930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: SPARX on January 15, 2004, 10:14:00 am
-
Check this link for requirements and to apply:
http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/help/ (http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/help/)
-
Speaking of writers...BigYawn.net could probably use a dedicated new writer or two, capable of spitting out two or so reviews per month. Those seriously interested please feel free to e-mail me at eric@bigyawn.net
Our opening qualification is that you can't be a prick like most Pitchfork writers, just so you know.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Our opening qualification is that you can't be a prick like most Pitchfork writers, just so you know.
DAMNIT! I was going to email you!
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Our opening qualification is that you can't be a prick like most Pitchfork writers, just so you know.
DAMNIT! I was going to email you! [/b]
Actually, you're the reason I added that line. Besides, we need reviews written about good music. Not sure your tastes (Waterboys, cough, cough) really cut it.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
[QB
Our opening qualification is that you can't be a prick like most Pitchfork writers, just so you know. [/QB]
Then what fun would that be ;)
-
I would pay money to see a published review of Exit Clov's album authored by Mankiie.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I would pay money to see a published review of Exit Clov's album authored by Mankiie.
He just hates the name. I'm sure the review would be better than you think. If only they had an album to review...
-
i always say i am going to try and do this, but never get around to it. this time i am going to say "no way" so maybe i will get around to it.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. [/b]
HUH! What's the point in reviewing it if it's all good...isn't that the whole point of reviews???
Here's a challenge for you...send me any cd you want and I'll do a review on it for bigyawn........do you have the kahuna's to accept the challenge?
-
Originally posted by god's shoeshine:
i always say i am going to try and do this, but never get around to it. this time i am going to say "no way" so maybe i will get around to it.
It's pretty easy if your into that kinda thing.Plus,it's a great way to bolster your cd collection,time consuming though.Although for most on this board i figure it would be a labor of love. Hint:keep a thesaurus handy while writing,helps tremendously.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
do you have the kahuna's to accept the challenge?
I think you mean "cojones"
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. [/b]
HUH! What's the point in reviewing it if it's all good...isn't that the whole point of reviews???
[/b]
Allow me to correct myself...we need reviews written about music that we anticipate might be good, by bands we know to put out good music, with a sound we think has a good chance to be good. Your taste in music makes me think at least half of your CD collection doesn't fit that mold. Which means your reviews might speak highly of shit, while giving no respect to the good stuff.
-
Which means your reviews might speak highly of shit, while giving no respect to the good stuff.
oh boy, batten down the hatches mateys!
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by mankie:
do you have the kahuna's to accept the challenge?
I think you mean "cojones" [/b]
you say cojones I say kahuna's...let's call the whole thing off!
-
Originally posted by brennser:
Which means your reviews might speak highly of shit, while giving no respect to the good stuff.
oh boy, batten down the hatches mateys! [/b]
Not at all, each to their own...although I do now own an Exit Clov cd, which I can give a mini-review.....
"Singers with voices of angels singing lame lyrics accompanied by very sub-par musicians. A band at the pinnacle of very mediocre careers."
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by mankie:
do you have the kahuna's to accept the challenge?
I think you mean "cojones" [/b]
you say cojones I say kahuna's...let's call the whole thing off! [/b]
You should say cojones, it sounds tougher. You need all the tough you can get.
-
You've spent far too long in America. Your review should have read...
I drank a pint while listening to this. I preferred the pint.
Originally posted by mankie:
"Singers with voices of angels singing lame lyrics accompanied by very sub-par musicians. A band at the pinnacle of very mediocre careers."
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by mankie:
do you have the kahuna's to accept the challenge?
I think you mean "cojones" [/b]
you say cojones I say kahuna's...let's call the whole thing off! [/b]
You should say cojones, it sounds tougher. You need all the tough you can get. [/b]
I stopped needing tough after I turned 16.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
[QB]
I took a shit while listening to this. I preferred the shit.
That's what the mancunian in me wanted to write....I was just trying to be more diplomatic for Redsock.
-
Either you have a stereo in your bathroom or you walk around with headphones on all day.
Originally posted by mankie:
That's what the mancunian in me wanted to write....I was just trying to be more diplomatic for Redsock.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Either you have a stereo in your bathroom or you walk around with headphones on all day.
Originally posted by mankie:
That's what the mancunian in me wanted to write....I was just trying to be more diplomatic for Redsock.
[/b]
At least my girlfriend has the voice of an angel. I'd prefer taking a dump over listening to the guys in the band jam out too.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
"Singers with voices of angels singing lame lyrics accompanied by very sub-par musicians. A band at the pinnacle of very mediocre careers."
but for the record, they are pretty decent musicians.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Either you have a stereo in your bathroom or you walk around with headphones on all day.
Originally posted by mankie:
That's what the mancunian in me wanted to write....I was just trying to be more diplomatic for Redsock.
[/b]
At least my girlfriend has the voice of an angel. I'd prefer taking a dump over listening to the guys in the band jam out too. [/b]
See, we kind of agree...your girlfriend is being held back by the band IMHO...
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Either you have a stereo in your bathroom or you walk around with headphones on all day.
Originally posted by mankie:
That's what the mancunian in me wanted to write....I was just trying to be more diplomatic for Redsock.
[/b]
At least my girlfriend has the voice of an angel. I'd prefer taking a dump over listening to the guys in the band jam out too. [/b]
See, we kind of agree...your girlfriend is being held back by the band IMHO... [/b]
Well, I would say that some of the styles incorporated by the rest of the band could be better...but she would argue that is what compromise is all about...
-
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. Not sure your tastes (Waterboys, cough, cough) really cut it.
You must be very young.
-
Positive reviews are borrrrrrrring. I for one would love to read Mankie's trashing of various albums, assuming they are well written and offer cogent arguments. Hell, I'd even enjoy him trashing stuff I like if he makes a good argument.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. [/b]
HUH! What's the point in reviewing it if it's all good...isn't that the whole point of reviews???
[/b]
Allow me to correct myself...we need reviews written about music that we anticipate might be good, by bands we know to put out good music, with a sound we think has a good chance to be good. Your taste in music makes me think at least half of your CD collection doesn't fit that mold. Which means your reviews might speak highly of shit, while giving no respect to the good stuff. [/b]
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. Not sure your tastes (Waterboys, cough, cough) really cut it.
You must be very young. [/b]
No, not at all...if you referring to my dislike for everything I've heard from Mike Scott and crew, that has everything to do with my taste, not my age. Mankie's love for the Beautiful South, another band I tried and hated, futhers my feelings on the above issue. Again, nothing to do with my age. I love and appreciate plenty of bands whose careers ended before the Waterboys' began.
-
I agree, negative reviews are necessary. Everything isn't good music, lord knows. What originally started with sarcasm, on his part, apparently has become something more than that. If Mankie really wants to participate, he's more than welcome.
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
Positive reviews are borrrrrrrring. I for one would love to read Mankie's trashing of various albums, assuming they are well written and offer cogent arguments. Hell, I'd even enjoy him trashing stuff I like if he makes a good argument.
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. [/b]
HUH! What's the point in reviewing it if it's all good...isn't that the whole point of reviews???
[/b]
Allow me to correct myself...we need reviews written about music that we anticipate might be good, by bands we know to put out good music, with a sound we think has a good chance to be good. Your taste in music makes me think at least half of your CD collection doesn't fit that mold. Which means your reviews might speak highly of shit, while giving no respect to the good stuff. [/b]
[/b]
-
Originally posted by redsock:
No, not at all...if you referring to my dislike for everything I've heard from Mike Scott and crew, that has everything to do with my taste, not my age. Mankie's love for the Beautiful South, another band I tried and hated, futhers my feelings on the above issue. Again, nothing to do with my age. I love and appreciate plenty of bands whose careers ended before the Waterboys' began. [/b]
Well if you hate a.) The Beautiful South and b.) The Waterboys...you obviously have no respect for a). great lyrics and b.) great musicians, which explains your love for Exit Clov. I suppose the fact you're knobbing the singer doesn't do any harm either!
:D
-
reviews sure to be littered with "doodle" "footie" and "america not good"
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Positive reviews are borrrrrrrring. I for one would love to read Mankie's trashing of various albums, assuming they are well written and offer cogent arguments. Hell, I'd even enjoy him trashing stuff I like if he makes a good argument.
What a great idea!!!!
Wouldn't it be interesting if we could figure out how to get cd's to each other (easily), then we could select a favourite album then choose a board member to review it for everyone. There would have to be an honor system that the review is to be done as honestly and be as objective as they can, ("It's shite and the singer is a pretentious wanker" wouldn't be acceptable) and we have to select the reviewer by thinking of the one who would most probably like it the least.
-
That would be a cool idea, Mank. God, someone will give me Wilco or Cracker. But I'd promise to listen closely. You know what would be cool about it? Really examining what it is that causes you to dislike a song, album or band. What an interesting exercise.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
who would most probably like it the least.
If its not country or americana, you could just give it to Rhett, if its not 80s britpop give it to Mankie, if its not cheesy 80s pop/metal give it to Guiny.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by mankie:
who would most probably like it the least.
If its not country or americana, you could just give it to Rhett, if its not 80s britpop give it to Mankie, if its not cheesy 80s pop/metal give it to Guiny. [/b]
If it's not the new hip/hyped/trendy/15minute band...give it to markie!
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
Besides, we need reviews written about good music. Not sure your tastes (Waterboys, cough, cough) really cut it.
You must be very young. [/b]
No, not at all...if you referring to my dislike for everything I've heard from Mike Scott and crew, that has everything to do with my taste, not my age. Mankie's love for the Beautiful South, another band I tried and hated, futhers my feelings on the above issue. Again, nothing to do with my age. I love and appreciate plenty of bands whose careers ended before the Waterboys' began. [/b]
Allow me to correct myself...we need reviews written about music that we anticipate might be good, by bands we know to put out good music, with a sound we think has a good chance to be good. Your taste in music makes me think at least half of your CD collection doesn't fit that mold. Which means your reviews might speak highly of shit, while giving no respect to the good stuff.
These quotes make me think that Big Yawn will not be particularly objective. The Waterboys and Beautiful South are just two bands with fairly long histories and critical acclaim that potential readers of, and writers for, Big Yawn may enjoy, much to your dismay. It is likely that many artists that you enjoy happen to enjoy bands you despise.
You are running the risk of making Big Yawn's editorial perspective too narrow and irrelevant. You don't have to invite everyone to the party but you have to mix it up some. All thumbs up or down is boring; Ebert and Roeper are most entertaining, and elucidating, when they disagree.
-
-edit- sorry Mank, didn't notice that you hadn't written the last post.
Beets, bigyawn is starting out mixed -- including a review of the Peter Gabriel new greatest hits CD. It's really early on, but it looks like it should be not overly one-sided. And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs. ;)
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
]These quotes make me think that Big Yawn will not be particularly objective. The Waterboys and Beautiful South are just two bands with fairly long histories and critical acclaim that potential readers of, and writers for, Big Yawn may enjoy, much to your dismay. It is likely that many artists that you enjoy happen to enjoy bands you despise.
You are running the risk of making Big Yawn's editorial perspective too narrow and irrelevant. You don't have to invite everyone to the party but you have to mix it up some. All thumbs up or down is boring; Ebert and Roeper are most entertaining, and elucidating, when they disagree.
Look Beats...you need to take a step back and view those quotes in perspective. As I stated previously, this all started with sarcasm, and Mankie and I, as well as Mankie and just about everyone else, have a history of sarcasm. My comments to him were based almost entirely on that premise. Though I do think Waterboys and the Beautiful South suck.
In terms of my site...I take offense to the point you are trying to make. The writers on thie site are free to review absoultely anything they want to. I try to provide some CD suggestions when I can, which consist of bands with some sort of reputation, i.e. Basement Jaxx, or bands with no reputations (some local bands we are reviewing[not exit clov]). And the writers are free to feel and write anything they want regarding the CD's. The point of the site is to promote good music, regardless of the form it comes in. At the same time we need to alert folks to crap too. If a writer wanted to review a new Waterboys CD, knock yourself out. Whetehr you love it or hate it, as long as you express yourself intelligently, it works for me. And of course, there will be plenty to disagree with.
We are just starting up, and it is a bit of an up-hill struggle. There is all sorts of weird crap we have to review. So please be patient as we try to find our niche, and reserve any judgments till then. (thanks Bags)
-
Originally posted by beetsnotbeats:
You don't have to invite everyone to the party but you have to mix it up some.
And you're still invited to the party. It's tomorrow night. ;)
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Though I do think Waterboys and the Beautiful South suck.
[/b]
Exellent and open-minded review on two very successful, long running bands, with great insight into your thoughts and opinions, thank you. I'll throw all the cd's of theirs I have away.
-
And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs.
not this year (2004) but the waterboys did release an album last year.....drum roll please.....which was crap! (and thats from someone who thinks Mike Scott is a genius)
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Though I do think Waterboys and the Beautiful South suck.
[/b]
Exellent and open-minded review on two very successful, long running bands, with great insight into your thoughts and opinions, thank you. I'll throw all the cd's of theirs I have away. [/b]
See Beats, sarcasm!!!! at least I think so :roll:
-
Originally posted by brennser:
And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs.
not this year (2004) but the waterboys did release an album last year.....drum roll please.....which was crap! (and thats from someone who thinks Mike Scott is a genius) [/b]
Universal Hall was pretty good, certainly not his best work, and more like his solo stuff than Waterboys.
Beautiful South released Gaze in late 03. A good album for Beautiful South fans, but not one to convert narrow-minded ignorant fuckers like redsock.
-
Originally posted by brennser:
And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs.
not this year (2004) but the waterboys did release an album last year.....drum roll please.....which was crap! (and thats from someone who thinks Mike Scott is a genius) [/b]
That's actually the one I heard. Perhaps there is something better.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not this year (2004) but the waterboys did release an album last year.....drum roll please.....which was crap! (and thats from someone who thinks Mike Scott is a genius)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's actually the one I heard. Perhaps there is something better.
well then, if THATS the only one you've heard I can understand your antipathy somewhat
you need to listen to A Pagan Place or This is the Sea - fantastic stuff - Fishermans Blues if really good too in a trad/folk/rock kinda way
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by brennser:
And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs.
not this year (2004) but the waterboys did release an album last year.....drum roll please.....which was crap! (and thats from someone who thinks Mike Scott is a genius) [/b]
That's actually the one I heard. Perhaps there is something better. [/b]
Yet more proof of open-minded reviewing...."THEY SUCK" after listening to just one album..."the album sucks" I'll accept, but how can you say a band who's been around for over 20 years SUCKS after listening to one album?
How many Beautiful South albums did it take to bring you to the same conclusion....ONE maybe?
Looks like bigyawn will be just that from judging the early going of the reviews it's churning out.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
...this all started with sarcasm, and Mankie and I, as well as Mankie and just about everyone else, have a history of sarcasm. My comments to him were based almost entirely on that premise. Though I do think Waterboys and the Beautiful South suck ... The writers on thie site are free to review absoultely anything they want to ... the writers are free to feel and write anything they want regarding the CD's. The point of the site is to promote good music, regardless of the form it comes in. At the same time we need to alert folks to crap too. If a writer wanted to review a new Waterboys CD, knock yourself out. Whetehr you love it or hate it, as long as you express yourself intelligently, it works for me. And of course, there will be plenty to disagree with.
We are just starting up, and it is a bit of an up-hill struggle. There is all sorts of weird crap we have to review. So please be patient as we try to find our niche, and reserve any judgments till then. (thanks Bags)
Good to hear (so to speak, or write (type)). I didn't read every post so I missed some of the context. My only intent was some constructive criticism; I wish you well and would like to see Big Yawn succeed.
As for The Waterboys and Beautiful South, well, Frank Zappa once said something like "if you don't like it then it sucks."
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by brennser:
And, so far this year I don't think there have been any new Beautiful South or Waterboys CDs.
not this year (2004) but the waterboys did release an album last year.....drum roll please.....which was crap! (and thats from someone who thinks Mike Scott is a genius) [/b]
That's actually the one I heard. Perhaps there is something better. [/b]
Yet more proof of open-minded reviewing...."THEY SUCK" after listening to just one album..."the album sucks" I'll accept, but how can you say a band who's been around for over 20 years SUCKS after listening to one album?
How many Beautiful South albums did it take to bring you to the same conclusion....ONE maybe?
Looks like bigyawn will be just that from judging the early going of the reviews it's churning out. [/b]
As much as I want to say "Fuck off Geezer!" I'll hold off. however, Please please please differetiate between myself and the site. My creation, yes, but I am but one voice in a basket of many.
And you've heard four fucking songs from Exit Clov, four fucking songs, despite my numerous attempts to get you out to see them. How do you know dick about how good the musicianship is?
Fuck off geezer!!!
-
If you care to remember...I have never said Exit Clov SUCK (well, apart from the name) I said I thought the singer has the voice of an angel, the lyrics lame and the musicians sub-par. I'd say that's a review....a short one admittedly, but much more of a review than "THEY SUCK". I bet I've heard everything Exit Clov have put on CD, or the vast majority at least ....which we can't say the same for you and the Beautiful South or Waterboys.
I really do wish you luck on the website though, just winding you up about it...HEY! I gotta be me! :D
-
What do they pay for these reviews?
-
Originally posted by J'Mal:
What do they pay for these reviews?
Well Pitchfork pays you in street cred I guess. BigYawn pays you in ego boost only at the moment. Oh, and the writers currently on staff get a free t-shirt at the party tomorrow night. And some free CD's of course. I'm workin on a killer 401K matching program though.
-
In defence of Redsock.......
Not that he really needs it, as I think he has made his point. But he didnt suggest what I review or change any of my reviews other than to fit the format of the site, i.e Caps and italics.
In defence of Mankie.....
I think the beautiful south are a fine band, a bit passed their prime now, but they had a pretty good run of albums and big hit singles. Carry on up the charts, the greatest hits would fit well in the collection of anyone who liked intelligent pop.
As for the waterboys, aren't they just one hit wonders?
:p
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
As for the waterboys, aren't they just one hit wonders?
:p
What hit???
-
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
-
Originally posted by redsock:
I try to provide some CD suggestions when I can, which consist of bands with some sort of reputation, i.e. Basement Jaxx, or bands with no reputations (some local bands we are reviewing[not exit clov]).
I'd love to see a real emphasis on local bands. There are already tons of sites reviewing bands that are already receiving national attention. I'd definitely go see a lot more local bands if I knew what they sounded like first, or at least heard opinions from other folks first. Reviews of local gigs would be great too, since many local bands either don't have CDs out, or you can't buy them without going to a show.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
As for the waterboys, aren't they just one hit wonders?
:p
So a band has to have a "hit" to be considered talented then? Interesting, that would mean 95% of all bands mentioned on this board are total bobbins and the Spice Girls, Backstreet Boys 98Degrees, N'Sync, Britney, Christina...and all those other immensely gifted musicians and song writers leave our favourite bands in their shadows when it comes to talent.
-
I dunno...most local bands suck. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...and could that reason in part be mediocrity?
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
most local bands suck.
Could you be more specific?
Which ones have you seen?
Why did they "suck?"
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...most local bands suck. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...and could that reason in part be mediocrity?
Having seen more than my fair share of local bands...I would say "mediocre" is a better word than "suck". Very few of them have anything unique about them. Which doesn't mean they can't still be pleasant...but if it's been done before, it's a lot harder to stand out. And the local folk thing around here gets extremely repititious and dull.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...
I think that comment is nieve. There are tons of great local bands around this country, who deserve to, yet receive no spotlight. This is for any number of reasons, but some of it comes down to dumb luck, or a lack of it. Being in the right place at the right time actually factors in here. The bottom line is that you have to get noticed by someone who likes you and can do something about it. That's not easy, regardless of how good you are.
-
Which local bands that aren't getting national attention actually deserve national attention?
Alright "suck" was too strong of a word to use...but I do think there are wayyyyy too many wannabe rock stars in the world, and there's a reason why most of them don't make it....they have nothing to day musically or lyrically.
I would say to me, 95% of bands that exist are not worth bothering with....not necessarily because they may be of a genre that I don't casre for, but more likely because notrhing stands out about them.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
most local bands suck.
Could you be more specific?
Which ones have you seen?
Why did they "suck?" [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...most local bands suck. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...and could that reason in part be mediocrity?
It could be. If that's the case, I'd like to know about it before spending my money on those bands. And, of course, they don't ALL suck. I'd like to hear more about the ones that people think are pretty decent.
-
What is "nieve"?
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...
I think that comment is nieve. There are tons of great local bands around this country, who deserve to, yet receive no spotlight. This is for any number of reasons, but some of it comes down to dumb luck, or a lack of it. Being in the right place at the right time actually factors in here. The bottom line is that you have to get noticed by someone who likes you and can do something about it. That's not easy, regardless of how good you are. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] What is "neve"?
Originally posted by redsock
<img src="http://www.astro-france.com/focus/images/neve-campbell.jpg" alt=" - " />
I dunno, who is a pedant?
-
Last Train Home, Canyon, the Grandsons, 52 Pick Up all come to mind as local bands I've seen that are no better than mediocre.
I guess I can only comment with any kind of authority on the local Americana scene, but with the departure of Bill Kirchen, there just aint no locals left good enough to be nationally known.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
most local bands suck.
Could you be more specific?
Which ones have you seen?
Why did they "suck?" [/b]
-
Alternatively,
Washington Social Club
Phaser
Metropolitan
Carlsonics
Are four local bands that have surprised me with the quality of their live performances.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
What is "nieve"?
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...
I think that comment is nieve. There are tons of great local bands around this country, who deserve to, yet receive no spotlight. This is for any number of reasons, but some of it comes down to dumb luck, or a lack of it. Being in the right place at the right time actually factors in here. The bottom line is that you have to get noticed by someone who likes you and can do something about it. That's not easy, regardless of how good you are. [/b]
[/b]
I've made worse typos than that on the board.
-
Originally posted by poorlulu:
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
I wasn't being snarky...have the Waterboys had a hit?
I have Pagan Place and This is the Sea, so I'm not anti-Waterboys (though I haven't listened to either in over 10 years as I have them on vinyl; maybe it's time to revisit).
Mank, I wasn't insinuating that WB have no hit so are shit. I honestly don't remember them having a hit.
-
I really can't be bothered with bands that are "mediocre" or "pleasant enough".
Too many other fun things to do in life to endure late nights in smoky, crowded clubs to see bands that are just "pleasant enough".
I suppose if you're a scenester type, "pleasant enough" bands cut it, but I'm just not THAT into live music to be bothered with seeing bands that are less than very good.
Typically, I'm happy with seeing 15-20 shows a year. Don't think I could take any more than that, so i chose wisely.
Different strokes for different folks...
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...most local bands suck. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...and could that reason in part be mediocrity?
Having seen more than my fair share of local bands...I would say "mediocre" is a better word than "suck". Very few of them have anything unique about them. Which doesn't mean they can't still be pleasant...but if it's been done before, it's a lot harder to stand out. And the local folk thing around here gets extremely repititious and dull. [/b]
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Alternatively,
Washington Social Club
Phaser
Metropolitan
Carlsonics
Are four local bands that have surprised me with the quality of their live performances.
Last Train Home are horrible. A good example of what's bad about the local music scene. Phaser and Metropolitan are great. One of these days I'll get out to a WSC show. I actually think they and Exit clov are trying to work out a gig together.
-
I agree with Skeeter -- great or not, I'd be really interested in learning even what genre various local bands are... I'd see more, but I'm really unfamiliar with the local scene outside of the bigger local bands (Washington Social Club, Carlsonics). And I don't have time to just stop by the Velvet Lounge (or other small venues) to keep track of the local scene in a hodge podge manner. I'll go if I have a general sense that the band is something I *would* like if they're doing it well.
Does that make sense?
Originally posted by Skeeter:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
I dunno...most local bands suck. There's a reason why they're not recieving national attention (the ones who aren't)...and could that reason in part be mediocrity?
It could be. If that's the case, I'd like to know about it before spending my money on those bands. And, of course, they don't ALL suck. I'd like to hear more about the ones that people think are pretty decent. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by poorlulu:
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
I wasn't being snarky...have the Waterboys had a hit?
I honestly don't remember them having a hit. [/b]
The whole of the moon. It was on the 1985 album, This is the sea.
-
Looks like I need to check out Metropolitan, Phaser and maybe Canyon.
-
So is Dead Meadow the most succesful local band in recent years? :D
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] What is "neve"?
Originally posted by redsock
<img src="http://www.astro-france.com/focus/images/neve-campbell.jpg" alt=" - " />
I dunno, who is a pedant? [/b]
I'd definately like to give her exposure and recognition....Canuck too, BONUS!
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by poorlulu:
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
I wasn't being snarky...have the Waterboys had a hit?
I honestly don't remember them having a hit. [/b]
The whole of the moon. It was on the 1985 album, This is the sea. [/b]
This is the sea....wasn't a hit?
-
Originally posted by pollard:
So is Dead Meadow the most succesful local band in recent years? :D
*shudder*
-
Originally posted by mankie:
This is the sea....wasn't a hit?
I really dont remember it. I was only 12. The whole of the moon has certainly endured much more.
-
Originally posted by poorlulu:
*shudder*
that's just the volume making you quake, or something
-
i like metropolitan. they also seem to get the best response from people outside of the area that i nerdily talk music with.
-
Originally posted by poorlulu:
Originally posted by pollard:
So is Dead Meadow the most succesful local band in recent years? :D
*shudder* [/b]
Hum..... Success as defined by decibels?
-
Based on your knowledge of my taste, which of these am I most likely to like?
And yes, my taste does go beyond Americana/alt-country. Over half of my top 10 of 2003 were non-Americana.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Alternatively,
Washington Social Club
Phaser
Metropolitan
Carlsonics
Are four local bands that have surprised me with the quality of their live performances.
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Hum..... Success as defined by decibels?
or national exposure http://www.matadorrecords.com/dead_meadow/ (http://www.matadorrecords.com/dead_meadow/)
-
can we start calling Brit Pop, Britannica?
so we have Americana and Britannica
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Based on your knowledge of my taste, which of these am I most likely to like?
Probably non of them. Actually, Metropolitan, Washington Social Club, Carlsonics, Phaser I would rate them in that order for you.
Metropolitan would probably pull off the best Arlo cover in my opinion.
-
There seem to be quite a few reviews of DC acts on Pitchfork -- ostensibly a national publication.
Q And Not U
El Guapo
Apes
Black Eyes
Beauty Pill
The Pupils
Dead Meadow
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Britannica
Will we then have to say your knowledge is encyclopedic?
-
Thanks. I'll keep that list in my head for future reference.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Based on your knowledge of my taste, which of these am I most likely to like?
Probably non of them. Actually, Metropolitan, Washington Social Club, Carlsonics, Phaser I would rate them in that order for you.
Metropolitan would probably pull off the best Arlo cover in my opinion. [/b]
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
There seem to be quite a few reviews of DC acts on Pitchfork -- ostensibly a national publication.
Q And Not U
El Guapo
Apes
Black Eyes
Beauty Pill
The Pupils
Dead Meadow
I was actually wondering who has had more record sales, Q and not U or Dead Meadow. My guess was Dead Meadow due to wider distribution, but my perception could be completely off and it could be one of the others you mentioned. Who knows, maybe Suede is the best selling local artist.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by poorlulu:
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
I wasn't being snarky...have the Waterboys had a hit?
I honestly don't remember them having a hit. [/b]
The whole of the moon. It was on the 1985 album, This is the sea. [/b]
This is the sea....wasn't a hit? [/b]
A hit....where? I was a senior in high school, and I never heard it anywhere (except on my stereo) and no one I knew ever heard the song.
Mank, I'm not trying to argue, but I'd bet that most people, even folks who listen to HFS or whatever (ie, not way into indie/alternative the way folks here are, but have varied musical tastes) don't know Waterboys. Doesn't mean Wateboys aren't great or seminal....
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Will we then have to say your knowledge is encyclopedic?
of course
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] Based on your knowledge of my taste, which of these am I most likely to like?
Probably non of them. Actually, Metropolitan, Washington Social Club, Carlsonics, Phaser I would rate them in that order for you.
Metropolitan would probably pull off the best Arlo cover in my opinion. [/b]
You don't think Rhett would like Phaser? I forgot about The Apes...
-
Phaser are too farty for Rhett. Would Rhett like Spiritualized or the doves, probably not.
Even I cant stand the apes though.
-
Originally posted by redsock:
You don't think Rhett would like Phaser? I forgot about The Apes...
I don't think he would like them at all.
Actually I also found Phaser's album got boring fast and was not very impressed with their live show. *ducks as Jag pounces*
-
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Phaser are too farty for Rhett. Would Rhett like Spiritualized or the doves, probably not.
Even I cant stand the apes though.
Mmm...maybe there's some comparison to Lost Souls Doves, but not Last Broadcast. Phaser is just dreamy...their sound, not the guys in the band. I guess the sound could get boring.
The Apes are just different. Not sure if they're really any good, but still woth listening to. If that made any sense.
-
I dunno...I went to see the Waterboys about the time of "Room to Roam", and they played a pretty fucking big venue in NYC.
I would venture to say that for people over 32 or so who were into music, they were a well heard of band. For those younger folks only versed in the post-Nirvana landscape, they're probably unheard of or irrelevant.
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by poorlulu:
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
I wasn't being snarky...have the Waterboys had a hit?
I honestly don't remember them having a hit. [/b]
The whole of the moon. It was on the 1985 album, This is the sea. [/b]
This is the sea....wasn't a hit? [/b]
A hit....where? I was a senior in high school, and I never heard it anywhere (except on my stereo) and no one I knew ever heard the song.
Mank, I'm not trying to argue, but I'd bet that most people, even folks who listen to HFS or whatever (ie, not way into indie/alternative the way folks here are, but have varied musical tastes) don't know Waterboys. Doesn't mean Wateboys aren't great or seminal.... [/b]
-
Originally posted by pollard:
Actually I also found Phaser's album got boring fast and was not very impressed with their live show. *ducks as Jag pounces*
I thought they were good when they opened for Interpol. But I didn't think they sounded very good when they opened for British Sea Power. I think they tried to change their sound to get in on the big '70s arena-rock fad.
-
Originally posted by Rhett Miller:
[QB] I dunno...I went to see the Waterboys about the time of "Room to Roam", and they played a pretty fucking big venue in NYC.
I would venture to say that for people over 32 or so who were into music, they were a well heard of band. For those younger folks only versed in the post-Nirvana landscape, they're probably unheard of or irrelevant.
I was thinking it was an Atlantic Ocean thing, not just age, but if you saw them in a large venue in NYC....maybe it is just an age thing.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by poorlulu:
ooh bags that's a bit harsh.........it's a cracking song.........
I wasn't being snarky...have the Waterboys had a hit?
I honestly don't remember them having a hit. [/b]
The whole of the moon. It was on the 1985 album, This is the sea. [/b]
This is the sea....wasn't a hit? [/b]
A hit....where? I was a senior in high school, and I never heard it anywhere (except on my stereo) and no one I knew ever heard the song.
Mank, I'm not trying to argue, but I'd bet that most people, even folks who listen to HFS or whatever (ie, not way into indie/alternative the way folks here are, but have varied musical tastes) don't know Waterboys. Doesn't mean Wateboys aren't great or seminal.... [/b]
Whole Of The Moon was pretty popular in the '80s on HFS and MTV but you never heard most of the other radio stations. The song still gets radio airplay on the 'pop' stations here in the UK. I still here it about once a every two weeks or so.
Just to add my two cents, I think The Waterboys were/are a great band! Even though I don't agree with Mankie that all music post 1989 is shit, he's spot on about The Waterboys. I'll be playing "Fisherman's Blues" ten years from now while my Interpol and BRMC cd's are collecting dust in the rack.
-
Mark, that's not saying much. If I'm not mistaken, your tastes lean towards pop/punk.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Even I cant stand the apes though.
-
i always thought of black eyes and q and not u as national acts. well, most discord bands really.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Mark, that's not saying much. If I'm not mistaken, your tastes lean towards pop/punk.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Even I cant stand the apes though.
[/b]
how would you even classify The Apes? Post-modern?
-
Originally posted by redsock:
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Mark, that's not saying much. If I'm not mistaken, your tastes lean towards pop/punk.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Even I cant stand the apes though.
[/b]
how would you even classify The Apes? Post-modern? [/b]
From Allmusic:
Rock
Styles: Garage Punk, Experimental Rock, Post-Punk, Dub
Tones: Street-Smart, Brash, Confident, Amiable/Good-Natured, Tense/Anxious, Cathartic
Labels: French Kiss (2)
by Mike DaRonco
With a sound that resembles what would happen if Tony Iommi played organ rather than guitar in Black Sabbath, the Apes have been playing throughout their native of Washington, D.C., since their formation in 1999. Consisting of Erick Jackson (bass/moog), Amanda Kleinman (organ), Jeff Schmid (bass), and Paul Weil (vocals), Frenchkiss Records would eventually release their debut full-length, The Fugue in the Fog, in 2001. The Self-Starter Foundation put out the vinyl version.
-
Originally posted by thirsty moore:
Mark, that's not saying much. If I'm not mistaken, your tastes lean towards pop/punk.
Originally posted by mark e smith:
Even I cant stand the apes though.
[/b]
I was judging my tastes, compared to Rhetts. I think there is more chance I would like the Apes than Rhett, and I dont like the apes.
I think spastic, is the best way to categorise them, Redsock.
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Just to add my two cents, I think The Waterboys were/are a great band! Even though I don't agree with Mankie that all music post 1989 is shit, he's spot on about The Waterboys. I'll be playing "Fisherman's Blues" ten years from now while my Interpol and BRMC cd's are collecting dust in the rack. [/b]
I don't say all music post 89 is shit, well okay I do, but just to wind people up. My point about todays music is that it just doesn't have the 'staying power' for want of a better term....in 10 years time, "Classic/Oldie" stations will be playing the exact same stuff they're playing now, because there's nothing classic about the stuff being turned out today.
The only exeption that I can think of is Metallica. I don't care for them personally but I think people will still be playing their albums years from now.
-
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Just to add my two cents, I think The Waterboys were/are a great band! Even though I don't agree with Mankie that all music post 1989 is shit, he's spot on about The Waterboys. I'll be playing "Fisherman's Blues" ten years from now while my Interpol and BRMC cd's are collecting dust in the rack. [/b]
I don't say all music post 89 is shit, well okay I do, but just to wind people up. My point about todays music is that it just doesn't have the 'staying power' for want of a better term....in 10 years time, "Classic/Oldie" stations will be playing the exact same stuff they're playing now, because there's nothing classic about the stuff being turned out today.
The only exeption that I can think of is Metallica. I don't care for them personally but I think people will still be playing their albums years from now. [/b]
Mankie, I know you're taking the piss most of the time. I've lived here long enough to know that most Mancunians are piss merchants. The problem that I have with that "classic" sound is that I'm not really into that kind of music anymore. Most stuff I like isn't being played on the radio now and it most likely won't be in ten years from now either. I don't care if thousands or millions of people like the songs or not....it's what I like. Sometimes the songs do have mass appeal, but very rarely. If you're listening to new music and it doesn't do anything for you, that's a fair comment. Most people think that the music of their youth is the best and everything after is crap! I know that I'm a little older than you, but I havn't reached that stage, and may never get there. Like John Peel, I'm always searching for new music. It's an addiction (and a very expensive one at that), but I truly do love it. So leave me alone, dammit!
-
You bring up radio. It's important to look at how radio exposure has changed over the decades. I'm certainly no expert, but a station such as WHFS -- which apparently used to be fantastic -- has definitely taken a turn for the worse.
Originally posted by mankie:
My point about todays music is that it just doesn't have the 'staying power' for want of a better term....in 10 years time, "Classic/Oldie" stations will be playing the exact same stuff they're playing now, because there's nothing classic about the stuff being turned out today.
-
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Originally posted by mankie:
Originally posted by PseudoScouseTwat:
Just to add my two cents, I think The Waterboys were/are a great band! Even though I don't agree with Mankie that all music post 1989 is shit, he's spot on about The Waterboys. I'll be playing "Fisherman's Blues" ten years from now while my Interpol and BRMC cd's are collecting dust in the rack. [/b]
I don't say all music post 89 is shit, well okay I do, but just to wind people up. My point about todays music is that it just doesn't have the 'staying power' for want of a better term....in 10 years time, "Classic/Oldie" stations will be playing the exact same stuff they're playing now, because there's nothing classic about the stuff being turned out today.
The only exeption that I can think of is Metallica. I don't care for them personally but I think people will still be playing their albums years from now. [/b]
Mankie, I know you're taking the piss most of the time. I've lived here long enough to know that most Mancunians are piss merchants. The problem that I have with that "classic" sound is that I'm not really into that kind of music anymore. Most stuff I like isn't being played on the radio now and it most likely won't be in ten years from now either. I don't care if thousands or millions of people like the songs or not....it's what I like. Sometimes the songs do have mass appeal, but very rarely. If you're listening to new music and it doesn't do anything for you, that's a fair comment. Most people think that the music of their youth is the best and everything after is crap! I know that I'm a little older than you, but I havn't reached that stage, and may never get there. Like John Peel, I'm always searching for new music. It's an addiction (and a very expensive one at that), but I truly do love it. So leave me alone, dammit! [/b]
That's odd, the one and only time I'm not talking the piss, you bite!
Go have a pint lad.
-
(How am I going to remember all of this?)
Rhett, I think you would like some of Phaser's songs; however, different songs than most of us like. On record, the Sway album actually has some Alt Country influences. They don't sound as Alt Country live but more Brit Rock. You really should give them a chance and decide for yourself.
As many times that I've seen them live, their last show opening for BSP was probably my least favorite. They were breaking in a new drummer and trying out some new songs. Also, they were just off that night and Shiayko was out of key. Without going into detail that I don't want to explore here, it just wasn't a good night for them.
Pollard, don't worry, I won't pounce on you for your Phaser comment. You're entitled to your opinion.
Speaking of, count me in with the "I Hate Dead Meadow Club". And I know lots of people in Manchester who saw them and absolutely hated them too. They opened for some band but can't remember who. Maybe Longview.
I love the Carlsonics but I think Rhett would hate them considering they are very 60s Garage oriented.
3wk.com Underground internet radio plays lots of local DC and Baltimore bands. Some examples are Q And Not U, Cex, Black Eyes, Phaser, The Apes, The Lilys, and Beauty Pill.
-
Originally posted by Jaguär:
3wk.com Underground internet radio plays lots of local DC and Baltimore bands. Some examples are Q And Not U, Cex, Black Eyes, Phaser, The Apes, The Lilys, and Beauty Pill.
Thanks for the tip.