Since we now have a thread devoted to labels, let's talk about one that's not electronica-oriented. Mainly 'cuz I can't say anything about those!
Sub Pop. A storied history, tied heavily to Nirvana's success. But recently, they've become a haven for really good, off kilter pop music: Beechwood Sparks, The Shins, The Scud Mountain Boys, The Pernice Brothers, Iron and Wine, Rogue Wave, Sleater Kinney. Plus they've put out a couple of good comedy records.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
In this magazine my girlfriend bought Eddie Vedder interviews Sleater-Kinney and he says it is one of his hopeless dreams that will never be fulfilled to some day get Pearl Jam on Sub Pop.
He then goes on to talk about how cool it is one of his favourite bands Sleater-Kinney made the move to the label.
Sub Pop to me is instant credibility if i haven't heard of the band. That rule isn't always accurate, but i'd be more likely to listen to an unknown band on Sub Pop than most labels.
Posts: 127 | Location: London, ON | Registered: 01 January 2005
Since the early 90's I think Sub Pop's been a bit of a disappointment. I'd really like to hear something from a hard rock band or something more progressive. I'm not with the whole "indy" style of stuff. To me it's too much like the post-punk stuff in the eighties. The musicians usually suck to. Even if they write great songs they sould still know their instrument. The Seattle scene went to poop and that's one reason i moved away.
Even if we put aside all the bands that are on Sub Pop, it would still be one of my favorites for the simple fact David Cross is signed to it. "Shut Up You F***ing Baby!" and "It's Not Funny" are two of the funniest comedy albums I have ever heard.
Posts: 3130 | Location: FoCo | Registered: 07 January 2005
Originally posted by PRG: Even if we put aside all the bands that are on Sub Pop, it would still be one of my favorites for the simple fact David Cross is signed to it. "Shut Up You F***ing Baby!" and "It's Not Funny" are two of the funniest comedy albums I have ever heard.
I'm a total Mr. Show moron. David's Sub Pop DVD "Let America Laugh" is a fucking riot too. I love how he makes fun of that restaurant guy on his own stage.
Originally posted by lotta: Since the early 90's I think Sub Pop's been a bit of a disappointment. I'd really like to hear something from a hard rock band or something more progressive. I'm not with the whole "indy" style of stuff. To me it's too much like the post-punk stuff in the eighties. The musicians usually suck to. Even if they write great songs they sould still know their instrument. The Seattle scene went to poop and that's one reason i moved away.
Ugh. I thought the majority of the SubPop bands from the late 80's and early 90's (including the beloved Nirvana and Soundgarden) were the least exciting things to come out of the underground/alternative boom. Everything on SubPop sounded the same, and it all sounded like re-heated 70's classic rock. The only SubPop band from that era that I still enjoy is the Afghan Whigs, and maybe a little Screaming Trees.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
The Screaming Trees are definately a part of that sound bro. Mark Lanagan now sings back up for Queens of the Stone Age. I love Greg d. from the Wigs and gues who works with him oh, it's Mr. Lanagan once again. Did you ever see mudhoney? I just think the Shins and Sleater Kinney suck compared to the music we're discussing.
Originally posted by lotta: The Screaming Trees are definately a part of that sound bro. Mark Lanagan now sings back up for Queens of the Stone Age. I love Greg d. from the Wigs and gues who works with him oh, it's Mr. Lanagan once again. Did you ever see mudhoney? I just think the Shins and Sleater Kinney suck compared to the music we're discussing.
The Screaming Trees weren't anywhere near as grungey as most of the other Seattle bands. They had a psychedelic edge to them and a singer with a great voice. It's a truism to say that the Screaming Trees were part of the Seattle sound...but I think they were one of the few Seattle/SubPop bands doing something different from the (boring) Nirvana-led style of grunge. Same with the Whigs...not close to that kind of grunge...an R n B/bar rock sound that wasn't even close to the angsty sludge that was the core of 'grunge.' I'm not gonna get into the 'the Shins do/don't suck argument' becuase, in all honesty, if the best you've got to is to say a band sucks, there's not really much more to say. But most of the 'great' Seattle bands all sound alike to me, and I find that boring and that's why I don't care about that whole scene. We get it...you all like Sabbath and Led Zep. Move on.
Posts: 3875 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: 25 May 2004
Originally posted by lotta: I just think the Shins and Sleater Kinney suck compared to the music we're discussing.
quote:
Originally posted by lotta: I'm not with the whole "indy" style of stuff. To me it's too much like the post-punk stuff in the eighties. The musicians usually suck to. Even if they write great songs they sould still know their instrument. The Seattle scene went to poop and that's one reason i moved away.
Am I the only one that finds it odd that you're criticizing the musical ability of the Shins and Sleater-Kinney while championing Mudhoney?
Last time I checked, none of the Grunge-era Seattle bands were known for their virtuoso playing.
Personally, I think Carrie Brownstein of S-K has a cool style of guitar playing. It's not overly flashy, but it lends a unique sound to Sleater-Kinney's music. Much in the same way The Edge and Peter Buck did for U2 and REM respectively.
----- We were wasps with new wings, now we're bugs in the jar.
Posts: 5469 | Location: Michigan | Registered: 19 June 2005
Originally posted by philosopherEric: We get it...you all like Sabbath and Led Zep. Move on.
They liked punk as well. That was the great thing about grunge for me. It led me to listen to both heavy and punk. It had a big impact on me, but I was of course also in my beginning teens.
Now they on occasion have great bands. I love Comets on Fire.
Sub pop was traditionally pretty good but i dont think their recent aquisitions have been that cutting edge. My hope is to see them take chances on more upcoming bands like out of LA the Health Club or the French Semester. that would rule instead of playing it safe with bands that are already big cuz of myspace. they barely need labels those ones.
Posts: 11 | Location: Los Angeles | Registered: 07 August 2007
considering sub-pop wouldn't exist without Nirvana leaving their label prematurely and Geffen giving a percentage of "Nevermind"'s sales to Sub Pop in order to sign them, any moron who says the Shins and Wolf Parade are the best part of the label should be taken out and shot.
Mind you, i think both bands are great, but seriously, you're fucking with some titans here fellas. Mudhoney's Mark Arm (and the original line-up of Pearl Jam minus Eddie Vedder) were in this band called Green River who happened to jumpstart the label. For an originally punk record label, some people deeply misconceive what Sub Pop started out as: a DIY label that promoted sloppy classic-influenced punk-rock that changed music forever. No way in hell will The Shins or Wolf Parade have the impact the original Sub Pop lineup had.
This talk really makes my brain hurt. Some people out there need to figure some shit out before proclaiming that sub pop is better suited to release indie-pop records when the Sub Pop of 20 years ago wouuldn't even touch bands like the shins or wolf parade. Let's do a little research people.
I'll end this with a proclamation that should ring true to all of you "The Shins are better than Nirvana people" (which is COMPLETELY absurd to even type): FOR SHAME!!!!
Posts: 459 | Location: California | Registered: 06 March 2008
individual tastes... i'm personally not a Nirvana fan. never was and probably never will be. i think more of the argument there lies in the impact Nirvana has had in popular music as a whole, it's something the shins will never even come close to amounting to.
Originally posted by CleverName84: considering sub-pop wouldn't exist without Nirvana leaving their label prematurely and Geffen giving a percentage of "Nevermind"'s sales to Sub Pop in order to sign them, any moron who says the Shins and Wolf Parade are the best part of the label should be taken out and shot.
Mind you, i think both bands are great, but seriously, you're fucking with some titans here fellas. Mudhoney's Mark Arm (and the original line-up of Pearl Jam minus Eddie Vedder) were in this band called Green River who happened to jumpstart the label. For an originally punk record label, some people deeply misconceive what Sub Pop started out as: a DIY label that promoted sloppy classic-influenced punk-rock that changed music forever. No way in hell will The Shins or Wolf Parade have the impact the original Sub Pop lineup had.
This talk really makes my brain hurt. Some people out there need to figure some shit out before proclaiming that sub pop is better suited to release indie-pop records when the Sub Pop of 20 years ago wouuldn't even touch bands like the shins or wolf parade. Let's do a little research people.
I'll end this with a proclamation that should ring true to all of you "The Shins are better than Nirvana people" (which is COMPLETELY absurd to even type): FOR SHAME!!!!
Though I don't think anyone was saying this, it is difficult to compare Sub Pop's early, more homogeneous origins with the more varied rosters they developed throughout the nineties and into the 21st century. If you actually read the above posts you will see that no one is really saying that the Shins or Wolf Parade are more influential than Nirvana and their ilk, though some may like the them better. Last time I checked, having your own personal taste in music is allowed, no? Your little rant here comes off as pretty pretentious but you should at least realize just because someone doesn't love your favorite bands doesn't make them "uninformed morons who need to do a little research before getting shot out back."
Anyways, I'll take the nineties output by SDRE, Joe Pernice, Damien Jurado, Zumpano and Red Red Meat anyday.
Posts: 283 | Location: Chicago | Registered: 09 October 2007
Originally posted by philosopherEric: The Screaming Trees weren't anywhere near as grungey as most of the other Seattle bands. They had a psychedelic edge to them and a singer with a great voice.
Wow, you just described Soundgarden, post Badmotorfinger.
Also, Screaming Trees were definitely a grunge band prior to Dust. I think Sweet Oblivion is a great album, but I would definitely call it part of the grungy Sub Pop sound.
quote:
Same with the Whigs...not close to that kind of grunge...an R n B/bar rock sound that wasn't even close to the angsty sludge that was the core of 'grunge.'
I agree with this one to a certain extent, with the Rick McCollum slide work, the soul singing of Dulli, etc., but I think they did have a lot of things in common with the other bands, especially before Gentlemen. (I just listened to Congregation last night...that album is still a monster). The ways the albums were recorded and mixed leaves a lot of sludge in there. And the attitude is similar. They are my favorite band of all time, btw.
Posts: 172 | Location: Ohio | Registered: 06 April 2006
