musical equals

(http://www.relix.com/images/sized/images/uploads/ryanbryan-600x299.JPg)

Video: Ryan Adams Covers Bryan Adams, Internet Explodes (http://www.relix.com/blogs/detail/video_ryan_adams_covers_bryan_adams_internet_explodes)

Finally. As Ryan Adams kicked off his U.S. tour in Santa Barbara, CA and surprised everyone when he closed the show with a take on "Run To You" by none other than Bryan Adams from 1984's Reckless whose album cover bares an eerie resemblance to Ryan's new album cover, as you can see above. The bromance has been brewing between these two, as they're both active on Twitter and even found themselves hanging out a the Invictus Games closing ceremony in London.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on October 06, 2014, 09:48:54 am
Ha ha!

NFL's Deal with Bose Prohibits Players from Wearing 'Beats by Dre' Headphones (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2221161-nfls-deal-with-bose-prohibits-players-from-wearing-beats-by-dre-headphones)

lol

you should change your screen name to "BoseNotBeats" ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: stevewizzle on October 08, 2014, 03:55:50 pm
my favorite reaction RE:kozelek so far comes from gorilla vs. bear:

 chris cantalini @gorillavsbear  ·  Oct 7
this fake kozelek/war on drugs feud is more important to p4k than the time morrissey might have had twitter but then it turned out he didn't
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on October 08, 2014, 03:59:58 pm
i enjoy the concept . . . hate the music.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on October 08, 2014, 04:32:52 pm
my favorite reaction RE:kozelek so far comes from gorilla vs. bear:

 chris cantalini @gorillavsbear  ·  Oct 7
this fake kozelek/war on drugs feud is more important to p4k than the time morrissey might have had twitter but then it turned out he didn't

Nice.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 08, 2014, 06:54:03 pm
Meredith Graves writes a pretty good essay on the Kozelek thing (http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/515-sun-kil-moon-yells-at-cloud-the-problem-with-male-pattern-violence/)

Drew Daniel counters with a couple good points of his own. (http://twitter.com/dddrewdaniel)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 13, 2014, 01:59:45 pm
Ha ha!

NFL's Deal with Bose Prohibits Players from Wearing 'Beats by Dre' Headphones (http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2221161-nfls-deal-with-bose-prohibits-players-from-wearing-beats-by-dre-headphones)
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/24749691/cam-newton-ignores-colin-kaepernick-fine-wears-beats-headphones

Why are people obsessed with Beats?  They are not that great and definitely not worth a 10K fine.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on October 13, 2014, 02:17:01 pm
oh please, you don't know the answer to that?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on October 15, 2014, 08:11:41 pm
Glen Campbell's Last Video is Heartbreakingly Sad (http://rare.us/story/glen-campbells-new-video-for-not-gonna-miss-you-is-heartbreakingly-sad/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 15, 2014, 09:06:22 pm
The great Ned Raggett writes about NIN's best album on its 25th anniversary. (http://thequietus.com/articles/16461-nine-inch-nails-nin-pretty-hate-machine-review-anniversary)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on October 16, 2014, 11:10:18 am
Glen Campbell's Last Video is Heartbreakingly Sad (http://rare.us/story/glen-campbells-new-video-for-not-gonna-miss-you-is-heartbreakingly-sad/)

It's good, but I immediate went to research if it was a cover of a lost Big Star b-side by Chris Bell. It would've been more appropriate if the producer went more with Glen's own "Wichita Lineman"/"By The Time ..." melancholy vibe.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on October 16, 2014, 11:31:21 am
http://blog.theanimalrescuesite.com/scooter-music-video/

recognize, fool.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on October 16, 2014, 11:55:09 am
Meredith Graves writes a pretty good essay on the Kozelek thing (http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/515-sun-kil-moon-yells-at-cloud-the-problem-with-male-pattern-violence/)


Reads like a high school sociology paper.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 16, 2014, 01:05:46 pm
so Ryan comes to the 930...doesn't play a single song before Cold Roses
but on the rest of the tour he's been doing all sorts of great stuff
3 from Gold, 2 from Heartbreaker and even whiskeytown song (james ford soils his pants)

riverside-theater -milwaukee-wi-setlist 10/14/14

1. Gimme Something Good 
2. Let It Ride 
3. Stay With Me 
4. Dirty Rain 
5. This House Is Not For Sale 
6. Fix It 
7. New York, New York 
8. Improv Song: "Security Guard From Milwaukee" 
9. Shadows 
10. A Kiss Before I Go 
11. Dear Chicago 
12. When The Stars Go Blue 
13. Lucky Now 
14. Do I Wait 
15. Oh My Sweet Carolina 
16. I See Monsters 
17. Kim 
18. Yesterday's News  (Whiskeytown song) (First time live since 2000.)
19. La Cienega Just Smiled 
20. Am I Safe 
Encore:
21. Come Pick Me Up 


video and story of it (http://www.relix.com/blogs/detail/video_ryan_adams_busts_out_whiskeytown_material_toasts_to_the_security_guard)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: K8teebug on October 16, 2014, 01:18:40 pm
Meredith Graves writes a pretty good essay on the Kozelek thing (http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/515-sun-kil-moon-yells-at-cloud-the-problem-with-male-pattern-violence/)


Reads like a high school sociology paper.

I could give a crap about this whole thing!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 16, 2014, 05:13:00 pm
"a has-been at a mere 35..."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 22, 2014, 01:34:22 pm
http://www.citypaper.com/music/bcp-chill-harder-an-indepth-conversation-between-dope-body-and-roomrunner-20141021,0,5507312.story

Awesome group interview with Dope Body and Roomrunner about music, the baltimore scene, upcoming releases, making it...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 22, 2014, 01:48:43 pm
Making what?

http://www.citypaper.com/music/bcp-chill-harder-an-indepth-conversation-between-dope-body-and-roomrunner-20141021,0,5507312.story

Awesome group interview with Dope Body and Roomrunner about music, the baltimore scene, upcoming releases, making it...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 22, 2014, 01:50:38 pm
What do you mean?

Making it.  Succeeding.  Living off of art. 

You have never heard someone say "made it", or "making it", or "trying to make it" in regards to being in a band?

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/make+it
Quote
2. to be successful, especially in a job
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 22, 2014, 01:53:47 pm
I am going to assume you did not read the article, nor will you.  Also you probably don't care for either band.  So why do you care what I meant with my post?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 22, 2014, 01:57:37 pm
Ah, I see. I thought "making it" was maybe a coy reference to something else.

What do you mean?

Making it.  Succeeding.  Living off of art. 

You have never heard someone say "made it", or "making it", or "trying to make it" in regards to being in a band?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 22, 2014, 02:17:56 pm
Meredith Graves writes a pretty good essay on the Kozelek thing (http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/515-sun-kil-moon-yells-at-cloud-the-problem-with-male-pattern-violence/)


Reads like a high school sociology paper.
Oh so this is where Joe got this dig that he made last night.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 22, 2014, 02:20:56 pm
Yeah, the whole part about him being too old or whatever was ridiculous and unnecessary.
"a has-been at a mere 35..."
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 22, 2014, 02:21:39 pm
Meredith Graves writes a pretty good essay on the Kozelek thing (http://pitchfork.com/thepitch/515-sun-kil-moon-yells-at-cloud-the-problem-with-male-pattern-violence/)


Reads like a high school sociology paper.
Oh so this is where Joe got this dig that he made last night.

WHat the Chris comment?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 22, 2014, 02:28:05 pm
No. When you walked away, he said that she writes like a high school student.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 22, 2014, 10:10:06 pm
First it was The High back on the scene and now I find out Cud is back... 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on October 22, 2014, 10:28:44 pm
what, is up with, bands charging a price tag, plus fifty cents?  what, does that, extra fifty cents, get you?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: emmanuel on October 23, 2014, 01:12:23 pm
My friends waited 3 hours front row to see Ben Frost and he decided not to play.

https://twitter.com/ethermachines

What an *@##

(This venue has the best staff and most friendly sound persons).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 28, 2014, 01:14:01 am
http://www.rolandus.com/go/gaia_berklee_giveaway/
Roland Gaia giveaway
Answer the question.
It's easy, but here is a hint, only watch the last minute of the video for the answer (or just know what it should be)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 28, 2014, 07:22:05 pm
This (http://new.livestream.com/accounts/2628231/fmc2014/videos/66385981) happened earlier today.

That Astra Taylor book sounds like a great read. I'll probably grab it. And...Katie!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on October 28, 2014, 09:08:16 pm
Not sure about this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7CP2zxS4zo#_=_)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 29, 2014, 07:15:21 am
Not sure about this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7CP2zxS4zo#_=_)


My thought is if you are wanting to sound like the pet shop boys, then work with them.. this sounds like someone attempting to be trendy remix on soundcloud.... A dance pop shift in sound would work for me, this track just sounds far to kitchen sink to me
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on October 29, 2014, 09:33:54 am
Not sure about this. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7CP2zxS4zo#_=_)


My thought is if you are wanting to sound like the pet shop boys, then work with them.. this sounds like someone attempting to be trendy remix on soundcloud.... A dance pop shift in sound would work for me, this track just sounds far to kitchen sink to me

Totally agreed. When I heard it I felt the urge to put on "Stars of Track and Field". I can totally get on board with "Your Cover's Blown" and "Electronic Renaissance". But this is just boring.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on October 29, 2014, 10:57:49 am
Don't get me wrong that funky little guitar bit at beginning signals the start of something fun, but it quickly gets lost into a neo-disco mess.. would dig hearing a Johnny Marr or Pet Shop Boys remix of it
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 04:57:14 pm

A Momentary Lapse of Reason is my favorite Pink Floyd record.

Not a Floyd album.... read up on it.. Gilmour hired literally like 80 studio musicians to come up with something that would sound like Pink Floyd. Not even Rick Wright was an "official" Floyd member at the time

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 05:17:50 pm
I stand by my post.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 05:19:16 pm
The Division Bell is my second favorite.  Would you like to discuss this one?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 05:21:15 pm
Dark Side of the Moon is my third favorite.
 

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 05:22:41 pm
Why do you care so much what I like, at least to the point where you need to comment negatively on my choices?

A Momentary Lapse of Reason is my favorite Pink Floyd record.

Not a Floyd album.... read up on it.. Gilmour hired literally like 80 studio musicians to come up with something that would sound like Pink Floyd. Not even Rick Wright was an "official" Floyd member at the time

if your read Salman Rushdie's memoir, Joseph Anton, its hard to think too highly of Yusuf...I would never pay money to see him....of course, if you read Salman Rushdie's memoir, Joseph Anton, its also hard to think too highly of Salman Rushdie...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on October 29, 2014, 05:26:02 pm
Top Cover Songs, according to the Brits:

http://www.avclub.com/article/british-voters-say-pet-shop-boys-had-best-cover-so-211069
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 05:29:11 pm
I think Meddle is my favorite now...Sort of overplayed Dark Side...

the first Floyd album might be my second favorite..

Not a fan of the Wall

I don't think one should get so touchy because its pointed out, correctly, that AMLOR is a forgery.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 05:30:20 pm
Top Cover Songs, according to the Brits:

http://www.avclub.com/article/british-voters-say-pet-shop-boys-had-best-cover-so-211069

That is good....

Their cover of Where the Street have no name is also really good....I think it segues into Can't Take My Eyes Off of you..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on October 29, 2014, 05:35:49 pm
That is good....

That's not even the best version of that song:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7f189Z0v0Y
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:34:55 pm
I don't think one should get so touchy because its pointed out, correctly, that AMLOR is a forgery.
LOL

I dont know why you carried this to a second thread.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason RULES.

David Gilmour RULES.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 07:50:41 pm
I don't think one should get so touchy because its pointed out, correctly, that AMLOR is a forgery.
LOL

I dont know why you carried this to a second thread.

A Momentary Lapse of Reason RULES.

David Gilmour RULES.



I didn't want to clutter the Hey Seth thread....I think it should be left open for Seth stuff...like asking for shows or saying thank you

If you think A Momentary Lapse of Reason...

It is basically a David Gilmour album...Nick Mason hardly plays on it cause his drum chops were so pitiful they got other guys ..the usual session dudes (Keltner, etc.).. Rick Wright hardly plays on it (he wasn't even in the band!)... its Gilmour with studio musicians trying hard to sound like Floyd...... Why? Because Gilmour's solo career had been a bust so he had to go back to the "Pink Floyd" moniker...

To call it a Pink Floyd album is ridiculous.....

Sorry if I'm trampling on your heroes.... I'm not into fanboy shit.. its important to read about albums and learn about their history

You shouldn't feel insulted or anything.. plenty of people don't know the source of AMLOR and aren't able to hear its a forgery..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:55:11 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:55:19 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:55:29 pm
How do you know I dont know the history of the album?

Or the band?

You make a lot of assumptions.

i dont care if it is mainly a Gilmour solo album.  It is my favorite one under the Pink Floyd name, regardless of who played on it.

Do you not think I might know something about a band I love?

YOu think i dont know about the whole "Waters vs Gilmour" side of Pink Floyd?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:56:03 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:56:23 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 07:57:01 pm
What if a person's favorite album by the Smashing Pumpkins was Oceania? 
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 08:01:37 pm
Do you not think I might know something about a band I love?

Well evidently not..how can you call AMLOR a Pink FLoyd album? Barely any Mason or Wright (as a hired hand not even a band member)? Do you know know that Gilmour says that Floyd without Wright is not Floyd.... well, for AMLOR there's hardly any Wright at all and he's not even in the band!..

But don't feel bad about it.. just read, learn.....admitting ignorance is the first step...often times its hard for people so they hide behind bluster of the "how do you know i don't know about the history of the album..." or some such...

Gilmour is a fantastic guitarist and I love his singing voice....But I think even he would call AMLOR a forgery....

Don't be so touchy.

And if Gilmour comes to DC I'll try to check it out myself...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 08:02:39 pm
Do you not think I might know something about a band I love?
Well evidently not..how can you call AMLOR a Pink FLoyd album?
It says Pink Floyd on the album cover. 

It is listed in their discography. 

One of their main songwriters (and my favorite member) was able to release the album under the name. 
He continued to stay in the band for the rest of their existence. The band played those songs on tour. 

The Division Bell was my next favorite, and yes, it features Mason and Wright and is more "Pink Floyd" than AMLOR, but what does it matter? It exists and I like it. 

I was able to pick a favorite based on what I liked when I heard the songs, and not any of the drama behind anything, because all of that was old news by the time I became a fan. I became a fan when Pulse was released.

Your definition of what is and isn't a Pink Floyd album is of no consequence to me.  I don't see why I even need to defend my tastes, nor what I know about any bands.

Thanks for calling me ignorant, that is really nice of you.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 08:02:58 pm
whatever.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: shemptiness on October 29, 2014, 08:12:51 pm
But will Gilmour come to Maryland or Virginia?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 08:13:13 pm
My vote is for Rams Head Annapolis.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 08:21:24 pm
My vote is for Rams Head Annapolis.

That will never happen.... think 2000-3000 capacity and he may not play DC area at all period... Strathmore and Warner come closest but not sure of Strathmore's capacity...

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 08:22:09 pm
That was a joke. Man.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 08:23:48 pm
whatever.

I can see you're hurting and I'm sorry for that.. you're a nice guy... and a valued member of the 930 Forum community (even if you keep changing your name like you're running from the law or something).....evidently a little young but you'll learn that AMLOR is a turd in the Pink Floyd canon....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 08:25:33 pm
That was a joke. Man.

Don't feel ashamed because you proposed something that could never happen and didn't realize how crazy it was..don't run away from it..its ok to make mistakes... not everyone realizes the types of places Gilmour plays.. and if AMLOR is your favorite Floyd album you may not even be aware that they are a stadium band and Gilmour usually plays big theaters (and that's downscaling for him)... its ok man.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:06:41 pm
What's your problem?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 09:10:44 pm
What's your problem?

What do you mean? We're talking about Pink Floyd, right? Or am I detecting a bit of unpleasantness in the air here?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: James Ford on October 29, 2014, 09:11:23 pm
No love for Pink Floyd's best album Wish You Were Here?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:13:12 pm
Do you not read your posts?

You are really coming off douchey.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:14:07 pm
Quote
evidently a little young but you'll learn that AMLOR is a turd in the Pink Floyd canon....


Don't feel ashamed because you proposed something that could never happen and didn't realize how crazy it was..don't run away from it..its ok to make mistakes... not everyone realizes the types of places Gilmour plays.. and if AMLOR is your favorite Floyd album you may not even be aware that they are a stadium band and Gilmour usually plays big theaters (and that's downscaling for him)... its ok man.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:14:39 pm
You keep calling me ignorant, or implying that I am stupid. 

So, what is your problem?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:15:54 pm
You also attack my music taste. 

You like the horrible (to me) band, Antemasque, enough to make a thread about them, so you should be the last person to judge someone's taste in music
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 09:16:05 pm
No love for Pink Floyd's best album Wish You Were Here?

of course.. its a great album....what else is there to say? It is the last Floyd album with some balance.... by Animals Waters is running the show too much...


Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:16:22 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:17:00 pm
No need to fight, we are all friends here!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on October 29, 2014, 09:17:55 pm
You also attack my music taste. 

You like the horrible (to me) band, Antemasque, enough to make a thread about them, so you should be the last person to judge someone's taste in music

huh? I don't even know what Antemasque sounds like.. I mean that's why I started the thread..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on October 29, 2014, 09:18:43 pm
Well it sucks.  You wasted some of the internet.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on October 30, 2014, 04:34:33 pm
So 'song for josh' did not make it to the new frank turner The Third Three Years (http://www.1.xtramilerecordings.com/news/2014/10/2/frank-turner-announces-the-third-three-years)
looks good tho

Full tracklisting is below:

1 Somebody To Love (Queen cover ? RSD '12 7?)   
2 Hits & Mrs (Losing Days EP)   
3 Sweet Albion Blues (Polaroid Picture EP)   
4 Riot Song (Fuck the Fire EP)   
5 Something of Freedom (demo)   
6 Fields of June (w/ Emily Barker/Red Clay Halo)   
7 Happy New Year (w/ Jon Snodgrass)   
8 American Girl (Tom Petty cover ? home demo)   
9 There Are Bad Times Just Around the Corner (Noel Coward cover ? Franz Nicolay split EP)   
10 Pancho & Lefty (Townes Van Zandt cover ? Spotify Session EP w/ Jim Eno)   
11 Big Foot (The Weakerthans cover ? home demo)
12 Live and Let Die (Paul McCartney/Wings cover ? iTunes session)
13 The Corner (Cory Branan cover)
14 Keira (Tony Sly cover ? 'The Song of Tony Sly' tribute album)
15 Plain Sailing Weather (w/Matt Nasir ? The Cutting Room sessions)
16 Tell Tale Signs (w/Matt Nasir ? iTunes sessions)
17 The Way I Tend To Be (w/Matt Nasir ? iTunes sessions)
18 The Ballad of Me and My Friends (live from Twin Cities, Minnesota)
19 Broken Piano (home demo)
20 Born To Run (Bruce Springsteen cover ? The Cutting Room sessions)
21 Dan's Song (full band - live)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on November 06, 2014, 06:03:17 pm
http://www.citypaper.com/arts/artsandentertainment/bcp-blinded-with-science-hopkins-brings-in-thomas-dolby-to-do-a-neighborhood-and-evangelize-for-its-trou-20141104,0,6744251.story

http://www.citypaper.com/blogs/the-news-hole/bcp-the-problem-isnt-if-thomas-dolby-fails-its-that-we-still-dont-know-how-hopkins-intends-for-him-to-succeed-20141106,0,7523058.story

So Thomas Dolby is going to magically transform Station North?  And turn it into: "as a major hub of innovation in the intersection between the arts and technology"?

Good luck Thomas!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on November 12, 2014, 01:40:58 pm
From the rebuttal of Daniel Ek against Taylore Swift pulling her catalog off of Spotify; I only pulled one part out of it that pertains to myself, feel free to discuss any of it:

https://news.spotify.com/se/2014/11/11/2-billion-and-counting/
Quote
Today we have more than 50 million active users of whom 12.5 million are subscribers each paying $120 per year. That?s three times more than the average paying music consumer spent in the past.
I don't pay for (or use) Spotify and must be more than an average paying music consumer. 

Should our music consumption money include merch, ticket purchases, and music purchases (physical and digital)?

I did a quick estimate and the money I spend on merch, music, and shows in a year is an estimated total of $1680 (it probably is a lot higher, I used the estimates of 1 $15 show a week =, $10 for music a week, and $10 for merch a week; numbers are sometimes higher, and sometimes lower - lately I have been trying to limit merch purchases, though I have still picked up some t shirts and posters this year). 

So the average person spends $40 annually, according to that guy; so people who spend $10 a month are the heroes of the music industry? 

So that makes me, and people like me, superheroes of the music industry?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on November 12, 2014, 02:01:45 pm
So that makes me, and people like me, superheroes of the music industry?
Uh, probably yes, actually. You're nowhere near representative of an "average" music fan. Even by the highly skewed metrics of this community, you're still probably one of the most "supportive" fans.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on November 13, 2014, 10:46:06 am
From some clickbait link, 12 Flawless Albums that Only Have Great Songs:

Kind of Blue - Miles Davis
Illinois - Sufjan Stevens
De-Loused in the Comatorium - The Mars Volta
Revolver - The Beatles
2001 - Dr. Dre
Jar of Flies - Alice in Chains
Lateralus - Tool
Siamese Dream - Smashing Pumpkins
Rumours - Fleetwood Mac
Boston - Boston
OK Computer - Radiohead
Graceland - Paul Simon
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on November 13, 2014, 10:52:47 am
List fail no Big Star or Love here
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on November 13, 2014, 11:21:40 am
Illinois - Sufjan Stevens
...
De-Loused in the Comatorium - The Mars Volta
Lateralus - Tool
There's filler galore on Illinois, and the second two I highlighted are hysterically terrible records.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Unsanity on November 14, 2014, 04:00:15 am
Nah man...De-Loused is awesome if you are into that kind of thing. Its ear grating to almost everyone I know. They can't stand any of it not even for a minute. But to a small contingent this is one of the best albums of the last 15 years.

I cannot comment on Tool though. I don't know if I ever heard anything other than the singles from it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on November 17, 2014, 03:55:28 pm
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/nov/17/steve-albinis-keynote-address-at-face-the-music-in-full
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on November 17, 2014, 10:46:01 pm
That industry middle man he says is no more is still there. It's taken the form of the PR industry rather than the record industry. Music doesn't randomly find its way from Bandcamp to Pitchfork. It's a nice thought but no. Yes, it's cheaper/easier to get your music out there than ever before but it's just as easy/cheap for everyone else. Music's still filtered through just as many channels unless you have an influential friend or two. Not to mention the fact that everyone seems to need to have management/a booking agent nowadays from bands that play houses to arena acts. Just ask Seth how often the Club  talks to a band itself as opposed to an agent when booking it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on November 17, 2014, 11:33:46 pm
That industry middle man he says is no more is still there. It's taken the form of the PR industry rather than the record industry. Music doesn't randomly find its way from Bandcamp to Pitchfork. It's a nice thought but no. Yes, it's cheaper/easier to get your music out there than ever before but it's just as easy/cheap for everyone else. Music's still filtered through just as many channels unless you have an influential friend or two. Not to mention the fact that everyone seems to need to have management/a booking agent nowadays from bands that play houses to arena acts. Just ask Seth how often the Club  talks to a band itself as opposed to an agent when booking it.


I don't fundamentally disagree with you, but I do think filters serve a purpose.  Maybe I am just getting old, but I don't have the time to invest in discovering stuff on my own as much as I used to.  So I rely more on filters/middlemen than I did in the past.  And I think there are a lot more middlemen and a lot more granular filters today, so things aren't totally as bad as they once were.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on November 17, 2014, 11:55:40 pm
Oh I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the filters at all. Albini (who appears to have a problem with them) seems to think that they no longer exist which is ridiculous.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on November 18, 2014, 12:01:05 am
I also wonder what his beef with Prince is. Thought everyone liked Prince.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on November 18, 2014, 08:53:47 am
I just watched an interview with riff raff.  I'm stupid now.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on November 18, 2014, 12:02:50 pm
I filter all my new music recommendations through hutch.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on November 18, 2014, 02:34:29 pm
I filter all my new music recommendations through hutch.

gotta say I'm probably not the best guy for "new music"

great "oldies" filter though!

 ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on November 30, 2014, 07:41:36 pm
Was unsure as to where else to put this.

https://twitter.com/killquilty/status/539112639096688643
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on November 30, 2014, 07:45:38 pm
I saw they were doing that... That is cool it is nearly $1000.  It was a couple hundred the last time I saw something about it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 02, 2014, 05:22:40 pm
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/audio_001_zps8e70d24d.jpg) (http://s52.photobucket.com/user/beetsnotbeats/media/audio_001_zps8e70d24d.jpg.html)

Audio, July 1970, Vol. 54, No. 7, page 46
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 10, 2014, 11:51:41 pm
Oh wow. This is out. (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/beautifulnoise) I remember Jaguar first posting about it here many years ago.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: miss pretentious on December 11, 2014, 12:00:27 am
Oh wow. This is out. (https://vimeo.com/ondemand/beautifulnoise) I remember Jaguar first posting about it here many years ago.


thank you for the post!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 11, 2014, 12:10:08 am
Oops, it wasn't Jag. It was Hoya. (http://forum.930.com/index.php?topic=10285.0)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 17, 2014, 06:19:16 pm
Happy belated anniversary, #tripmetal. (http://blogs.miaminewtimes.com/crossfade/2013/12/wolf_eyes_interview_basel_miami_2013.php) You have made the world (mostly Twitter) a slightly funnier place.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 18, 2014, 05:44:44 pm
eMusic: 1998-2014? (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/12/18/emusic-1998-2014)

If you?ve never heard of eMusic, then maybe that?s the point.  Here?s an email leaked from inside digital distributor The Orchard to Digital Music News concerning the struggling music ?e-tailer??
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on December 18, 2014, 05:56:32 pm
I would be a serious sad panda if emusic went bust..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on December 18, 2014, 05:57:12 pm
eMusic: 1998-2014? (http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2014/12/18/emusic-1998-2014)

If you?ve never heard of eMusic, then maybe that?s the point.  Here?s an email leaked from inside digital distributor The Orchard to Digital Music News concerning the struggling music ?e-tailer??
Kosmo gently weeps and says "Goodnite Sweet Prince" to no one in particular.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on December 18, 2014, 05:57:34 pm
I would be a serious sad panda if emusic went bust..
See my above comment.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on December 18, 2014, 06:36:42 pm
Billy Corgan: 'Nobody believes I made a three-star record. Nobody!'  (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/dec/18/billy-corgan-smashing-pumpkins-interview)

Crimony, this guy is so inside himself he's coming back out his own mouth.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on December 18, 2014, 07:45:54 pm
i'm always amused by the people who said that eMusic abandoned the indie music fan when they added major labels... it certainly didn't stop people from downloading all the major label stuff and all the exalted indie labels/bands everyone carries on about are all pitchfork approved "indie"... you rarely ever saw CDBaby indie releases topping any off their charts.

i know emusic has lots of detractors but it absolutely worked for me. i easily follow 50+ labels via the site and never have a problem get my months credits worth.  many of those labels who do not have domestic physical distribution, so eMusic was a way to get at a reasonable price lots of my favorite recent releases.  i have bought a total of five tracks via iTunes, a handful via Amazon and Bandcamp.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on December 18, 2014, 08:18:31 pm
Given their business model, it's impressive that they've lasted this long.

I'm sorry Kosmo - I know you were a big fan.  I blame Evil Santa.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on December 18, 2014, 08:54:00 pm
Their Wondering Sound site published a bunch of very good writing over the last few months. I hope that stuff is all archived before they kill it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Rogue Riderhood on December 19, 2014, 12:27:57 pm
Billy Corgan: 'Nobody believes I made a three-star record. Nobody!'  (http://www.theguardian.com/music/2014/dec/18/billy-corgan-smashing-pumpkins-interview)

Crimony, this guy is so inside himself he's coming back out his own mouth.
I really enjoyed that interview, thank you for posting it.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on December 27, 2014, 03:07:45 pm
Mac Sabbath

Demented McDonald?s Metal Act ?Mac Sabbath? Jam Black Sabbath Fast Food Parodies

http://loudwire.com/mcdonalds-metal-act-mac-sabbath-black-sabbath-fast-food-parodies/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on January 13, 2015, 08:40:52 pm
While she's on a NY kick, Taylor Swift should do a cover of "Down By The River".
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on January 20, 2015, 09:04:03 pm
Crazy idea: let's reopen UMD's Record Co-op, maybe just as a pop-up test run.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on January 29, 2015, 10:52:16 pm
So because I have no life, I was watching "About A Boy" tv show last night and a song comes on that I recognize but can't quite place it.  So I fire up an app and it tells me it's The Black Lips  "I don't wanna go home".  And then I'm confused because Black Lips isn't a band I really listen to, thus further blowing my cred, so I must have heard it in passing.

So imagine my further confusion, when today I was listening to the Curtis Harding album from last year and "I Don't Wanna Go Home" comes on.  I'm thinking so is this a cover that I thought was an original, which would explain why I couldn't quite place the Black Lips version.  Harding's album is a great soul influence with punk/garage outing.

Turns out one would probably call Curtis's take a version, seeing as he co-wrote it with the band...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on January 30, 2015, 11:08:02 am
So because I have no life, I was watching "About A Boy" tv show last night and a song comes on that I recognize but can't quite place it.  So I fire up an app and it tells me it's The Black Lips  "I don't wanna go home".  And then I'm confused because Black Lips isn't a band I really listen to, thus further blowing my cred, so I must have heard it in passing.

So imagine my further confusion, when today I was listening to the Curtis Harding album from last year and "I Don't Wanna Go Home" comes on.  I'm thinking so is this a cover that I thought was an original, which would explain why I couldn't quite place the Black Lips version.  Harding's album is a great soul influence with punk/garage outing.

Turns out one would probably call Curtis's take a version, seeing as he co-wrote it with the band...

So because I have no life, I went to my kid's middle school dance recital last night, and this number starts that I recognize but I can't quite place it.  Turns out it its a solo track from Mickey Hart - probably off of Planet Drum.  They later danced to Massive Attack and Zee Avi (who I had never heard before, but enjoyed).
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on January 30, 2015, 11:13:15 am
OK, I'll bite.

So because I have no life, last night I watched " Well Now You're Here, There's No Way Back", a movie about the rise and fall and attempted comeback of Quiet Riot. I've never seen a band out-Spinal Tap Spinal Tap, but lo and behold, mission accomplished. Bravo, Quiet Riot.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on January 30, 2015, 11:33:55 am
Because I have no life I'm reading the last Bridget Jones novel (if you can call it that)...came out at the end of 2013.. its called Bridget Jones- Mad About the Boy...

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on January 30, 2015, 12:03:55 pm
because I have no life...I keep coming back to the 930 message board
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on January 30, 2015, 12:26:22 pm
because I have no life...I keep coming back to the 930 message board

POTW
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on January 30, 2015, 12:32:39 pm
Because I have no life I stole an identity off facebook, created a fake newbie account, and solicited people on here to "assist" me in getting a London Grammar autograph.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on January 30, 2015, 08:13:06 pm
I got to say ultimately the new Belle and Sebastian just isn't good enough..it has its moments.... but like half the album is a snoozefest....I want to love it like the classic stuff

If the whole album had been disco/dancy it might have worked...as it is there are a few nice fast paced dancy songs I really like and a lot of substandard stuff like the stuff he's been putting out for years....twee pop, baroque pop, coma inducing pop => crap

I don't know what happened to Stuart Murdoch....sometimes its hard to believe its the same guy.... for three albums and three eps not one false step (except maybe Seymour Stein which I realize some people like)

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on January 30, 2015, 08:23:12 pm
of course I realize Stuart didn't write or sing Seymour Stein.. the "democratization" of hte band was a disaster...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 01, 2015, 10:47:11 pm
Per my Twitter feed, since I was busy DJing, Missy Elliot dropped some Cybrotron/Juan Atkins on a whole bunch of people tonight.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on February 01, 2015, 11:27:58 pm
So the Patriots use (the somewhat cliched) 'Crazy Train' as they take the field. The Seahawks choose....'Bittersweet Symphony'?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on February 05, 2015, 12:26:41 am
Diarrhea Planet has the best twitter feed... They repost people tweets of bewilderment over their name and they got a bounty today when they got added to a major festival

https://twitter.com/DiarrheaPlanet

This might be the best 
 
Haywood Jablowme - "yo there's a band named diarrhea planet. Smh"

https://twitter.com/RogueStatusX/status/562871756722286592
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on February 05, 2015, 04:25:17 pm
so ...no word yet on the on sale date for Courtney Barnett

but I did see that she is opening for Belle & Sebastian a few days later in Kansas
they will be playing dates just 2 days apart in DC

Do we think they will add her as support for their Echostage show eventhough she is headlining the club 2 days earlier?

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on February 05, 2015, 04:30:53 pm
Do we think they will add her as support for their Echostage show eventhough she is headlining the club 2 days earlier?
Would not seem like the smartest business move. Why would Seth do that?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on February 05, 2015, 04:58:02 pm
So the Patriots use (the somewhat cliched) 'Crazy Train' as they take the field. The Seahawks choose....'Bittersweet Symphony'?

seems kinda fitting, in retrospect...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on February 05, 2015, 05:58:47 pm
Do we think they will add her as support for their Echostage show eventhough she is headlining the club 2 days earlier?
Would not seem like the smartest business move. Why would Seth do that?
you are probably right...but that is why I don't run a music empire and just blather off on a message board
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 20, 2015, 02:02:13 pm
so Nick cave is selling sick bags  (http://store.thesickbagsong.com/home/the-sick-bag-song-limited-edition-washington-d-c.html)
10 for each city on the North American 22 date tour
Hurry DC Cave fans...a steal at only £750
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 20, 2015, 02:11:43 pm
so Nick cave is selling sick bags  (http://store.thesickbagsong.com/home/the-sick-bag-song-limited-edition-washington-d-c.html)
10 for each city on the North American 22 date tour
Hurry DC Cave fans...a steal at only £750
Givenchy, it is not.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 20, 2015, 02:32:18 pm
this whole, artists cant make money anymore off the music because of the internet, is get,ting out of hand.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on March 21, 2015, 10:51:09 am
Hey Seth, how about a triple bill of Mr. Mister, MS MR, and MisterWives?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on March 21, 2015, 11:58:39 am
so Nick cave is selling sick bags  (http://store.thesickbagsong.com/home/the-sick-bag-song-limited-edition-washington-d-c.html)
10 for each city on the North American 22 date tour
Hurry DC Cave fans...a steal at only £750

I saw this yesterday and was struck by how far he's from his heroin/scuzz days.....
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on March 22, 2015, 10:08:05 am
I saw this yesterday and was struck by how far he's from his heroin/scuzz days.....

You mean this era?
(http://i.guim.co.uk/static/w-620/h--/q-95/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/8/29/1409312674684/361e6f64-75c6-4a15-bea7-2bd15485e598-535x540.jpeg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on March 22, 2015, 10:13:05 am
Kinda crazy that all four original Ramones are dead, yet these guys Keith Richards and Iggy still roam the planet. Although Iggy cleaned up for the most part by the 80's. His debauchery is the stuff of legend though.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 22, 2015, 10:16:43 pm
apparently there is a demand
Black Flag shirts on every celebrity (http://blackflagshirtsoneverycelebrity.tumblr.com)

(http://www.thestrut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/blackflag3.jpg)
(http://www.thestrut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/blackflagclinton.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 24, 2015, 04:27:21 pm
wow...amazon prime has the new Courtney Barnett album!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 25, 2015, 11:25:57 am
Declan Patrick Aloysius Macmanus is releasing a memoir (http://pitchfork.com/news/58946-elvis-costello-announces-memoir/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 25, 2015, 12:35:29 pm
Um....billboard says....Meet Courtney Barnett, Music's Lena Dunham (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6509480/courtney-barnett-interview-sometimes-i-sit-and-think-sometimes-i-just-sit-album)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on March 25, 2015, 12:58:26 pm
Um....billboard says....Meet Courtney Barnett, Music's Lena Dunham (https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6509480/courtney-barnett-interview-sometimes-i-sit-and-think-sometimes-i-just-sit-album)
I'd rather meet Music's Allison Williams and Zosia Mamet.

Oh, wait, Music's Allison Williams and Zosia Mamet are Allison Williams and Zosia Mamet.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 30, 2015, 07:36:19 am
#madonnaandtaylor

Im, a gay, screaming girl
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on March 30, 2015, 10:32:16 am
Madonna's lips are way over used for onstage hookups

(http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyMDE1LzAzLzMwL2Q5L01hZG9ubmFUYXlsLjgwNjg5LmdpZgpwCXRodW1iCTEyMDB4OTYwMD4/ac76af72/056/Madonna-Taylor-Kiss.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on March 30, 2015, 02:59:38 pm
I really like, taylor as a streetwalker, style choices.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on April 08, 2015, 09:49:45 am
Who wore it better?

(http://www.brooklynvegan.com/img/as/waxahatchee-ivy-tripp.jpg)

(http://www.scuffletown.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/waxie_maxies.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 10, 2015, 10:30:59 am
Band name of the week - Old Dirty Brasstards
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 10, 2015, 10:46:22 am
This is nuts

Listen to ODB This charming man by Old Dirty Brasstards #np on #SoundCloud
http://soundcloud.com/old-dirty-brasstards/odb-this-charming-man

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 10, 2015, 08:54:37 pm
What Madonna did on fallon . . . Was brilliant.  Hail the que,en.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 10, 2015, 10:47:16 pm
so I gave this diarrhea,planet a chance, just now.  listened to aliens in the outfield.  you know what I think . . . I think they are ok, not awesome, but I am sure they bring it live, and I really hear them as nothing more than a grungier version of weezer, or a lazier lesson in explosions in the sky meets dino,saur jr.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on April 10, 2015, 10:56:52 pm
I can unequivocally say their recorded output is like comparing a lighter to the 4th july
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on April 10, 2015, 11:01:56 pm
thats, saying a lot.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 14, 2015, 10:14:05 am
The Bluetones have reunited for a "slight return"
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 14, 2015, 03:03:12 pm
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/rename-planet-uranus-diarrhea-planet


Rename the planet Uranus to Diarrhea Planet
One young group of American men is singlehandedly saving American rock and roll and creating good American jobs in the process. Those men call themselves Diarrhea Planet, and they are the embodiment of hope and change in Obama's America.

In thanks to the amazing work that these young Americans are doing, and to inspire millions of other young Americans to strive to the same great heights of guitar shredding and job creation, WE THE PEOPLE propose that the planet Uranus be renamed DIARRHEA PLANET.

I mean, Uranus is kinda halfway to Diarrhea Planet anyway, right? So let's honor America and let any aliens out there know what we really stand for. Diarrhea. And American jobs.

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on April 14, 2015, 03:20:49 pm
Stand up (or sit down on the throne) and be counted!

With my signature, I hope to inspire millions of other young Americans to strive to the same great heights of guitar shredding!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on April 14, 2015, 06:54:28 pm
The Bluetones have reunited for a "slight return"

I'm not sure how many gigs they did in the US, but I got to see their one NYC gig in 1996. They were great.

(Looks like they only did NYC, SF and LA in 1996...I don't see any other US dates they ever did.)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on April 14, 2015, 07:41:11 pm
The Bluetones have reunited for a "slight return"

I'm not sure how many gigs they did in the US, but I got to see their one NYC gig in 1996. They were great.

(Looks like they only did NYC, SF and LA in 1996...I don't see any other US dates they ever did.)

I think like Cast, the Bluetones got one shot at cracking the US market as neither of them got any future releases here, despite having decent careers in Europe.  I'm a huge fan of Mark Morriss's two solo albums.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on April 21, 2015, 12:46:37 pm
A fascinating read about the Red House Painters.

http://4ad.com/sleevenotes/red-house-painters/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 02, 2015, 06:26:24 pm
Jaxx was a definite addition to the area's music scene.. Empire was crumbling so its not a huge loss.. I think Jaxx was a big loss...if Jaxx had been around Ace Frehley might have played there instead of the ridiculous Ramshead Annapolis...that says it all.


without Jaxx the area will simply get bypassed /is getting bypassed for many shows in that genre....they had the connections /longstanding relationships with the bands ....

Sounds like an opportunity. Just find the right strip mall off the radar of the gentrifiers. Think Anne Arundel County. Gov. Richie Road (MD 2) has endless miles of strips, especially through Glenn Burnie.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 02, 2015, 07:52:29 pm
Jaxx was a definite addition to the area's music scene.. Empire was crumbling so its not a huge loss.. I think Jaxx was a big loss...if Jaxx had been around Ace Frehley might have played there instead of the ridiculous Ramshead Annapolis...that says it all.


without Jaxx the area will simply get bypassed /is getting bypassed for many shows in that genre....they had the connections /longstanding relationships with the bands ....

Sounds like an opportunity. Just find the right strip mall off the radar of the gentrifiers. Think Anne Arundel County. Gov. Richie Road (MD 2) has endless miles of strips, especially through Glenn Burnie.

you're so right! opportunity knocks... hmmmmmmm
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 03, 2015, 02:21:06 pm
Hutch's House of Hairbands
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 03, 2015, 02:29:24 pm
Fugazi's Repeater Revisited (http://thequietus.com/articles/17780-fugazi-repeater-review)


This guy really loved that album. Nice well-written piece.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 03, 2015, 03:23:02 pm
Hutch's House of Hairbands

+100  (haircut 100 that is)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 05, 2015, 06:37:54 pm
Not really ignorant like that country band that called themselves The Fall, but still: The Swanns (http://www.le-swanns.com/)

I only know about them because of their indiscriminate twitter following.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on May 05, 2015, 06:53:51 pm
Ceremony (the shoegaze band from Virginia, established in 2005):
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ceremony/46796762230

versus

Ceremony (California punk band, established in 2005):
https://www.facebook.com/ceremony
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on May 14, 2015, 09:41:08 am
 Do Me Bad Things is back together...  ;D

https://www.facebook.com/DoMeBadThings/timeline
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on May 14, 2015, 10:13:20 am
Death (the band) just followed me on Twitter... It's a little disconcerting to get the notification that Death follows you ;)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: MindCage on May 14, 2015, 11:07:11 am
Death (the band) just followed me on Twitter... It's a little disconcerting to get the notification that Death follows you ;)

Last week Mary Lee the great white shark followed me on Twitter. Up for a swim?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 14, 2015, 11:30:10 am
Prince covered the Waterboys!
and I love crimson and clover (although Joan Jett has the definitive version)

Dance Rally 4 Peace (http://www.stereogum.com/1801363/stream-princes-dance-rally-4-peace-concert-at-paisley-park/mp3s/)

On May 2nd, about a week before his Rally 4 Peace concert in Baltimore, Prince held another performance that he called the Dance Rally 4 Peace. It took place near his studios at Paisley Park in Minneapolis, where he recorded the tribute single ?Baltimore.? He?s just uploaded audio of the entire 41-minute concert, which he performed alongside his backing band 3RDEYEGIRL. You can listen to it and check out a setlist below.



Setlist:
?Chaos And Disorder?
 ?Dreamer?
 ?Crimson & Clover? (Tommy James & the Shondells cover)
?Guitar?
 ?Plectrum Electrum?
 ?The Whole Of The Moon? (The Waterboys cover)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 14, 2015, 11:46:09 am
World?s 30 Highest Paid Musicians
The list in full, courtesy of Forbes:

1. Dr Dre ($620m)

2. Beyoncé ($115m)

3. The Eagles ($100m)

4. Bon Jovi ($82m)

5. Bruce Springsteen ($81m)

6. Justin Bieber ($80m)

7. One Direction ($75m)

8. Paul McCartney ($71m)

9. Calvin Harris ($66m)

10. Toby Keith ($65m)

11. Taylor Swift ($64m)

12. Jay Z ($60m)(tie)

12. Diddy ($60m)(tie)

12. Bruno Mars ($60m)(tie)

15. Justin Timberlake ($57m)

16. Pink ($52m)

17. Michael Bublé ($51m)

18. Rihanna ($48m)

19. Rolling Stones ($47m)

20. Roger Waters ($46m)

21. Elton John ($45m)

22. Kenny Chesney ($44m)

23. Katy Perry ($40m)

24. Jason Aldean ($37m)(tie)

24. Jennifer Lopez ($37m)(tie)

26. Miley Cyrus ($36m)(tie)

26. Celine Dion ($36m)(tie)

28. Muse ($34m)(tie)

28. Luke Bryan ($34m)(tie)

30. Lady Gaga ($33m)(tie)

30. Drake ($33m)(tie)



I'm sure this parallel's RatBastard playlist for the day


Kinda surprised Muse is in this list...MSP should be getting some royalties or something
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: bearman🐻 on May 14, 2015, 12:11:20 pm
I think musician is a generous description for some of those. The word "entertainer" or "producer" is probably more accurate for some of them.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on May 14, 2015, 12:20:13 pm
I think musician is a generous description for some of those. The word "entertainer" or "producer" is probably more accurate for some of them.
Yeah, comparing the money Dre makes off selling his headphone company to an active musician's touring and record sales is apples and oranges.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 14, 2015, 12:29:58 pm
Prince covered the Waterboys!

 ?The Whole Of The Moon? (The Waterboys cover)

It's mutual. Waterboys covered Purple Rain on their live album.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 14, 2015, 01:36:52 pm
I don't think Dre has released an album in like 15 years but I could be wrong..
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: MindCage on May 14, 2015, 03:46:39 pm
I don't think Dre has released an album in like 15 years but I could be wrong..

https://youtu.be/QFcv5Ma8u8k
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on May 14, 2015, 04:12:07 pm
16 this November.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on May 19, 2015, 01:51:49 pm
(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xat1/v/t1.0-9/11111055_740470252724577_8956750086600381933_n.png?oh=ccbc80f15c1f3273ceb447913d67f40e&oe=55D13ACF)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 19, 2015, 02:07:36 pm
^that doesn't look like hutch at all
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on May 19, 2015, 02:09:05 pm
^that doesn't look like hutch at all
The emotionally and financially ignored children are just off picture to the left living in squalor.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: i am gay and i like cats on May 19, 2015, 02:10:10 pm
if any,body would like to do a hutch / sidehatch gif, in my thread, feel free to.  I didn,t think, I understood their complexities enough, to encapsulate them in the finer forms of gif.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on May 19, 2015, 02:31:33 pm
if any,body would like to do a hutch / sidehatch gif, in my thread, feel free to.  I didn,t think, I understood their complexities enough, to encapsulate them in the finer forms of gif.
please refrain, the internet can't handle the truth
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on May 19, 2015, 03:07:07 pm
^that doesn't look like hutch at all

I wish I had my records that organized (and that few)!

I have got rid of a about 1500 in the past month...

On the plus side I picked up Motorhead's Bomber, Sabbath's Sabotage, Circle Jerks Golden Shower and Gen X's last LP........except for the Circle Jerks which I'm missing the rest I've now completed the Sabbath, Motorhead (except maybe the live one), and Generation X

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 02, 2015, 04:43:15 pm
http://www.npr.org/sections/therecord/2015/06/02/411473508/how-well-can-you-hear-audio-quality
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Unsanity on June 03, 2015, 03:04:10 am
Got rid of 1500 in a month? How?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 03, 2015, 09:14:25 am
Got rid of 1500 in a month? How?
He's a communist...so he probably dropped them off at goodwill
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 11, 2015, 03:39:33 pm
Ok kinda old new about the Gaye Estate winning the Blurred lines lawsuit

but this article has actually a really interesting take on it (http://www.villagevoice.com/music/smug-turd-of-a-pop-song-blurred-lines-has-now-ruined-the-music-industry-6628535) and how it could be a disaster of legal proportions in the music industry

The "Blurred Lines" verdict ignores this, placing for the first time what boils down to "feel" under the heading of copyright infringement. By this logic, the Bob Marley estate can sue pretty much every reggae artist of the past 30 years. The Bo Diddley estate can sue George Michael for "Faith" and Bow Wow Wow for "I Want Candy." Phil Spector can sue the Raveonettes for their entire catalog.

"If this were to become a standard," musicologist Michael Harrington told USA Today, "it's going to be one of the greatest growth industries of all time, suing people who sound like someone else."

So hate on Robin Thicke all you want. Hate on Pharrell, too, although most people inexplicably seem to find his Arby's hat more offensive than his contributions to the worst pop song in recent memory. But understand this: However deserving of our contempt these two may be, they're not deserving of a $7.3 million lawsuit. Their work was homage, not wholesale theft. It may have been a terrible, tacky, derivative homage, but just as the First Amendment protects the most offensive language, copyright law should protect the lamest ripoffs if they fall short of the legal definition of infringement


we got a few lawyers on here...curious what they think
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 11, 2015, 04:04:14 pm
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11393024_10204785099049360_3994354824999023044_n.jpg?oh=abde95e7b8ccc9042c81a357672dccb6&oe=55EF52B2)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on June 11, 2015, 04:08:18 pm
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xta1/v/t1.0-9/11393024_10204785099049360_3994354824999023044_n.jpg?oh=abde95e7b8ccc9042c81a357672dccb6&oe=55EF52B2)
I. . . what?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 11, 2015, 04:12:20 pm
It is... My masterpiece... I am loving the Facebook/iPhone photo options...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 11, 2015, 10:57:06 pm
One more masterpiece:
(https://scontent-atl1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtf1/v/t1.0-9/11412177_10204786755690775_6686724222076469016_n.jpg?oh=d8ca903f99887c40090d8d61c3299d13&oe=55E8A559)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 11, 2015, 11:37:26 pm
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/love_zps77xrweyt.jpg)

This is fun!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 11, 2015, 11:47:46 pm
I had a similar idea - but Love WIll Tear Us Apart - Robert Smith and picture of Morrissey.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 12, 2015, 10:10:58 am
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/11401532_1075836205764502_4615622857329296189_n.jpg?oh=c539cbbb287145bdee6a22676a1df479&oe=55F15BE7)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 12, 2015, 10:37:42 am
.

= removed unfunny post
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on June 12, 2015, 03:42:12 pm
Dave Grohl breaks leg in Sweden (http://www.dc101.com/articles/music-news-477342/report-dave-grohl-injured-after-falling-13675788/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 12, 2015, 05:28:21 pm
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11100309_10153067577818737_845684021250353513_n.jpg?oh=d4cb74c3499dfbf19df3f111890514e7&oe=562CCB3A)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 12, 2015, 06:45:31 pm
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/FRR1_zps0mv5vd6g.jpeg)(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/FRR5_zpsqkkymqe7.jpg)

(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/FRR7_zpsmznmbujb.jpg)(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/FRR3_zpssltta8d7.jpeg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 12, 2015, 08:03:28 pm
Dave Grohl breaks leg in Sweden (http://www.dc101.com/articles/music-news-477342/report-dave-grohl-injured-after-falling-13675788/)


(https://igcdn-photos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xfa1/t51.2885-15/11385098_486211164880628_807516028_n.jpg)

Say whatever you will about Grohl, he's loyal as fuck to his fans. (http://www.nbcwashington.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Foo-Fighters-Dave-Grohl-Falls-From-Stage-in-Sweden-307196311.html) I'm not really a fan but I can only respect this.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 13, 2015, 03:44:07 pm
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/11230969_660585357410001_1513661899992129662_n.jpg?oh=2f911082dcaf1b2b12e80d106bb10e5b&oe=55F41F2F)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 13, 2015, 07:44:24 pm
That thing where a couple of your friends end up on the NY Times podcast (http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/12/popcast-tenement-punk-and-the-diy-scene/?_r=0#more-357429)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on June 15, 2015, 05:50:20 pm
I cant believe that the Smash Mouth bread incident has not been brought up yet.

http://defamer.gawker.com/smash-mouth-singer-threatens-to-beat-the-fuck-out-of-1711379518

edit:
I made it into something inspirational...
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/1538894_10204810487644059_2020226220169505839_n.jpg?oh=d6879635c4df75da16183ecf47d1e88b&oe=56282504)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 15, 2015, 06:15:02 pm
apparently he's gluten sensitive...so the people in the crowd were really being insensitive
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on June 15, 2015, 08:30:53 pm
Wonder if he woulda been happier if they'd thrown mortadella and pepperoncini too.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on June 15, 2015, 09:45:11 pm
http://pitchfork.com/news/59940-pitchforktv-presents-pitchfork-classic-documentary-on-slowdives-souvlaki/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: hutch on June 16, 2015, 09:34:02 am
http://pitchfork.com/news/59940-pitchforktv-presents-pitchfork-classic-documentary-on-slowdives-souvlaki/

pitchfork eh...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 16, 2015, 04:07:27 pm
Rachel Dolezal Now Claiming to Be Founding Member of Bad Brains (http://thehardtimes.net/2015/06/16/rachel-dolezal-now-claiming-to-be-founding-member-of-bad-brains/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on June 17, 2015, 01:14:45 pm
So I know Jules is going to be upset
Frank Turner said 'That's a fucking rubbish idea'  (http://www.nme.com/news/frank-turner/86264)when the label tried to get Taylor Swift to appear on his newest release
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on June 17, 2015, 02:48:54 pm
So I know Jules is going to be upset
Frank Turner said 'That's a fucking rubbish idea'  (http://www.nme.com/news/frank-turner/86264)when the label tried to get Taylor Swift to appear on his newest release
I agree with him. He sucks and therefore it is a rubbish idea for artists who don't put people to sleep with their music to waste their time on him.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on June 26, 2015, 01:23:12 am
(http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g16/beetsnotbeats/The%20Rush%20Brothers_zpskhfzaeli.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 01, 2015, 12:16:58 pm
(https://flavorwire.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/flavorwire-rock-map.png)
could probably add 100 more to this

wonder what the Rap map of Manhattan looks like
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 02, 2015, 06:23:32 am
There is some serious fluffing going on regarding Apple's new streaming radio station, as if all the hobbyist streaming radio stations never existed...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 02, 2015, 08:47:46 am
most, are saying that very soon, like television channels, major artists will sign, exclusive deals with various streaming sights, that will allow only one to carry all their music.

prince, seems to be the first to try such a model.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/7/2/8882527/prince-streaming-music-spotify-tidal
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 02, 2015, 09:41:29 am
(http://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/ghostbusters.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on July 02, 2015, 11:20:29 am
^ wrong thread?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 02, 2015, 11:27:56 am
I am curious, if the person, known as kill,sally . . . can go one whole day, without posting a single gif?  but then again, there are others who think, if the person, known as walk,on,by can go one whole, day without a single comma?  its questions such, as these, that I ask.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 02, 2015, 11:28:08 am
^ wrong thread?
It was a joke about not crossing streams.  
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 02, 2015, 11:30:41 am
I am curious, if the person, known as kill,sally . . . can go one whole day, without posting a single gif? 
It depends on my mood, and if I find something I find appropriate.
(http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/internet_surfing.gif)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 02, 2015, 11:31:24 am
^ wrong thread?
It was a joke about not crossing streams.  

and a damn, good joke, it was.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 02, 2015, 11:33:14 am
Thanks!  I was hoping that it would be enjoyed by all!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: ggw on July 02, 2015, 02:51:15 pm
It was a joke about not crossing streams.  

Jokes are always much funnier after you explain them.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 02, 2015, 03:16:36 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on July 02, 2015, 03:23:13 pm
.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on July 09, 2015, 11:19:22 am
This is an excellent piece on so many levels.
How history gets revealed, rape and it's consequences, and how one reacts to it.
Joan Jett needs to get out from her lawyers and get real.
Shit, this is the LA story that should've been the plot for this seasons 'True Detective'

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/ (http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 09, 2015, 02:40:47 pm
(https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpt1/v/t1.0-9/p480x480/11698644_10155722987210702_305518511061491543_n.jpg?oh=c998162e782acd82d2e53d3d5e494864&oe=562158E3)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 10, 2015, 01:31:29 pm
Closer to home is the heartfelt tribute to Josh Burdette, the legendary security man at Washington DC?s cult 9:30 Club venue and close friend of Turner?s, who took his own life in 2013. Turner pulls up the leg of his trousers to reveal a tattoo of a dragon, which he had inked Burdette?s memory. ?He was covered in dragon tattoos,? recalls Turner. ?All of his dragons had closed eyes and he said that when he died he wanted their eyes opened. So his tattooist went and did it, which is fucking intense.?
http://www.nme.com/features/frank-turner-interview-the-tireless-punk-troubadour-on-starting-again-with-positive-songs-for-negati (http://www.nme.com/features/frank-turner-interview-the-tireless-punk-troubadour-on-starting-again-with-positive-songs-for-negati)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 01:57:25 pm
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 10, 2015, 02:35:06 pm
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
That's my understanding
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 02:50:28 pm
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
That's my understanding
I've been down a weird google rabbit hole about desecration of a corpse and necrophilia laws for the last hour or so from state to state and I do not think I will be eating for several days.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: excontradiction on July 10, 2015, 02:59:48 pm
Wrong thread.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 03:05:24 pm
Wrong thread.
Would the legal minutia been better suited for the Smackie thread?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on July 10, 2015, 03:16:06 pm
Wait, am I reading that correct? His tattoos were altered postmortem?
That's my understanding
I've been down a weird google rabbit hole about desecration of a corpse and necrophilia laws for the last hour or so from state to state and I do not think I will be eating for several days.

Where can you view that type of material and not get fired from your job?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 03:28:34 pm
Where can you view that type of material and not get fired from your job?

http://law.justia.com doesn't exactly have photos of the various crimes accompanying the text of various federal and state codes.

My sort of justification for tagging/not tagging something NSFW is, "hey, if someone walks behind you and glances at your computer screen while you're at work, is it immediately going to draw their attention because its obvious at a glance this has no valid business purpose?" A page of dry text (regardless of text's content): probably not. Nude/nearly-nude .gifs of people? Probably. Footage of open wounds or gore? Probably.

Obviously everyone's workplace and computer-use policies are going to be different and people need to know where they work and what's fine and what isn't but I don't understand how my request things virtually no employer is going to be cool with tagged NSFW so people can make an informed decision is so ridiculous.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 10, 2015, 03:47:16 pm
It must suck to work in such an environment...
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 03:54:31 pm
It must suck to work in such an environment...
Yeah, I've really had to train myself to make it 8 hours without enjoying gratuitous nudity and autopsy photos.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 10, 2015, 04:11:41 pm
 I'm not saying that you need to look at them while you're at work. I'm saying  it sucks to work at a place where you would get fired for looking at a picture of a woman in a bikini, or a picture of someone's open wound.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 04:18:28 pm
I'm not saying that you need to look at them while you're at work. I'm saying  it sucks to work at a place where you would get fired for looking at a picture of a woman in a bikini, or a picture of someone's open wound.
I cannot imagine actually getting fired for looking at that stuff, personally. Could I see a female employee complaining to HR about it being a hostile workplace because someone is watching Kate Upton do the Cat Daddy dance in a bikini and a huge amount of my time gets wasted over it? Sure.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 10, 2015, 04:20:15 pm
Snitches get stitches.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 10, 2015, 04:26:49 pm
^creating a hostile forum environment  ;D
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 10, 2015, 04:41:42 pm
^creating a hostile forum environment  ;D
I feel unsafe. Ergo, Reddit is moments away from shutting the board down.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 10, 2015, 04:56:55 pm
The DC Public Library is creating a DC Punk Archive in the Washingtoniana collection. They want donations of photos, fliers, records/tapes/CDs, zines, posters or video/film.
http://dclibrary.org/punk
 (http://dclibrary.org/punk)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: vansmack on July 10, 2015, 06:45:19 pm
Closer to home is the heartfelt tribute to Josh Burdette, the legendary security man at Washington DC?s cult 9:30 Club venue and close friend of Turner?s, who took his own life in 2013. Turner pulls up the leg of his trousers to reveal a tattoo of a dragon, which he had inked Burdette?s memory. ?He was covered in dragon tattoos,? recalls Turner. ?All of his dragons had closed eyes and he said that when he died he wanted their eyes opened. So his tattooist went and did it, which is fucking intense.?

Fucking intense is right!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 10, 2015, 07:15:00 pm
The DC Public Library has created a DC Punk Archive in the Washingtoniana collection. They want donations of photos, fliers, records/tapes/CDs, zines, posters or video/film.
http://dclibrary.org/punk
 (http://dclibrary.org/punk)

FTFY

UM College Park has one, too (http://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/26175). Curated by people who were there.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Sidehatch ılılıll|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|̲̅̅=̲̅̅|̲̅̅●̲̅̅|llılılı on July 16, 2015, 04:12:30 pm
Gorillaz Will Be Working on a New Album  (http://www.complex.com/music/2015/07/gorillaz-new-album-announced-damon-albarn)
(https://scontent-lga1-1.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xpf1/t51.2885-15/10946383_579933898808712_981229897_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: slappy on July 20, 2015, 11:05:07 am
1970's Donald Trump looks like Josh Homme if he was a used car salesman.
(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2015/07/Mccain-Trump.jpg&w=400)

(http://musicconnection.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/000014e4.jpg)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 21, 2015, 12:25:46 pm
http://www.jambase.com/Articles/125841/Man-Dies-In-Police-Custody-After-Leaving-Widespread-Panic-Concert

drugs, scare me now, in my older age.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 21, 2015, 01:09:44 pm
Best label of the last 30 years. (http://www.thevinylfactory.com/vinyl-factory-releases/flying-nun-the-untold-story-of-a-trailblazing-indie-label/)

Yes, better than that one DC sacred cow.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 21, 2015, 01:12:20 pm
Yes, better than that one DC sacred cow.
^^ Azaghal1981 taking potshots at Eighteenth Street Lounge!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 21, 2015, 01:31:38 pm
^^POTW

Ask and ye shall receive. Kinda. (https://twitter.com/ahmadmzaghal/status/622052046867464192)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: kosmo vinyl on July 23, 2015, 02:43:04 pm
http://whyideletedyourpromoemail.tumblr.com/
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 23, 2015, 06:40:04 pm
How have we not talked about Nicki Minaj's justified call-out of the music industry/MTV for snubbing her in the VMA nominations and Taylor Swift's wrong-headed, tone-deaf response?

http://bit.ly/1gObO58
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 23, 2015, 08:30:59 pm
How have we not talked about Nicki Minaj's justified call-out of the music industry/MTV for snubbing her in the VMA nominations and Taylor Swift's wrong-headed, tone-deaf response?

http://bit.ly/1gObO58

The majority of the nominees were minorities. She has no point. Unless her point was she was snubbed because she's larger than Taylor Swift in which case she could always just lose some goddamn weight.

Anyone who calls "outrage" of a "VMA nomination snub" "justified" needs to get a grip.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 23, 2015, 09:20:38 pm
Ed Sheeran getting the nod over her in the video of the year category is quite a headscratcher.


Does anyone here actually know what that Ed Sheeran song sounds like? "Anaconda" on the other hand was inescapable and... pretty damn awesome.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: killsaly on July 23, 2015, 09:26:25 pm
 ::)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 23, 2015, 09:28:43 pm
Her tweets werenot about Ed Sheeran. She referenced "the skinny girls" and discussed a choreography nomination Ed Sheeren did not get. It was a direct reference to either Taylor or Queen B, and she wasn't calling out Bey, obviously. Any other interpretation is intellectually dishonest and an attempt to shoehorn someone else's beef into Minaj's comments.

And again, this is the VMAs we are talking about. The ESPYs think this is utterly meaningless.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 23, 2015, 09:29:49 pm
Yeah, this writer is probably right. (http://wapo.st/1OBaFsS)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 23, 2015, 09:29:57 pm
And also the (EDIT: first) article you linked is ridiculous. White women have had it worse than black men for the last 150 years in America. Any idea that racism trumps sexism is just ridiculous.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 23, 2015, 09:31:17 pm
Ed Sheeran getting the nod over her in the video of the year category is quite a headscratcher.


Does anyone here actually know what that Ed Sheeran song sounds like? "Anaconda" on the other hand was inescapable and... pretty damn awesome.


A blind man voicing a definitive opinion about music VIDEOS is quite a headscratcher.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 23, 2015, 10:00:36 pm
Says the guy who reviews shows without attending them.
Ed Sheeran getting the nod over her in the video of the year category is quite a headscratcher.


Does anyone here actually know what that Ed Sheeran song sounds like? "Anaconda" on the other hand was inescapable and... pretty damn awesome.


A blind man voicing a definitive opinion about music VIDEOS is quite a headscratcher.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 23, 2015, 10:03:18 pm
^^ Epic. Every time.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: RatBastard on July 23, 2015, 11:25:02 pm
How have we not talked about Nicki Minaj's justified call-out of the music industry/MTV for snubbing her in the VMA nominations and Taylor Swift's wrong-headed, tone-deaf response?

http://bit.ly/1gObO58

The majority of the nominees were minorities. She has no point. Unless her point was she was snubbed because she's larger than Taylor Swift in which case she could always just lose some goddamn weight.

Anyone who calls "outrage" of a "VMA nomination snub" "justified" needs to get a grip.

We are all minorities.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on July 24, 2015, 12:33:39 am
We are all minorities.

not in significant ways ("i'm a former skateboarder, less than 0.1% of the population!!!").

you're a white male, AKA the majority.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: sweetcell on July 24, 2015, 12:35:43 am
Says the guy who reviews shows without attending them.
A blind man voicing a definitive opinion about music VIDEOS is quite a headscratcher.

And again, this is the VMAs we are talking about. The ESPYs think this is utterly meaningless.

there is some quality writing going down here, people.  pay attention!
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 24, 2015, 01:03:19 am
On a sort of related topic, I just came across this. (http://www.collapseboard.com/music-blogs-3/segregation-under-a-groove-pop-musics-unspoken-colour-lines/)

As tempting as it is to respond to Julian's comment that white women have had it worse than black men here since the end of slavery, a discussion on Jim Crow, racial profiling and mass incarceration would swing this thread way off the intended topic.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 09:06:14 am
As tempting as it is to respond to Julian's comment that white women have had it worse than black men here since the end of slavery, a discussion on Jim Crow, racial profiling and mass incarceration would swing this thread way off the intended topic.
I concur.

A discussion of systematic unprosecuted sexual assault, wage disparity, and a de facto ban on hiring women for certain jobs would derail the Musicological banter. A comparison of the relative dates at which white women and black men were allowed to own property; vote; first served in Congress, the Senate, state governorships, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency; and were allowed to serve in liturgical roles in the majority of mainstream religions would be an annoying and longwinded sideshow on the board. The fact that women could be legally sodomized by their husbands in the majority of states IN OUR LIFETIMES would be a downright bummer to think about.

This would all take away from the true victim which is a multimillionaire rapper who didn't get a choreography nomination in America's 17th most prestigious arts award.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 09:12:03 am
Ed Sheeran getting the nod over her in the video of the year category is quite a headscratcher.


Does anyone here actually know what that Ed Sheeran song sounds like?
BTW, you do understand this was basically Taylor Swift's response ("maybe one of the guys took your slot") that you were earlier calling "wrong-headed" and "tone-deaf," correct?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 24, 2015, 09:30:23 am
It was wrong-headed (and a little self-centered) for Swift to assume she was personally attacked. Minaj's tweets still read as more of a generalization about  the industry and music press as a whole (who still have their fair share of unresolved race/sex/body type issues) to me.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 09:40:14 am
It was wrong-headed (and a little self-centered) for Swift to assume she was personally attacked. Minaj's tweets still read as more of a generalization about  the industry and music press as a whole (who still have their fair share of unresolved race/sex/body type issues) to me.
I think you're giving Minaj way too much credit. That's what annoys me about this: virtually every article about it spends no time actually discussing what Minaj actually said and instead is a missive about the author's personal agenda and presuming that is what Minaj was trying to say. But if you look at her ACTUAL words she said she was mad that she didn't get a nomination this year but "other girls... skinny girls" did. So it wasn't about Ed Sheeran, Bruno Mars, or Kendrick Mars. She was definitely DIRECTLY talking about either Taylor Swift or Beyonce.

And of all of the varied "hot takes" written about this idiocy, the only one I haven't seen is the one that thinks she was calling out Beyonce.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 24, 2015, 10:03:23 am
If she were a true feminist rather than simply an attention whore, she'd be calling attention to how horribly women are treated in Saudi Arabia rather than complaining about only skinny girls getting video award nominations.  ;)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 10:05:14 am
If she were a true feminist rather than simply an attention whore, she'd be calling attention to how horribly women are treated in Saudi Arabia rather than complaining about only skinny girls getting video award nominations.  ;)
I know you're mostly trolling but I agree. This is not a racism/sexism issue. It's about fat acceptance and Minaj should be shouted down from the rooftop over that. Want a nomination? Stop shoveling cake in your face and become a skinny girl.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 24, 2015, 10:14:12 am
If she were a true feminist rather than simply an attention whore, she'd be calling attention to how horribly women are treated in Saudi Arabia rather than complaining about only skinny girls getting video award nominations.  ;)
I know you're mostly trolling but I agree. This is not a racism/sexism issue. It's about fat acceptance and Minaj should be shouted down from the rooftop over that. Want a nomination? Stop shoveling cake in your face and become a skinny girl.

Admittedly I don't follow pop music. But isn't it about whose music video is better? What does race, gender, or body type have to do with anything?

If video awards were based on physical attractriveness alone, I'd tak Nicki over Taylor in a hearbeat.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 10:18:10 am
But isn't it about whose music video is better?
Yes, but Minaj's point isn't that her video was better. She explicitly didn't say that. She just complained that "skinny girls" get nominations. She is the person bringing weight into it, not anyone else. She is the person -- not me, not MTV -- who is under the belief that she didn't get a nomination because "durrr, thin privilege." Fat privilege is being able to talk about other people's weight with impunity but if anyone talks about yours, they'd be crucified.

Here's another great example of thin shaming:
(http://i.imgur.com/ctV7sP4.png)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Yada on July 24, 2015, 10:24:38 am
let me know if anyone needs that script I used to use for atomic to block this thread.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 24, 2015, 10:31:34 am
Yeah, I suppose it'd be nice if she took our government to task for propping up that monstrous regime for as long as it has.
If she were a true feminist rather than simply an attention whore, she'd be calling attention to how horribly women are treated in Saudi Arabia rather than complaining about only skinny girls getting video award nominations.  ;)
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 10:32:56 am
Hey, what's everyone's thoughts on Israel?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 24, 2015, 10:36:16 am
Hey, what's everyone's thoughts on Israel?

Would it be sexist for me to post this link?

http://thechive.com/2014/12/16/happy-hanukkah-gorgeous-israeli-women-19-photos/

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 24, 2015, 10:37:19 am
Would it be sexist for me to post this link?

http://thechive.com/2014/12/16/happy-hanukkah-gorgeous-israeli-women-19-photos/
Nikki Minaj is triggered that only skinny girls get posted in that link.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 24, 2015, 10:38:22 am
Yeah, I suppose it'd be nice if she took our government to task for propping up that monstrous regime for as long as it has.
If she were a true feminist rather than simply an attention whore, she'd be calling attention to how horribly women are treated in Saudi Arabia rather than complaining about only skinny girls getting video award nominations.  ;)

That would indeed be great but somehow i don't see it happening.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 24, 2015, 10:39:52 am
Keeping it musicological, http://thequietus.com/articles/18163-cultural-boycott-israel
Hey, what's everyone's thoughts on Israel?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 24, 2015, 12:04:02 pm
http://www.haaretz.com/life/music-theater/.premium-1.667617 ?
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Justin Tonation on July 24, 2015, 12:22:44 pm
Banter you say?

LOC Recommended Formats Statement (http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/)

CD > vinyl

III. Audio Works (http://www.loc.gov/preservation/resources/rfs/audio.html)

i. Audio - On Tangible Medium (digital and analog)

Preferred:

    A. Sound recordings, in order of preference
        1. Final production/release version of content rather than pre-production version
        2. Published Compact Disc (CD audio) rather than Recordable Compact Disc (CD-R, audio format)
        3. With all jackets, sleeves, enclosures, and inserts rather than without
        4. Stereophonic if originally recorded/released as stereophonic
        5. Monaural if originally recorded/release as monaural
        6. Direct Stream Digital (DSD) or other multi-channel (e.g. Surround Sound) version in addition to stereophonic version if release in both
        7. Vinyl disc (LP) in addition to Compact Disc (CD) if released in both

Acceptable:

    A. Sound recordings, in order of preference
        1. Recordable Compact Disc (CD-R) rather than vinyl disc
        2. Vinyl disc rather than audio cassette
        3. Audio cassette if only released as such

Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 27, 2015, 09:00:16 am
As tempting as it is to respond to Julian's comment that white women have had it worse than black men here since the end of slavery, a discussion on Jim Crow, racial profiling and mass incarceration would swing this thread way off the intended topic.
I concur.

A discussion of systematic unprosecuted sexual assault, wage disparity, and a de facto ban on hiring women for certain jobs would derail the Musicological banter. A comparison of the relative dates at which white women and black men were allowed to own property; vote; first served in Congress, the Senate, state governorships, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency; and were allowed to serve in liturgical roles in the majority of mainstream religions would be an annoying and longwinded sideshow on the board. The fact that women could be legally sodomized by their husbands in the majority of states IN OUR LIFETIMES would be a downright bummer to think about.

This would all take away from the true victim which is a multimillionaire rapper who didn't get a choreography nomination in America's 17th most prestigious arts award.

I thought it was funny, reading this argument between two guys who are neither black nor female. I guess at least that makes you both (perhaps) impartial. So I brought the question up at the dinner table Friday night. My wife appreciated that I had something to talk about other than beer, baseball, music, and film ((anti-)religion is usually her topic). So thanks to you two for that.

I figured being married to me, she'd for sure project and claim that women have had it harder than blacks in the last 150 years. But alas, her vote was that blacks have had it harder than women. So there you go.

She also said that both the TS and NM videos are both weak...and she's usually pretty friendly to cheez pop like that. Oh well.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 27, 2015, 09:27:13 am
So thanks to you two for that.
I just try and make a difference.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 27, 2015, 03:16:55 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xy1SbWO7Avs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mki6wwPoSxk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDB3VdU4Kqw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIgi0qGsprg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPEluMWQh6g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgQoTlhn8nA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDdv_6YIrd0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBBCOAA0rSM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5oVWc3RelU


http://www.rollingstone.com/music/pictures/see-freaky-fiery-photos-from-the-2015-gathering-of-the-juggalos-20150727
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Space Freely on July 28, 2015, 09:15:13 am
If Taylor Swift ever somehow made a great album, it would sound something like the new Ashley Monroe album.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: Julian, Semi-Retired WUNDERKIND on July 28, 2015, 09:19:46 am
If Taylor Swift ever somehow made a great album, it would sound something like the new Ashley Monroe album.
I heard her website just got hacked and a lot of guys who were trying to cheat on their wives with her are getting prettay, prettay, prettay nervous.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 29, 2015, 03:47:41 pm
tyler, the creator . . . accuses, wrongly, some woman from Australia of being behind the fact he can,not play in that country, on twitter.  then tyler,s fans, on twitter, are threatening to kill said woman and rape her.  now, tyler, again on twitter, is saying he has nothing to do with such threats and they are not coming from him. 

ahh, the internet, and twitter.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: walk,on,by on July 29, 2015, 03:49:45 pm
when I grow up, I want to be like chief keef . . . where I can have so many arrest warrants out on me, that I can,not even play at my own concert, and have to show up as a hologram, only to have said concert shut down by the police, after one song, because I am such a menace to society.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post by: azaghal1981 on July 30, 2015, 10:17:45 am
tyler, the creator . . . accuses, wrongly, some woman from Australia of being behind the fact he can,not play in that country, on twitter.  then tyler,s fans, on twitter, are threatening to kill said woman and rape her.  now, tyler, again on twitter, is saying he has nothing to do with such threats and they are not coming from him. 

ahh, the internet, and twitter.
And Australia says that he's actually not banned from there.
Title: Re: Musicological banter
Post