PDA

View Full Version : Pitchy gives Neon Bible a 10.0



dorkfish
03-05-2007, 07:32 AM
I meant 8.4. Sorry, typo. :blah

Pretty fair review and score: http://www.pitchforkmedia.com/article/record_review/41377/The_Arcade_Fire_Neon_Bible

I figured they'd either go with the overly high or overly low score. It's surprisingly not that verbose: the craziest word I noticed was "malevolent" (which he uses twice...oddly).

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 07:34 AM
oh and fnirt.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 07:38 AM
Is it The Arcade Fire or just Arcade Fire? I've seen both. I can't stand inconsistency and ambiguity. It must be eradicated. I need clearcut defintions. I need everything to be black and white. I voted for Bush.

fortydollarsworthofmeat
03-05-2007, 07:39 AM
it's a messy, exciting burst.

nice review. i agree with their opinion that it should have ended on 'no cars go' as opposed to 'my body is a cage', but tev.

hangthedj112
03-05-2007, 07:40 AM
Is it The Arcade Fire or just Arcade Fire? I've seen both. I can't stand inconsistency and ambiguity. It must be eradicated. I need clearcut defintions. I need everything to be black and white. I voted for Bush.

Yeah, even on ticketmaster there's a listing for The Arcade Fire and Arcade Fire, irks me.

J~$$$
03-05-2007, 07:40 AM
I gave it a 5.

fortydollarsworthofmeat
03-05-2007, 07:40 AM
tom - they've said in interviews that they don't really mind either. jeremy signed something recently as "the arcade fire - jeremy". on SNL they were introduced as "arcade fire".

doesn't matter.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 07:45 AM
I haven't heard the new album yet. I am waiting for its official release. I'm old school you know.

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 07:52 AM
if i knew what those cyllinders that played the first recorded music were actually called, i'd totally make a mean-spirited joke referencing them.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 07:57 AM
by mean-spirited you actually mean good-natured, right?

and I think they were just called cylinders.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 08:04 AM
oh. I forgot to tell my story.

Last night I was in my car and had on sports talk radio, some national show. And the host was playing "Wake Up" as the bumper music and he went on and on about how much he loved the song, that he didn't know any of the band's other 'work' but that "Wake Up" was the best new song he'd heard in years. This on sports talk radio, not exactly a welcome refuge for indie hipsters.

This made me realize that what someone said on another thread may well be true: AF may become really huge someday, like U2-huge.

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 08:13 AM
I agree that they should decide on the article issue. It causes tagging problems and library confusion, especially if you have a menu that includes the "The" in a band's title. You either have to look for it in the way up top part of the library and scroll your ass all the way down to the "t's". Is it too much to ask for clarity?

breakjaw
03-05-2007, 08:20 AM
Is it The Arcade Fire or just Arcade Fire? I've seen both. I can't stand inconsistency and ambiguity. It must be eradicated. I need clearcut defintions. I need everything to be black and white. I voted for Bush.
I voted for The Gore.That must have been it.

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 08:38 AM
it's just "Arcade Fire." all of their albums say "Arcade Fire." They refer to themselves sans "The"

arbouler
03-05-2007, 08:48 AM
like, The Ohio State University? tOSU? or OSU?

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 08:50 AM
you mean THE Ohio State University.

OSU = Oklahoma State, for what it's worth.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 08:55 AM
oh. I forgot to tell my story.

Last night I was in my car and had on sports talk radio, some national show. And the host was playing "Wake Up" as the bumper music and he went on and on about how much he loved the song, that he didn't know any of the band's other 'work' but that "Wake Up" was the best new song he'd heard in years. This on sports talk radio, not exactly a welcome refuge for indie hipsters.

This made me realize that what someone said on another thread may well be true: AF may become really huge someday, like U2-huge.

I disagree, its very hard for anyone to be that huge these days. Artsits have no time to slowly build their careers with a label anymore.

Arcade Fire have lined up a stellar year, this was all depending on Neon Bible though - while good - I don't think its a mass appeal kind of record like a U2 release, they will not be that big. Bigger, yes, U2 big, no.

I have listened to Neon Bible a few times through now (got a promo copy), and I must say its a wee bit disappointing, but the expectations were and are so very high - it was bound to happen, I give it a 7.5 out of 10. Pitchfork's review of it is pretty good though.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 09:13 AM
Arcade Fire have lined up a stellar year, this was all depending on Neon Bible though - while good - I don't think its a mass appeal kind of record like a U2 release, they will not be that big. Bigger, yes, U2 big, no.

AF is already much bigger than U2 was at this point in their career in the 80s. Both are talented charismatic bands. No telling what might happen.

mob roulette
03-05-2007, 09:26 AM
AF is already much bigger than U2 was at this point in their career in the 80s. Both are talented charismatic bands. No telling what might happen.

agreed. clearly the best band out there right now. AND so young. i feel like this is what it must have been like when springsteen hit. only cause i can't think of a better analogy. but U2 is not a fair comparison. i don't think they were that big until War. and i don't remember arcade fire type hype until the unforgettable fire and then the tipping point was the joshua tree. in any case, arcade fire is clearly more popular earlier in their career than U2 were, even though arcade fire is clearly benefitting from better content delivery systems (read: the internet). hipsters with computers broke this band. now it's anybody's guess what happens from here.

also, i just used the word "clearly" three times in one paragraph. ouch. clearly time for more coffee...

TomAz
03-05-2007, 09:29 AM
When Boy came out it was listened to all the time by us college radio types. There was definitely a buzz, but they weren't on the cover of Time or anything.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 09:35 AM
You're right, but the U2 records that followed say, October were amazing - the music matched said buzz through and through, when they rolled out the very likeable Joshua Tree, everything clicked, it didn't matter what album number it was. Artsits careers stat and stop at different points, some earlier (like many debut records) and some very far along in their careers, others even have a re-birth of buzz (Johnny Cash). I was pointing out that AF's time is now, in this era of short attention spans and record labels folding like houses of cards. The buzz is extremely tipped in their favor, I personally don't think the album is as good as the press that proceeds it. Thats all. Its still a good record.

This doesn't mean that they won' shock us all next time out and make their "own", Joshua Tree or OK Computer.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 09:37 AM
Compared to Pitchfork, Playlouder didn't have many nice thing s to say about Neon Bible.

http://www.playlouder.com/review/+neon-bible/

mob roulette
03-05-2007, 09:37 AM
neon bible=the bends

TomAz
03-05-2007, 09:38 AM
AF's 3rd album won't come out for another couple years. The 3rd album seems to be what makes or breaks the true greats. War, London Calling, Born to Run, Fear of Music, OK Computer, etc.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 09:43 AM
AF's 3rd album won't come out for another couple years. The 3rd album seems to be what makes or breaks the true greats. War, London Calling, Born to Run, Fear of Music, OK Computer, etc.

VERY TRUE - good point.

Like I was saying, this age of downloading and the like, the industry has sped the cycle up though, hopefully next album will match what everyone's hopes are.

Acutally to stay ith the U2 comparision:

If Neon Bible is a little of a dispointment then they are right n track. October was a disppoinment in many a fan/critics eyes. For those of us that can remember that far back. Next album could be their WAR (maybe)

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 09:44 AM
I'd really like to see a list of third albums, now.

bmack86
03-05-2007, 09:46 AM
I was thinking of them in terms of Talking Heads. This album, while good, seems like "More Songs about Buildings and Food" which the heads acknowledged as simply more of their trademark style. I'm excited to hear their Fear of Music.

ghettojournalist
03-05-2007, 10:30 AM
public enemy "fear of a black planet"
the smashing pumpkins "mellon collie"
prince "dirty mind"
bob dylan "times they are a-changin'"

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 10:38 AM
The Beatles - A Hard Day's Night

PotVsKtl
03-05-2007, 10:41 AM
It's not a very good album. The lyrics are trite, the bombast is overwrought, when they're not blasting the overwrought bombast it's just boring. They're anything but "clearly the best band out there right now." I get the sense they ate their own hype and thought they could make an "important" record.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 10:42 AM
October was a disppoinment in many a fan/critics eyes.

Absolutely. It had one good song on it.

mountmccabe
03-05-2007, 10:50 AM
I see no reason to expect Merge won't be here several years from now.

I like the record. I am happy to be able to buy it tomorrow. I am not sure how I would rate it right now. Maybe actually an 8.5; I don't think it's a 9 yet.

sighlent
03-05-2007, 11:06 AM
I find the album much more enjoyable on a whole compared to Funeral. The underlying story, concepts and consistency are really powerful to me. They acheive a higher level of pop addictiveness yet stay really true to some sort of intrinsic sense of artistic integrity. I loved Funeral, but something about the mystery behind Neon Bible and the execution of the songs puts it higher in my book. I couldn't imagine the band doing any better for their second album.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 11:14 AM
You are right - as an album its much stronger, unfortuantely - I alluded to the state of things these days - people want their small bite sized singles, not a whole album experience, on the whole. Which is a shame.

mountmccabe
03-05-2007, 11:26 AM
I alluded to the state of things these days - people want their small bite sized singles, not a whole album experience, on the whole. Which is a shame.

I am pretty convinced that this is a myth.

Also:

Master of Puppets
Badmotorfinger

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 11:38 AM
THE THIRD ALBUMS LIST YOU ASKED FOR:

U2 - War
The Clash - London Calling
Radiohead - OK Computer
New Order - Low Life
The Smiths - Queen Is Dead
Oasis - Be Here Now
R.E.M. - Fables of the Reconstruction
Luna - Penthouse
Nirvana - In Utero
Soundgraden - Badmotorfinger
Belle and Sebastian - Boy With the Arab Strap
Depeche Mode - Construction Time Again
Underworld - Beacoup Fish
David Bowie - The Man Who Sold the World
Beastie Boys - Check Your Head
Metallica - Master of Puppets
Beatles - Hard Days Night
Chemical Brothers - Surrender
Beach Boys - Surfer Girl
Tool - ∆nima
Rage Against the Machine - Evil Empire
Madonna - True Blue
Dead Kennedys - Frankenchrist
Ramones - Rocket to Russia
The Strokes - First Impressions of Earth
Suede - Coming Up
Massive Attaack - Mezzanine
Bjork - Homogenic
Red Hot Chili Peppers - Uplift Mofo Party Plan
Wilco - Summerteeth
Flaming Lips - Telepathic Surgery
Happy Mondays - Pills Thrills and Bellyaches
Pulp - Seperations


Most of the third albums are awesome, a few artists did not hit their stride that early though (Depeche Mode for example: Music For the Masses and Violator didn't happen till albums number 6 and 7, acts like The Beatles and Pulp hit their most creative stride much later as well)

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 11:39 AM
I am pretty convinced that this is a myth.

Also:

Master of Puppets
Badmotorfinger

its not a myth when we speak of mass consumption and mass appeal. There are numbers to back it up (i.e. downloading compared to album buys) itunes sells way more single songs than they do complete albums, by a longshot.

Obviously us coachella die hards are a different breed altogether.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 11:45 AM
Elvis Costello - Armed Forces

sighlent
03-05-2007, 11:45 AM
Don't forget The Smashing Pumpkins - Mellon Collie and the Infinite Sadness

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 11:52 AM
see post #28

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 11:53 AM
When Boy came out it was listened to all the time by us college radio types. There was definitely a buzz, but they weren't on the cover of Time or anything.

I think one thing you all are forgetting is the fact that popular culture doesn't have a mass audience like it did when U2, Springsteen, etc came out. There are so many different media outlets that it's close to impossible to break into a wide audience the way U2 did.

arbouler
03-05-2007, 11:54 AM
you mean THE Ohio State University.

OSU = Oklahoma State, for what it's worth.



or oregon state u...

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 11:58 AM
I think one thing you all are forgetting is the fact that popular culture doesn't have a mass audience like it did when U2, Springsteen, etc came out. There are so many different media outlets that it's close to impossible to break into a wide audience the way U2 did.

True - the times they are a changing - in many ways, for the worse.

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 11:59 AM
or oregon state u...
omitted as a sign of disrespect

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 12:05 PM
hmmmmmm?

TomAz
03-05-2007, 12:08 PM
are they Beavers or Ducks? I can never keep that straight.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 12:10 PM
oregon state are the beavers - oregon is the ducks

TomAz
03-05-2007, 12:11 PM
How do you tell them apart?

which one has the ugly uniforms?

york707
03-05-2007, 12:15 PM
Don't forget;
Circle Jerks - Golden Shower of Hits.

Duh.

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 12:16 PM
How do you tell them apart?

which one has the ugly uniforms?

They both have heinous uniforms.

Think of it like this U of O is the hippie liberal university. Their colors are GREEN (get it environmentalism) and yellow (as in pacifists).

OSU is more of a ag/business school so they are brown (salt of the earth) and orange (rust).

Beavers are brown, so that's how you get the mascots straight.

arbouler
03-05-2007, 12:16 PM
the ducks are green and yellow
the beavers are orange and black like halloween

mob roulette
03-05-2007, 12:16 PM
pixies-doolittle. boo-ya.

york707
03-05-2007, 12:17 PM
oh. I forgot to tell my story.

Last night I was in my car and had on sports talk radio, some national show. And the host was playing "Wake Up" as the bumper music and he went on and on about how much he loved the song, that he didn't know any of the band's other 'work' but that "Wake Up" was the best new song he'd heard in years. This on sports talk radio, not exactly a welcome refuge for indie hipsters.

This made me realize that what someone said on another thread may well be true: AF may become really huge someday, like U2-huge.

Except in Dallas. The Ticket there is known for its employee's musical taste and support in the local music scene. I've always found it highly bizarre.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 12:21 PM
pixies-doolittle. boo-ya.

thats a great third one! jeez!

dorkfish
03-05-2007, 12:23 PM
The Beavers are a bunch of thugs.

The Ducks have notoriously received home-field calls from the refs.

mountmccabe
03-05-2007, 12:44 PM
THE THIRD ALBUMS LIST YOU ASKED FOR:

Oasis - Be Here Now
Underworld - Beacoup Fish
Chemical Brothers - Surrender
Rage Against the Machine - Evil Empire
Ramones - Rocket to Russia
The Strokes - First Impressions of Earth
Suede - Coming Up


The ones I've highlighted here are ones which in my mind at least broke as much as they ever would after their first (or in a couple cases, second) album... which means these were all released well after those artists were in the eye of the mainstream.

Also dubnobasswithmyheadman was Underworld's third album. They had two before Darren Emerson joined. They're hilarious.

mountmccabe
03-05-2007, 12:51 PM
its not a myth when we speak of mass consumption and mass appeal. There are numbers to back it up (i.e. downloading compared to album buys) itunes sells way more single songs than they do complete albums, by a longshot.

Obviously us coachella die hards are a different breed altogether.

Allow me to try again, then. I think it's a myth that this is any different from how things always are. You hit on it with your last sentence; die hards like us have always been around buying albums. And we're the ones talking about music the most.

The people who dl individual songs from iTunes now are the correlary of the folks that bought CD singles and cassingles and 45s in other eras. The focus on the radio has always been singles.

I agree that mass consumption is focused on the song rather than the album; what I'm suggesting as the myth is the idea that this is any different than it used to be. This isn't an iTunes generated phenomenon.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 12:51 PM
these were all released well after those artists were in the eye of the mainstream.


in 1977 the Ramones were nowhere near the mainstream, even among rock fans. they weren't played on the radio at all; I would be willing to bet (figuratively, since it couldn't be proved) that over 95% of rock listeners had never heard a Ramones song when Rocket to Russia came out. A few writeups in Rolling Stone would be all anyone would have seen, unless they got adventurous and bought the album -- and sales of their first two albums were pretty low, back then. In 1977 even most college radio was slow to catch on.

Rocket to Russia made the Ramones cool to play at college parties, but that's hardly mainstream either. It would be many years before "Cretin Hop" became a rental car TV commercial.

Hannahrain
03-05-2007, 12:52 PM
How do you tell them apart?


Being from eugene, I'm happy to share with you the scientific method of differentiation between the two. once you learn it, it's foolproof.

The Ducks are awesome, and the Beavers are ugly ho-bags.
http://www.college-football--tickets.net/oregon/ducks.gif

TomAz
03-05-2007, 12:56 PM
and so are you a Beaver or a Duck hannah?

Hannahrain
03-05-2007, 12:59 PM
I'm just an opinionated bystander.

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 01:07 PM
The ones I've highlighted here are ones which in my mind at least broke as much as they ever would after their first (or in a couple cases, second) album... which means these were all released well after those artists were in the eye of the mainstream.

Also dubnobasswithmyheadman was Underworld's third album. They had two before Darren Emerson joined. They're hilarious.

I agree, I don't count Underworld 1.0

vinylmartyr
03-05-2007, 01:58 PM
I'm not sure how to react to this thread.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 01:59 PM
react emotionally.

vinylmartyr
03-05-2007, 01:59 PM
The Arcade Fire as big as U2 thing is just a wee bit of a stretch.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 02:00 PM
that's not very emotional. quit being so logical.

vinylmartyr
03-05-2007, 02:01 PM
They may be as big as Radiohead one day.

Hannahrain
03-05-2007, 02:01 PM
I'm not sure how to react to this thread.

there's got to be a smiley somewhere that conveys the way you feel.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 02:01 PM
that's better.

vinylmartyr
03-05-2007, 02:02 PM
If Aracde Fire and Radiohead toured together I think all your heads would explode.

amyzzz
03-05-2007, 02:04 PM
that's not very emotional. quit being so logical.
Fuck you, Tom.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 02:09 PM
oh come on.

mountmccabe
03-05-2007, 02:22 PM
in 1977 the Ramones were nowhere near the mainstream, even among rock fans. they weren't played on the radio at all; I would be willing to bet (figuratively, since it couldn't be proved) that over 95% of rock listeners had never heard a Ramones song when Rocket to Russia came out. A few writeups in Rolling Stone would be all anyone would have seen, unless they got adventurous and bought the album -- and sales of their first two albums were pretty low, back then. In 1977 even most college radio was slow to catch on.

Rocket to Russia made the Ramones cool to play at college parties, but that's hardly mainstream either. It would be many years before "Cretin Hop" became a rental car TV commercial.

OK, I guess I should not've included them on the list.

mountmccabe
03-05-2007, 02:23 PM
I agree, I don't count Underworld 1.0

Maybe the real question (though unrelated) should be: do we count Underworld 3.0?

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 02:31 PM
before i say this - I'm a huge fan, but...

so far - no.

UW 3.0 has yet to thrill me like 2.0

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 03:22 PM
Salon is currently pondering things along the same lines as what Tommytwotones brought up:

For the first time this past weekend, I saw the new commercial for the "Major League Baseball 2K7" PlayStation 3 game that features Nirvana's "Breed" as its primary music. The ad is the first fruit of Courtney Love's recent sale of 25 percent of her stake in Nirvana's catalog to record industry mover and shaker Larry Mestel. I'm not one of those people who think using rock songs in ads diminishes the music in any real way, but it was still a startling experience to hear Kurt Cobain singing while a digital Derek Jeter took his cuts.

But listening to Cobain again -- and considering all that's come after -- raises another, more curious question: Did Generation X, the one that launched indie rock and a world of grunge, ultimately kill the rock star? Everyone remembers that "Nevermind" knocked Michael Jackson's "Dangerous" from the top of the Billboard charts back in 1992, but instead of heralding the rise of the indie, it seems more and more like Nirvana's ascent was really marking the death knell for a kind of larger-than-life rock stardom. For all their musical merits -- which to my mind are small in number -- the bands that came out of Generation X have wholesale failed to produce a genuine rock star.

Cobain, with only three studio records behind him, will always be defined more by his tragically lost potential than by his achievements. It's easy to forget, but the raw, harsh tone of "In Utero" was the sound of Cobain trying to reject stardom. If he hadn't died, it's reasonable to think his star would have faded. His contemporaries hardly shone half as bright. Think about it: Has there been a single rock act since Nirvana that reached the dizzying musical heights -- and unquestioned, mass success -- of such immediate forebears as U2, Springsteen or Guns 'N Roses? Simply put, Gen X, and its army of grubby, sensitive axmen, never produced a rocker of the stature of the aforementioned heroes. Maybe it was some collective failure of nerve on the part of that generation's leading lights to assume the mantle of rock stardom. Pearl Jam eschewed mass appeal for a kind of Grateful Dead-ish cult following; Beck opted for an eclecticism that minimized his chances of across-the-board success; Soundgarden broke up. The Smashing Pumpkins broke up. The Stone Temple Pilots broke up. Radiohead disappeared into the world of bleeps and bloops. If they all put their songs in an ad for Levitra tomorrow, would you care?

Yes, the ascent of rap is a major factor. Jay-Z, Tupac, Biggie, Snoop Dogg, R. Kelly -- they all rose to popularity during the grunge and immediate post-grunge years. But as a new generation of rock bands emerges, you can't help wondering if any of them -- Arcade Fire, Fall Out Boy, the Hold Steady -- can break out and become the unquestioned rock giants of two generations past. Or did Gen X bury the genre for good?

york707
03-05-2007, 03:26 PM
Radiohead disappeared into the world of bleeps and bloops. If they all put their songs in an ad for Levitra tomorrow, would you care?


See, Depeche Mode IS bigger than Radiohead. Most people don't know they are still even together.

TomAz
03-05-2007, 04:03 PM
I thought the lack of a rock star was a conscious choice, part of the aesthetic. Part of the inheritence from punk. Rock stars seen as hollow, detracting from the music itself. Plus there's a whole political slant, anti-machismo deny-the-ego thing. that's why a label name like Kill Rock Stars fits, why it makes sense.

"Radiohead disappeared into the world of bleeps and bloops" is a bit facile, btw.

jackstraw94086
03-05-2007, 04:05 PM
Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland

Stevie Ray Vaughn - In Step (motherfucker won a grammy)

PotVsKtl
03-05-2007, 04:05 PM
Yeah you sort of missed the point Yablo.

i_like_cake530
03-05-2007, 04:05 PM
I agree that they should decide on the article issue. It causes tagging problems and library confusion, especially if you have a menu that includes the "The" in a band's title. You either have to look for it in the way up top part of the library and scroll your ass all the way down to the "t's". Is it too much to ask for clarity?

to you, and all you other anal retentive people, they make all this great music for you, and all you can do is bitch about whether there is a fucken "the" in the name. if you guys weren't complete idiots, you could just pick either "arcade fire" or "the arcade fire" and then just put that name as the artist for all of your arcade fire songs. i swear some people pick the stupidest fucken things to bitch about. by the way FUCK BUSH (this is actually aimed at the other guy... Tomaz i think it was, but since you to seem to agree with him on this, im kind of assuming that you also voted for ****** Bush)

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 04:07 PM
ooooooooooo kaaaay.

jackstraw94086
03-05-2007, 04:11 PM
captain context

TomAz
03-05-2007, 04:12 PM
to you, and all you other anal retentive people, they make all this great music for you, and all you can do is bitch about whether there is a fucken "the" in the name. if you guys weren't complete idiots, you could just pick either "arcade fire" or "the arcade fire" and then just put that name as the artist for all of your arcade fire songs. i swear some people pick the stupidest fucken things to bitch about. by the way FUCK BUSH (this is actually aimed at the other guy... Tomaz i think it was, but since you to seem to agree with him on this, im kind of assuming that you also voted for ****** Bush)

I like cake, you REALLY missed the point. by a lot.

My original post about the "The" was a bit of a joke. it wasn't serious or meant to be taken literally. The original question was an honest one, aksed out of curiosity, but then in the same post I made fun of myself for having even asked it with the whole spiel about being anal retentive, ending in how I voted for Bush (I didn't). Yablo then picked up on that and ran with it (I don't believe he voted for Bush either). It was correct use of well-integrated irony, and it blew right past you like an M5 on the autobahn.

ghettojournalist
03-05-2007, 04:13 PM
but without article conflicts, how can one tell the experts from the passers-by?

TomAz
03-05-2007, 04:14 PM
We are all passers-by in this world.

york707
03-05-2007, 04:16 PM
I thought the lack of a rock star was a conscious choice, part of the aesthetic. Part of the inheritence from punk. Rock stars seen as hollow, detracting from the music itself. Plus there's a whole political slant, anti-machismo deny-the-ego thing. that's why a label name like Kill Rock Stars fits, why it makes sense.

"Radiohead disappeared into the world of bleeps and bloops" is a bit facile, btw.

The problem is, they trained the fans to regect it, too, creating a bit of a Catch 22. Or maybe a catch 89.

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 04:17 PM
Yeah you sort of missed the point Yablo.

No, that wasn't me who wrote that. I disagree with the guy's point, but I pasted it in there because it was the same subject what tom was mentioning about Arcade Fire becoming HUGE.

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 04:20 PM
Jimi Hendrix - Electric Ladyland

Stevie Ray Vaughn - In Step (motherfucker won a grammy)

Jack - Did you hear about the guys who found out that Stevie Ray Vaughn never played anything at all. It was all just weird lighting and someone messing around with sound effects.

jackstraw94086
03-05-2007, 04:31 PM
Jack - Did you hear about the guys who found out that Stevie Ray Vaughn never played anything at all. It was all just weird lighting and someone messing around with sound effects.

huh. never noticed since I was always on 2-3 hits of MDMA and sucking on a blinking pacifier during his shows. Go figure.

lowfront
03-05-2007, 04:31 PM
I really love neon bible.

There really isn't any comparison to funeral just like there is no comparison to their demo/ep stuff.

There sound is always evolving.

I actually like their rare songs just as much if not more then funeral.

i_like_cake530
03-05-2007, 07:55 PM
I like cake, you REALLY missed the point. by a lot.

My original post about the "The" was a bit of a joke. it wasn't serious or meant to be taken literally. The original question was an honest one, aksed out of curiosity, but then in the same post I made fun of myself for having even asked it with the whole spiel about being anal retentive, ending in how I voted for Bush (I didn't). Yablo then picked up on that and ran with it (I don't believe he voted for Bush either). It was correct use of well-integrated irony, and it blew right past you like an M5 on the autobahn.

while reading your post i thought it was a joke... and when you ended with "i voted for bush" i honestly didn't know what to think, becuase there are a lot of stupid ass republicans out there. and btw, the other guy...Yablo, if you read his post, there really is no sarcasm in it. i think he may have been the one, who missed your original joke.

york707
03-05-2007, 08:03 PM
I am pretty sure they are making a concerted effort to exclude the THE from the band name, for the record. I feel like it was mentioned on SNL. Or maybe that was a post on here. Who knows?

Yablonowitz
03-05-2007, 08:37 PM
while reading your post i thought it was a joke... and when you ended with "i voted for bush" i honestly didn't know what to think, becuase there are a lot of stupid ass republicans out there. and btw, the other guy...Yablo, if you read his post, there really is no sarcasm in it. i think he may have been the one, who missed your original joke.

No, you're right. I was NOT being sarcastic. I hate that they can't decide on the article situation. That's typical fucking Canadians for you. They just want to please everyone and what they end up doing is pissing everyone off. I can not TELL you how many hours I've wasted on tagging. Fucking going to sue those bastards when the carpal tunnel sets in.

lowfront
03-05-2007, 08:51 PM
Win in an interview said they don't mind the arcade fire

he thinks it sounds like an historic event like that though

I say arcade fire

C DUB YA
03-05-2007, 08:56 PM
I say who gives a shit - really?

full on idle
03-05-2007, 08:57 PM
probably Dave Wang.

menikmati
03-05-2007, 09:07 PM
uh how is evil empire rage's third album?

bmack86
03-05-2007, 09:41 PM
I just listened to the album again, and it gets better with each listen. I'm starting to really like it.

summerkid
03-06-2007, 12:29 AM
Pitchfork wrong again surprise surprise.

codytwo
03-06-2007, 12:50 AM
I have a theory that the lack of huge rock stars stems largely from a major disconnect between huge label money-throwers and what is actually cool. It seems like during the fifties, sixties and seventies, and the eighties and nineties to a diminishing degree, the record labels were very good at finding what was cool and throwing a lot of money at it. Lately, it just seems like there isn't the same meeting of cool factor and enormous sums of money for marketing. When a band like Arcade Fire is able to sell out five nights in a row in three major cities, you don't have to be a genius to see that the possibility for enormous commercial success is there. And yet, you don't see TV spots or big expensive, all-encompassing ad campaigns for their album. Instead, you get all this ridiculous hype for Jay-Z's newest album, and it didn't worth shit after the first week. Because it wasn't cool. At all. It was totally lame. My point is proving too large to fit into this post. I give up, and I hope someone can see where I'm going with this rant.

deadguy
03-06-2007, 01:05 AM
Ok just finished my first spin of Neon Bible. Loving it so far. Black Mirror is starting up again and I'm excited to hear it all over again.

Very very cool. I don't care what PFork says :) it's great. Intervention kicks the pants off most tracks in Funeral. And that new version of No Cars Go has just the right mix of old and new to make it fresh.

Back to rockin' out to Black Mirror then. Laters.

bmack86
03-06-2007, 02:19 AM
I have a theory that the lack of huge rock stars stems largely from a major disconnect between huge label money-throwers and what is actually cool. It seems like during the fifties, sixties and seventies, and the eighties and nineties to a diminishing degree, the record labels were very good at finding what was cool and throwing a lot of money at it. Lately, it just seems like there isn't the same meeting of cool factor and enormous sums of money for marketing. When a band like Arcade Fire is able to sell out five nights in a row in three major cities, you don't have to be a genius to see that the possibility for enormous commercial success is there. And yet, you don't see TV spots or big expensive, all-encompassing ad campaigns for their album. Instead, you get all this ridiculous hype for Jay-Z's newest album, and it didn't worth shit after the first week. Because it wasn't cool. At all. It was totally lame. My point is proving too large to fit into this post. I give up, and I hope someone can see where I'm going with this rant.

What did majors have right in the 80s and 90s? Mostly nothing. Since the advent of the independent label in the late 70s, independents have almost exclusively proved to be the trendsetter. However, in the book Rip It Up and Start Again, there was a quote that what was coming out in the early 80s was so exciting that you didn't have to listen to old music at all. That's how I'm feeling about right now. There are so many good new bands on the music scene that I can devote days solely to listening to new recordings. It's a good time to be a music fan.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 06:08 AM
while reading your post i thought it was a joke... and when you ended with "i voted for bush" i honestly didn't know what to think, becuase there are a lot of stupid ass republicans out there. and btw, the other guy...Yablo, if you read his post, there really is no sarcasm in it. i think he may have been the one, who missed your original joke.

Yablo worships the ground I walk on.


I have a theory that the lack of huge rock stars stems largely from a major disconnect between huge label money-throwers and what is actually cool. It seems like during the fifties, sixties and seventies, and the eighties and nineties to a diminishing degree, the record labels were very good at finding what was cool and throwing a lot of money at it.

not in the 70s and 80s, no.

SometimesNJ
03-06-2007, 07:08 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zsu-CJI-pjY

mountmccabe
03-06-2007, 08:30 AM
What did majors have right in the 80s and 90s? Mostly nothing. Since the advent of the independent label in the late 70s, independents have almost exclusively proved to be the trendsetter. However, in the book Rip It Up and Start Again, there was a quote that what was coming out in the early 80s was so exciting that you didn't have to listen to old music at all. That's how I'm feeling about right now. There are so many good new bands on the music scene that I can devote days solely to listening to new recordings. It's a good time to be a music fan.

QFT.

Hell, I'm gonna quote those last two lines again:


There are so many good new bands on the music scene that I can devote days solely to listening to new recordings. It's a good time to be a music fan.

Better bands means less exposure for all. It's like in baseball; the level of play is better now so it's rare that folks reach some of the extended plateaus of ages ago because the pitchers are facing better batters and vice versa. Scrubs that could make the game 80 years ago are lingering in the low minors if anything.

I got off track. There are a lot of bands worthy of our attention now and with the internets and filesharing and books on seminally ignored bands of the 60s and 70s etc coming out there is tons of great music to listen to. Tons of artists vying for attention so none of them are going to have the mass appeal of some of those that reached great peaks in the early years of rock.

Yablonowitz
03-06-2007, 08:48 AM
I'm telling you - it's all about the Internet and media fragmentation (while paradoxically aggregating on a corporate level).

MTV made rock stars in the 80's. That's how it worked. Springsteen may have made the front covers of Time and Newsweek in the 70's but he didn't turn larger than life until Born in the USA and the constant repetition of that video. Same with Madonna. Same with U2. Same to a slightly lesser degree to R.E.M. and Depeche Mode. When MTV reduced and then stopped playing music as much and people splintered off into various corners of the Internet for their own specific interests, mass culture, particularly MTV lost its "rock star" creation potentcy.

Then combine that with the low-budget, smal label explosion that Nirvana created...and bands that followed in that mold just rejected the idea of superstardom or, to some degree anyway, overly stylized image creation.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 09:10 AM
this song goes out to Yablonowitz..


Debbie just hit the wall
She never had it all
One Prozac a day
Husbands a CPA
Her dreams went out the door
When she turned twenty four
Only been with one man
What happen to her plan?

She was gonna be an actress
She was gonna be a star
She was gonna shake her ass
On the hood of white snake's car
Her yellow SUV is now the enemy
Looks at her average life
And nothing has been alright since

Bruce Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she's uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo
(1985)
Woohoohoo

She's seen all the classics
She knows every line
Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink
Even Saint Elmo's Fire
She rocked out to WHAM!
Not a big Limp Bizkit fan
Thought she'd get a hand
On a member of Duran Duran

Where‚€™s the mini-skirt made of snake skin
And who‚€™s the other guy that's singing in Van Halen
When did reality become T.V.
What ever happen to sitcoms, game shows
(on the radio was)
Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she's uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 19, 19, 1985

Woohoohoo

She hates time make it stop
When did Motley Crew become classic rock?
And when did Ozzy become an actor?
Please make this stop, stop
Stop!
And bring back

Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she's uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 1985
Woohoohoo
Springsteen, Madonna
Way before Nirvana
There was U2 and Blondie
And music still on MTV (woohoohoo)
Her two kids in high school
They tell her that she's uncool
Cuz she's still preoccupied
With 19, 19, 1985

mountmccabe
03-06-2007, 09:18 AM
I am in agreement, Yablo.


Then combine that with the low-budget, smal label explosion that Nirvana created...and bands that followed in that mold just rejected the idea of superstardom or, to some degree anyway, overly stylized image creation.

I would've worded this differently, though. Nirvana was one of the triggers that set the majors looking towards the smaller labels for marketable acts.

I would want to distinguish that from what I'd call the small label explosion -though it wasn't violent/quick enough to be an explosion - the one set off by the Sex Pistols. The punk revolution wasn't about playing fast songs, wasn't about one style or genre. It was a DIY revolution.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 09:21 AM
The punk revolution wasn't about playing fast songs, wasn't about one style or genre. It was a DIY revolution.


I agree.

PotVsKtl
03-06-2007, 12:01 PM
That's only partially true. Punk was DIY, yes, but it was also about getting back to basics, stripping all the glitter and feathers off big corporate rock and being straightforward and sincere.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 12:02 PM
not sure about the straightforward/sincere part, not for all bands. example, Siouxsie.

Yablonowitz
03-06-2007, 12:21 PM
I used to love someone named Susie. Turned out she was in a song by Johnny Cash. I have a mole on my left testicle.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 12:23 PM
well, there's one way people will be able to tell us apart then.

PotVsKtl
03-06-2007, 12:34 PM
I tend to exclude a lot of things from the punk movement as more a product of a scene than anything. Punk hit so fast and had such an immediate impact that bands sprung up almost instantly including elements not traditionally assigned to the genre. Or maybe more accurately, it swallowed a lot of bands that had to strip down their music to fit in. Post-punk probably developed as a genre on day two of the punk movement.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 12:41 PM
I guess if you're only going to include 'straightforward/sincere' bands in your definition of punk, then (by definition) punk was about being straightforward and sincere. I think it's more complicated than that myself.


it swallowed a lot of bands that had to strip down their music to fit in.

that certainly was true. Bands and singer/songwriters alike.

PotVsKtl
03-06-2007, 12:47 PM
It is more complicated, you're right. Straightforward is probably a bad word. I just meant that a lot of the motivation behind punk was the ridiculous state of popular music, its hyperbolic themes and overwrought emotions. Sincere is much more accurate.

Hannahrain
03-06-2007, 12:49 PM
Straightforward is probably a bad word.

Blatant seems to sum it up pretty nicely.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 12:50 PM
"I Hate Pink Floyd."

PotVsKtl
03-06-2007, 12:50 PM
...and luckily this is a cyclical process. DIY tied with sincerity springs up again over and over. Personally I feel like indie rock has totally abandoned the things that made it great for me in the 90s. All of these frog-throated carnival bands hitting it big right now are nothing but a mutation of more traditional corporate rock impulses.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 12:51 PM
That's how I've always felt about Pearl Jam.

wmgaretjax
03-06-2007, 01:02 PM
That's only partially true. Punk was DIY, yes, but it was also about getting back to basics, stripping all the glitter and feathers off big corporate rock and being straightforward and sincere.

i think it was merely the natural angry movement that came out of NY no wave.

mob roulette
03-06-2007, 01:13 PM
That's how I've always felt about Pearl Jam.

agreed. pearl jam=bad company et al.

elChurro
03-06-2007, 01:44 PM
its slowly growing on me, the whole springsteen thing took some time to get used to again.

i_like_cake530
03-06-2007, 03:31 PM
No, you're right. I was NOT being sarcastic. I hate that they can't decide on the article situation. That's typical fucking Canadians for you. They just want to please everyone and what they end up doing is pissing everyone off. I can not TELL you how many hours I've wasted on tagging. Fucking going to sue those bastards when the carpal tunnel sets in.

wow i didn't know anyone felt that strongly about whether or not there is a "THE" in the name... but i guess you have a point

Yablonowitz
03-06-2007, 03:39 PM
wow i didn't know anyone felt that strongly about whether or not there is a "THE" in the name... but i guess you have a point

You want to join me in the lawsuit? We could totally go class action with this.

mountmccabe
03-06-2007, 03:48 PM
What I consider as the definitive source on definite articles vis a vis band names is last.fm. Works for other issues such as & or and too.

Though it won't work for tiny bands almost nobody scrobbles.

Yablonowitz
03-06-2007, 03:50 PM
What I consider as the definitive source on definite articles vis a vis band names is last.fm. Works for other issues such as & or and too.

Refresh my memory. Did I ask your opinion?

mountmccabe
03-06-2007, 03:53 PM
Maybe it was Tom.

TomAz
03-06-2007, 03:55 PM
John, what is your opinion?

mountmccabe
03-06-2007, 03:56 PM
Damn message board is screwing up post orders again.

Yablonowitz
03-06-2007, 05:24 PM
I like seals and alt country. tee-hee. I like you John. Do you want a lollipop? I do.

codytwo
03-06-2007, 05:48 PM
I think that it is a huge overstatement to say that rock stars are not possible anymore, or have been destroyed by the current condition of the music world. The music industry right now is in a state of flux, with large record companies uncertain of how to proceed into the digital world, and even uncertain of their continued existence.

Marketing techniques, distribution channels and production methods have been changing and growing beyond the control of traditional media corporations for some time now, and it is entirely possible that the record label as we have known it for a very long time has no future in the modern world. This possibility, combined with the unpredictable nature of today's audience, the tastes of which change rapidly due to the advent of the internet, makes it less profitable for record companies to take any risks with the material they choose to publish.

Sure, record companies have been out of touch with what is "cool" for a very long time, but it seems like they at least TRIED to commercialize and replicate what was cool, until recently. The only other period I can think of in which the top 40 hits being pushed by record companies were so disconnected from what was cool is the disco era.

Does any of this make sense?I wish I could think of a better word than cool to use, but I don't think there is one, really.

mountmccabe
03-06-2007, 05:50 PM
That makes sense.

kreutz2112
03-06-2007, 05:59 PM
uh how is evil empire rage's third album?

Yeah, right when I saw that I knew it was wrong, but before i said anything I wanted to make sure that it hadnt allready been discussed. Thank You Menik

kreutz2112
03-06-2007, 06:10 PM
...and luckily this is a cyclical process. DIY tied with sincerity springs up again over and over. Personally I feel like indie rock has totally abandoned the things that made it great for me in the 90s. All of these frog-throated carnival bands hitting it big right now are nothing but a mutation of more traditional corporate rock impulses.


That's how I've always felt about Pearl Jam.


agreed. pearl jam=bad company et al.

Pearl Jam is original. They may have abandoned their sound that they had during the Ten, Vs and Vitology era, but they have always made good music and stayed true to their musical ethic. Their later albums may have not been as "critically acclaimed" as their former, but in my opinion Pearl Jam has never made a bad album. I am not quite sure what the Pearl Jam=Bad Company et al. statement is about?

codytwo
03-06-2007, 06:36 PM
they are saying that Pearl Jam:Nirvana::Bad Company:Led Zeppelin

i think