Harrison rules.

But then, so does McCartney, Lennon, and occasionally Starr.

lol, I get so much shit just for saying harrison is my favorite. But to be honest, I think I like the Beach Boys (64-72) more. I don't really know what it is about the Hold Steady, I think its maybe the lead singer's over the top Bruce Springsteen kinda thing that I can't handle.

I've been listening to this album alot lately. I know that Craig Finn has said that he was writing about the same old characters (Holly, Gideon, Charlemagne, etc.). I like to try and figure out the backstory on the characters.

As I figure it, this album is mostly about Holly. She witnesses a couple of "townies" getting killed and it really screws up her life. But, here are some interesting connections to earlier songs.

On "Yeah Sapphire" and "Both Crosses", the songs talk about the female character having visions a predicting the future. It reminds me of "Chips Ahoy", because the girl (Holly?) can tell which horse is going to finish first. Are there other references to psychic visions in The Hold Steady's songs? I can't think of any right now.

Who is the guy in "Yeah Sapphire", "Subpoened in Texas, Sequestered in Memphis" and "Lord, I'm Discouraged." Is it Gideon? I saw speculation in a review somewhere that it's the same guy from "Chill-Out Tent".

Missing these guys tonight because tickets are a bitch to find. Alas, maybe another day...

So, what's the deal with these guys opening for The Counting Crows. If after years of writing music and making four great albums to critical acclaim I reached the pinnacle of my efforts and found that it was to open for The Counting Crows during their comeback tour, I would hate myself.

I'm sure it will win them fans, and it will be a fun tour and whatnot, but the facts are depressing.

shadrach, i thought the exact same thing when i saw this news. the hold steady are so much better than counting crows, counting crows were a mediocre at best 90s alt band, the hold steady are one of the best bands of the decade...o well...

Because the Counting Crows are mainstream rock, as are The Hold Steady.

They deserve each other. They walk the same road, which is not to say that either is bad, but come on Shadrach, face it; here we have two bands who complement each other.

In fact, a lot of the same critique thrown at the Steadies; literate, swaggering, hard rocking, this kind of praise was the domain of the Crows when they came out.
There were high expectations of the Crows being the next big thing in smart, funny rock n roll.

I can kindof see the connection you are drawing Kult. I think early Counting Crows were a lot tamer than The Hold Steady, and had a very different crowd of fans. I don't think Counting Crows have ever been called a "bar band". Also, The Hold Steady have been more consistent than Counting Crows were.

I will say this though, at the expense of lowering my credibility on this forum even lower, August and Everything After is better than any of the Hold Steady albums. But that opinion is based a large mix of subjective and objective factors.

I guess I don't see the Hold Steady as mainstream rock, which means either Kulturtrager or I are missing the boat on the band.

Counting Crows basically started off as a top 40 band and even after four consecutive critically acclaimed albums, I haven't even heard the Hold Steady get played on my local college station.

If a song like "Cattle and the Creeping Things" was what was getting airplay on mainstream rock stations, I'd listen to a lot more radio.

I see some, but very few, similarities between the two bands. I really can't imagine fans of Adam Duritz's sensitive guy act enjoying Craig Finn's fiery stage banter.

That being said, I figure The Hold Steady can open for whoever they like. But I do kind of agree with Shadrach: if the reward for years and years of hard work is to open for an alternative band that had their best days over a decade ago, then perhaps I need to think hard about playing music.

quote:

Originally posted by sans_success:
Adam Duritz's sensitive guy act

I think this is the main difference between the two. I've always thought of Counting Crows as an earnest, sensitive band. They're a rock band, but aside from "Angels of the Silences", they don't really rock.

The Hold Steady really come off as a masculine band. They sing about drugs, sex, and booze. Craig's characters are pimps, prostitutes, and addicts.

I don't see the two crowds mixing.

Well that was a very interesting little discussion.

Eric's point about the two crowds not mixing is nicely made; I've been to too many gigs with hostile fan bases mixing!

And yeah, I would agree that the Crows are tamer than the Steadies...but my larger point is that fashion is a fickle mistress, and today's cool is tomorrow's Counting Crows.

I think the one big difference between the bands radio exposure is Finn's voice.
He just ain't radio friendly with that Sprechsung delivery.

Over and out.

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:
fashion is a fickle mistress, and today's cool is tomorrow's Counting Crows.

Maybe, but I don't ever remember the Counting Crows being big as part of an underground, hipster scene. They pretty much started out as a popular band. They made a couple of big selling albums and fizzled out. I don't ever remember them being held in high regard by the music press, at least not in the way the Hold Steady has been.

The Hold Steady, on the other hand, has made four consecutive critically acclaimed albums, and have been a staple of the indie scene since Craig's Lifter Puller days. The Hold Steady has a lot more staying power -- they've already proven themselves not to be a flash in the pan.

Seven albums in (counting Lifter Puller) and Finn has yet to release anything remotely bad.

A friend of mine made a good point once about how Adam Duritz's lyrics about Baltimore or wherever the hell Counting Crows are from parallelling those of Mpls and Hold Steady. It's an interesting point, but there's still that nagging difference of The Counting Crows being a horrible band and The Hold Steady being a good one.

I guess in the end, both bands play middling rock of mainstream values; namely 4/4 rhythms, enunciated vocals, straightforward melodies and harmonies, standard song structure and standard dynamics and production.

Eric, I agree that the Steadies seem to have more staying power, even if I think they are enormously overrated, and the Crows ran out of steam pretty quick, but in the end, there is far too much of a coolness quotient associated with a band who to me, aren't much more than a Silver Bullet Band knock off with a poor singer/lyricist...

...I think it's largely the Emperor's New Clothes syndrome with the Hold Steady, which is not to dismiss those who truly love 'em.

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:
Eric, I agree that the Steadies seem to have more staying power, even if I think they are enormously overrated, and the Crows ran out of steam pretty quick, but in the end, there is far too much of a coolness quotient associated with a band who to me, aren't much more than a Silver Bullet Band knock off with a poor singer/lyricist...

Now you're just trying to be provocative. You're seriously calling Craig Finn a poor lyricist? I don't think you're going to find anyone, anywhere that would agree with that statement. Have you actually listened to this band?

Ironically, of all the faults I find in Counting Crows, their lyrics have always been halfway decent, in my opinion.

Posted by EricG75

quote:

Now you're just trying to be provocative. You're seriously calling Craig Finn a poor lyricist? I don't think you're going to find anyone, anywhere that would agree with that statement. Have you actually listened to this band?

I'm not at all trying to be provocative. I consider myself a damn fine judge of lyric writing and Finn is poor, and made worse because so many think they see something worthwhile there.

Not only is his scansion often terrible, a mortal sin in lyrics, which indicates a lack of natural rhythm, he fails to paint images beyond the most obvious, crass and broad.

He mixes his metaphors, talks about the same old things all the time, overreaches with attemps at humour, lacks decent climaxes.

I find no resonance in his words. They don't call me back, they are too one-dimensional.

Using words like suture shows he wants to be a bit richer than the average, but it just doesn't ring true.
He scans like someone who read Springsteen, Waits, Fagen, Webb etc...truly great lyricists and said, oh gee, I can work that territory..but nah, like I've said before; The Hold Steady on paper are exactly the kind of band I enjoy, but Finn is waaaaay over rated, and I know it in my bones because I just never find myself pondering his words as I do so many others.

If I stand alone...I stand alone, but I am sincere in my dismissal of the man.

quote:

Originally posted by Kulturtrager:

Using words like suture shows he wants to be a bit richer than the average, but it just doesn't ring true.

Using words like scansion shows he wants to be a bit richer than the average, but he's really just a douche.

Oh army, what a pathetic response. Scansion is the most common of words used in discussing lyrics.

And your stupid American insults don't faze me...you don't even know me, so how can you define me...I mean, if you're gonna insult me, use something with guts instead of this pitiful 'douche' nonnsense. You don't engage with my considered response...you just throw girly slaps.

Call me a cunt or sumthin...