Author Topic: Musicological banter  (Read 965570 times)

hutch

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1440 on: November 02, 2015, 08:33:11 pm »
No new Stone Roses, just a couple more UK live dates..

wake up. they are a dead band

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14804
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1441 on: November 02, 2015, 09:51:23 pm »
No new Stone Roses, just a couple more UK live dates..

wake up. they are a dead band

how many bands do you know that can spark sudden interest merely by posting posters of their lemon logo around manchester?
T.Rex

vansmack

  • Member
  • Posts: 19717
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1442 on: November 02, 2015, 10:16:45 pm »
27>34

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1443 on: November 02, 2015, 11:49:33 pm »

bearman🐻

  • Member
  • Posts: 5442
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1444 on: November 03, 2015, 10:21:29 am »
No new Stone Roses, just a couple more UK live dates..

wake up. they are a dead band

The Ramones are a dead band. I'm not sure the Roses qualify. I'm willing to give them a shot. If anything because Reni is a superb natural as a drummer and John Squire is one of the better guitarists. Ian Brown is horrid as a singer though.

walk,on,by

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1445 on: November 03, 2015, 12:00:57 pm »
so if a whole new ramones band popped up with like one original band member and the rest, all new ramones, doing all old songs and making new songs as well, you would like them, and go see them live?  they dressed the same, the same no break song attack, the same hair.

hutch

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1446 on: November 03, 2015, 12:02:44 pm »
everybody knows if the stone roses ever make any new music it will suck....its hard to get excited about an announcement to play huge shows in England. its all about the benjamins for them....

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21535
  • I don't belong here.
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1447 on: November 03, 2015, 01:36:40 pm »
<sig>

grateful

  • Member
  • Posts: 9969
  • 👤 👩 👦 📷 📺
    • Wait, the entire rest of the internet exists and you CHOOSE to post here? Who hurt you?

killsaly

  • Guest
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1449 on: November 03, 2015, 06:53:14 pm »
I am trying something similar with a dance album they put out in the 90s... But it just sounds like the female vocal originals...

kosmo vinyl

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 14804
    • Hi-Fi Pop
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1450 on: November 09, 2015, 07:22:39 pm »
Don Giovanni records had an everything must go sale in advance of their move from NJ via Kickstarter and for $27 bucks they sent me 5 random CDs + 2 extras..  They sent me a Vacation, Screaming Females, Waxahatchee, Upset, Priests, Peter Stampfel and The Brooklyn & Lower Manhattan Bango Squardron and Castle Talk...  Guess I better put up the "Do Not Distrub" sign.
T.Rex

Space Freely

  • Member
  • Posts: 10109
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1451 on: November 10, 2015, 01:00:00 pm »
So we recently watched Love and Mercy, and my wife couldn't stop commenting on how badly punk rock sucks when compared to real musicians like Brian Wilson.

Me, I'm sort of neutral regarding punk. I went to hardcore shows in the late 80's more for the scene than the music. I have the Sex Pistols and Dead Kennedys on my ipod but never listen to them anymore.

Does anybody have a musicological defense of punk based on musical merit alone?

sweetcell

  • Member
  • Posts: 21535
  • I don't belong here.
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1452 on: November 10, 2015, 01:21:48 pm »
I went to hardcore shows in the late 80's more for the scene than the music.

i think the answer is hidden in there, in 2 parts.

"in the 80's", i.e. when you were young.  punk is the music of youthful frustration, alienation, etc.  you're no longer that person, so the music doesn't speak to you.

"more for the scene than the music" - arguably the most revolutionary aspect of punk is that it was a music scene that wasn't about the music first.  it was an attitude, a social group, a protest, an identity... that also came with a soundtrack.  to examine it "on musical merit alone" is to miss the point.  it was never meant to stand alone, so it doesn't do well when you try.

YMMV, IMHO, i'm old, etc etc etc.
<sig>

Space Freely

  • Member
  • Posts: 10109
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1453 on: November 10, 2015, 01:41:41 pm »
I went to hardcore shows in the late 80's more for the scene than the music.

i think the answer is hidden in there, in 2 parts.

"in the 80's", i.e. when you were young.  punk is the music of youthful frustration, alienation, etc.  you're no longer that person, so the music doesn't speak to you.

"more for the scene than the music" - arguably the most revolutionary aspect of punk is that it was a music scene that wasn't about the music first.  it was an attitude, a social group, a protest, an identity... that also came with a soundtrack.  to examine it "on musical merit alone" is to miss the point.  it was never meant to stand alone, so it doesn't do well when you try.

YMMV, IMHO, i'm old, etc etc etc.

Ironically, Anarchy in the UK just came on the radio as I was reading your post.

ggw

  • Member
  • Posts: 14237
Re: Musicological banter
« Reply #1454 on: November 10, 2015, 01:45:26 pm »
Strangely enough, I was rocking the Fugazi catalog this past weekend.  It is visceral.  Made me bang my head and pump my fist.  It hasn't aged incredibly well, but sometimes I like to get in touch with my inner 14-year old.