quote:

Goathouse, you tempt the higher powers comparing Frightened Rabbit to Incubus. It's not just offensive, it's cosmically incorrect and ridiculous. Stop it. (CAROLINE SPINE?)

Cosmically incorrect? Hardly. The first song in particular could be an Incubus song if Incubus were a tad better. Come on, you can't hear that? You're being silly. It's muddier than glossy Incubus and a bit smarter, but otherwise it's got that wide-eyed Incubus thing going full bore.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
Gotta tell ya, I'm mighty sick of the bullshit attitude so many music fans have these days. Especially the "indie" kids.

You're over indie popish rock type stuff. That is a story to treasure, Liberalkid.


What the fuck is-AGH.

Songwriting is what matters. Songs that are good. Music that is good. Somehow it's become cool to talk about "texture" and use the word "sonic" instead, which is 99% of the time absolute bullshit.

The neat little noises or the brilliance of the sonic palette with which a band forms their soundscapes of sound matters about THAT much. Songwriting, melody, connection - that's what the fuck music is for. If the noises HELP that, move it in that direction, then they're a blessing from God.

But the way people talk about good music that is unadorned and unpretentious, like Frightened Rabbit, as if not trying to dance to the art-obsessed hipster community's tune is a FLAW of some kind, makes me want to puke right on the floor.

Doesn't anyone ever take a look at themselves? What a silly, confused conformist you seem saying that music that doesn't have chanting castrated cat robots is "generic" - what's GENERIC is the by the numbers electronic/ambient/experimental absolutely meaningless shit that is churned out by cowards who hide behind avant-garde posturing and use it both as a prop for their hollow, soulless tripe and as bait for critics.


GOOFY ASS PSYCHEDELIC NOISY "DAMAGED/FRAGMENTED ART ROCK" ISN'T NEW EITHER. AND IT'S NOT ORIGINAL. MUSIC SHOULD BE JUDGED ON ITS MUSICALITY AND ITS IMPACT, NOT BY THE HORSESHIT CRITERIA OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO BELONG TO THE INTELLIGENTSIA. GET YOUR HEADS OUT OF YOUR ASSES.


And again, back to the being "over" indie rock or pop or whatever. This kind of a statement, even if the kid is sixteen or whatever, is extremely troubling. It's pathological, it speaks to a sickness in the community. What are some of you people talking about? We're music fans who mostly avoid the middle. This IS indie rock, son.

blackgravel, to be honest, i really don't think you give enough people credit for finding non-poppier music on their own. i mean, obviously trends can by the influence of the hipster pretentious community. the internet can make this even worse in some ways...depending on what you're reading on the internet. but i think you should also consider that the music market/scene has gotten saturated with poppier bands that often sound a lot alike. there are obviously plenty of good ones. but there are also a lot of bad ones. and i know for me, personally, i just got kind of sick of hearing about the next big band that sounds kind of similar to everyone else. that being the case, i started checking out music that branched out from just notes, rhythms, lyrics. dynamics and textures (yes, textures) can be just as inspiring to some people as traditional rock songwriting. hell, some people only like instrumental music. it seems like that should be okay. or, at least, not something to jump on top of something so quickly.

You know Blackgravel I can understand your thinking concerning music and all of that shit.

What I can't understand is how you can be so ignorant as to believe everyone else should think a band is good/great just because you do.

I can also understand your desire to defend music you think is good, what I do get entirely bothered and annoyed by, is your attempts at forcing your way of thinking upon other people.

Its this sort of behavior that pisses me the hell off, its the majority of the reason I hate some Christians. When someone believes something, that is quite obviously opinion and has no real empirical way of being backed up, but has to convince everyone else that its correct.

I think that about sums up my distaste for you.

I don't have any problem with people disliking Frightened Rabbit. They're really good, they're not great. I took major issue with the approach people took to criticizing them.

If you wanted to talk about how Frightened Rabbit fails to build tension in this or that song, how this or that lyrical turn was trite or cloying (you'd be right in several cases), how they ripped off the melody directly from some obvious place. How the tracks don't flow or are poorly sequenced, how there's no payoff for a buildup, how there's no proper escalation to a climax.

Some way that the MUSIC fails. I mean, think about what any of you are saying to begin with when you say a band "sounds" like someone else. You're not referring to the texture of the sounds, really (or very rarely). You're not referring to the tone or the quality of a sound.

You're referring to the notes and the rhythms and the melodies. 9,999 times out of a thousand, that's what you're talking about. They have the same melodic themes, the same rhythmic tendencies. And Frightened Rabbit doesn't sound much like any other band. MOST bands don't sound like any other bands. It's different people, different equipment, entirely different personalities. Go to a cover band show sometime - A COVER BAND often sounds very little like the band they're covering.

Clevername brings up an important touchstone - the Twilight Sad. They're the band considered most like Frightened Rabbit, and probably are the closest thing in some ways. They're both from Glasgow. They both have accents.

But the Twilight Sad's bashing, layered and distorted guitars and cymbals SOUND very little like Frightened Rabbit. The bands are somewhat similar in SPIRIT - melancholic. Yearning, frustrated, whatever. And that's what makes the comparison important.


I've been thinking about this lately: I'm gonna go ahead and say that nearly every single time someone says a band "sounds" like another band, they're full of shit and totally wrong. Why do I think that? Because they always ARE wrong! Two bands, even bands that use all the same instruments, have vocalists that are the same age and sex, are from the same city, have the same "influences" and can be categorized in more or less the same way will eight times out of ten sound NOTHING ALIKE in any practical or meaningful way.


I mean, think about all the big comparisons people make and how much they REALLY work.

Does Radiohead sound like Pink Floyd, U2, the Talking Heads, the Pixies or anyone else people point to? Not at all! Not even a little bit. NOT EVEN IN THE SONGS OR THE PASSAGES PEOPLE SPECIFICALLY POINT TO.

Do the Strokes sound like Television or the Velvet Underground? The Strokes sound absolutely fucking NOTHING LIKE EITHER OF THESE BANDS. Why does nobody notice this kind of thing?

It's almost always, always bullshit. And here it's bullshit too. They don't "sound like lots of other bands." Think about it - what bands are you even referring to? Can you describe any ACTUAL SIMILARITY between them? Do they both have guitars? Do they both use DISTORTION? Do they both have members that play "the drums"?

People make this kind of statement all the time. It's thoughtless, lazy, nearly always meaningless, and that's not the important thing - IT'S FUCKING SLANDER. Bands live and die based on the general bullshit attitudes of people on messageboards. It's true!

The Internet is a Big Deal. Maybe a bigger deal than real life. And people have got to stop the harmful, backward patterns of thought that they've fallen into. Stop talking about which bands sound like which bands. WHY?

1. You're wrong
2. What matters is HOW GOOD THE BAND IS. Not whatever dumbass band you can think of to say the band "sounds like." Dear God is that frustrating.

Every truly awesome band has to deal with asshats saying they sound like this band or that band. It's pathetic. It's a fake, indefensible (but also almost unassailable) method that can be used to defame a band when someone has nothing else to say. Stop doing the wrong thing, America.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
the important thing - IT'S FUCKING SLANDER.

Firstly, since we're writing it, it'd be libel. Secondly, I hardly think comparing Radiohead to U2 constitutes defamation of character.

BlackGravel, you sound a lot like Dave Mathew's Band.

quote:

Originally posted by Shadrach:
BlackGravel, you sound a lot like Dave Mathew's Band.

He's more like Jeff Foxworthy -- pure comic gold. I don't know why I ever wanted to ban him, these posts are hilarious.

lol dang gravels gettin worked up

What a distinction, Eric. Libel. Libel is a legal term, no one has any practical reason to use it in a setting like this. If you look up either word, you'll see a little italicized "Law" preceding the definitions you're referring to. A person who uses "libel" instead of "slander" when describing "statements" they've experienced being made about music is either a lawyer or just an old-fashioned jackass.


Poster 1: really? kind of like someone i know...lol...

Poster 2: anyone who posts such ignorant things is probably better quallified as a "jackass"

Poster 3: your a jackass too probably, but you certainly are entertaining lol

Poster 4: i'd say you're considerably more slimy than a lawyer BG...

Poster 5: I actually LIKE BlackGravel, because no one else does, haha

Poster 6 (mod): lol here's a picture of blackgravel as a fat woman

Poster 7: Blackasshole

Poster 8: -

Give it a rest. Try to address some of what I'm saying instead.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: BlackGravel,

What if you compare one one band to another "good" band, is that still considered slanderbel, o giver of wisdom.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
What a distinction, Eric. Libel. Libel is a legal term, no one has any practical reason to use it in a setting like this. If you look up either word, you'll see a little italicized "Law" preceding the definitions you're referring to. A person who uses "libel" instead of "slander" when describing "statements" they've experienced being made about music is either a lawyer or just an old-fashioned jackass.


Poster 1: really? kind of like someone i know...lol...

Poster 2: anyone who posts such ignorant things is probably better quallified as a "jackass"

Poster 3: I wouldn you're a jackass to probably, but you certainly are entertaining lol

Poster 4: i'd say you're considerably more slimy than a lawyer BG...

Poster 5: I actually LIKE BlackGravel, because no one else does, haha

Poster 6 (mod): lol here's a picture of blackgravel as a fat woman

Poster 7: Blackasshole

Poster 8: -

Give it a rest. Try to address some of what I'm saying instead.

What?

Seriously, does anyone understand what he did just now?

Anyway, this is hardly the right place for this conversation, but, even with your lengthy passionate post earlier, I am having a hard time seeing how you could possibly have a major issue with the century old art of compareing one thing to another for the sake of description. The two things being compared are never exactly the same, ever... It's a comparison...

Why would people go out of their way to pretend they don't know what I'm talking about? It beats me.

To clarify, Shadrach (as in the original Fiery Furnace?):

I wasn't taking issue (at least not mainly) with using other bands to describe a band to someone who's never heard them. To guide people. But not even really then - helpful statements in cases like these run more like

"If you LIKE Maroon 5...you'll like" etc.

But when people say a band "sounds like" another band, it's almost always to denigrate the band, to "meh" at anything they've done with their instruments and their time because it winds up "sounding like" another band (usually an older band). It's a mix of two things:

1. Cred display! (I know old bands! I know obscure bands! I can say that any given new band sounds like like one of these two and, because no one wants to bother arguing with me, I'll mostly get away with it!)

2. Bullshit Feigned Apathy About Everything - you're so over this band. You're so above this band. You're way too smart to like this band BECAUSE they sound like someone else. "God if I wanted to start a band and rip off the Raincoats/Talking Heads/Fugazi/[whoever you think makes you sound cool] I would! God."

Bad bands are FUCKING. NEVER bad because they sound like another band, because they use too much from another band's catalog.

Jet aren't bad because they rip off every classic rock radio trick there is, or for stealing Lust for Life almost entirely. They're bad because they're BAD. Their lyrics are inane. Their melodies and songwriting are redundant and boring and lifeless. Their personality as a band is nauseating. That's why they're bad.

Please everyone, skip the step where you act like you don't know exactly what I'm talking about when you respond.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
Bands live and die based on the general bullshit attitudes of people on messageboards. It's true!

As a musician who has had his work discussed on Super Important Internet Forums, I feel extremely comfortable in saying that this is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
But when people say a band "sounds like" another band, it's almost always to denigrate the band

I wouldn't say that's true. If I want to explain a band's sound, it's generally easier to say they sound like "X meets Y" rather than toss out a bunch of ambiguous descriptive terms. It's sort of lazy when critics do it, but most of us here aren't critics, we're just dudes (and a few dudettes) discussing music. So really, who cares?

quote:

The Internet is a Big Deal. Maybe a bigger deal than real life.

Tell that to Ron Paul.

I don't know about this argument. It seems a little circular. No one is going to win and everyone is just going to bitch about your posts, BG.

Yeah, i think Twilight Sad and Frightened Rabbit sound "similar," maybe that's the accent, maybe it's the instrumentation (They both have fairly "big" sounds, almost U2-ish at times), but i still prefer the Twilight Sad. Honestly, analyzing music is something i take very seriously, but occasionally there exist those cases in which music just doesn't do much for me. This is one of those cases (though a lot of people on here would disagree, i don't think they would tell me i'm a moron for not liking them) in which i kept trying to listen, but the music didn't really move me the way The Twilight Sad does. I don't mean to cut down FR or put them in a little categorical box, but to me they sound fairly comparable.

To me they even have hints of the Mountain Goats(The Sunset Tree), but i do realize they don't sound incredibly similar to the aforementioned bands when you breakdown each and every sound. I'm not feigning apathy toward the world because i don't like them as much as i should. I understood what you said... Am i the one that likes you? I don't mind you, but you gotta buy me a beer before i like you, or at least share a beer.

Okay BlackGravel, you made a lot more sense this time. And to a certain degree I agree with you. I think I have been annoyed with the same thing you are talking about for a long time, but not on this forum so much. People here seem to be more level headed, in general.

I think your points sometimes get lost in your elongated tirades. I have a hard time reading your posts without pictureing you as an angery WWF wrestler talking trash into a microphone.

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:

Blah

Blah

Honka

Honka

For some reason I'm under the impression I have something interesting to say in a long-winded post that goes nowhere...

I'M GOING TO PUT THIS SHIT IN BOLD AND CAPS BECAUSE WHAT I HAVE TO SAY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT ANYBODY ELSE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE TO FUCKING SAY!!! SEE??? I ENDED THAT SENTENCE WITH AN EXCLAMATION MARK, THAT MAKES IT SPECIAL, AND THEN ADDED SOME PROFANITY TO PROVE THAT I AM PISSED!

Interesting...

quote:

Originally posted by BlackGravel:
The Internet is a Big Deal. Maybe a bigger deal than real life.

You should seriously spend more time in real life, if you think that is the case. The internet is a medium for people to pretend that they are more important than they actually are. Unsurprisingly, you seem to really enjoy that part of it.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: St. Mike,

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Angelo:
The internet is a medium for people to pretend that they are more important than they actually are.

True. In real life, I'm a regular Joe. Here, I'm lord and master. Now get back to doing my bidding, Mike.

quote:

Originally posted by goathouse's enlarging prostate:
Well, for one thing, I like plenty of music that would fall into the catagory Frightened Rabbit is in, so BlackGravel, when I call it generic it's not simply because it doesn't have contrived noise splotches all over it. Compared to other music of this type, I find it rote and jejune. It doesn't really even sound very indie to me, just more like a lower fidelity Incubus or Caroline's Spine. If it weren't for the brogue it wouldn't be garnering much attention at all, but it might have gotten radio play.

"...I find it rote and jejune. It doesn't really even sound very indie to me, just more like a lower fidelity Incubus or Caroline's Spine..."

"...It doesn't really even sound very indie to me, just more like a lower fidelity Incubus or Caroline's Spine..."

"...It doesn't really even sound very indie to me..."

This is the point where I rage on the indie rock community just like BlackGravel so eliquently put. Now, indie rock has developed a sound of its own, but at heart it's the aethestic behind the music. Realistically, it's simply the fact that their on an independant label that makes them 'indie'.

But are you honestly grading the music based on how 'indie' it is? Because you are really giving off that tone, which proceeds to enrage me to unaccountable levels. From your tone, it just seems that for your songwriting and music to have relevance and merit, it has to sound 'indie'.

And that, my friend, just pisses me off.