Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Novus sonitus seclorum

By ThirdEye in Culture
Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 08:31:06 PM EST
Tags: Music (all tags)
Music

The state of popular music today is a very sad and perverse one. It has become nothing more than a plastic, synthetic world of taking something which was once art and twisting it into a manufactured product for the masses to lap up and suck on until their needs are temporarily satisfied and the next batch is released. Many of us (especially K5 people, I'm sure) are aware of this and are quite fed up with it. I certainly don't consider myself to be some sort of mindless animal that will feed on anything that's tossed at me. Thus enters: Sludge Rock, Riff Rock, Cosmic Doom, Desert Rock, Heavy Groove, Psychedelic Rock, etc. all encompassed under one umbrella genre, Stoner Rock.  Chances are you've heard of it, several of you may be listening to it right now. So what is it about this awesome musical genre that many have taken such an inherent liking to?  The following is a bit about its history, its future and its masterpiece.


Stoner Rock's foundations are somewhat vague and still often debated among fans. What is widely agreed on, however, is that it is a genre influenced by a good forty years of rock music, right through from Jimi Hendrix to Black Sabbath and Led Zeppelin to King Crimson, to Seattle's late 80's Grunge scene, and so on. I personally believe that the real pioneers of the scene today would have to be Kyuss and Monster Magnet in the early 90's. Without them things would never have gone as well or as far as they did. Perhaps I'm somewhat alone in this belief, but, the now defunct, Kyuss, for one, truly did put out some of the best Stoner Rock albums of all time and that's something many will agree on. So, with these deep roots, Stoner Rock has those all too well known captivating and hypnotic, droning waves of catchy, heavy, powerful riffs and awesome guitar licks intertwined with low-end thunderous drumming which one will immediately love to recognize.  Looking at the construct of a typical stoner rock song (if there is such a thing), parts of it could even seem tremendously repetitive which is what, I think, instills such a sense of hypnosis in the music and one can tend to feel quite submerged in its sound.

From hearing its name alone, one is inclined to imagine fuzzed out, stoned, mindless drug abusers with a mental capacity resembling that of a wooden chair. In many cases you may be right, the world is rife with this annoying stereotype and probably the larger part of Stoner Rock and many other musical genres too. But, that said, music, by definition, is still a wonderful art form, and in being that, it is open to our individual interpretation, so however stoned the artists may have been during the song's inception, I believe it can still be enjoyed and construed just as appropriately when in a sober state of mind. Stoner Rock bands create powerful, emotional, intellectual music and that's immediately evident when you hear it. Just the mere fact that it doesn't sound similar to anything you've heard before is a clear indication that these bands are not set out with a primary goal of targeting some mass market that they can flog their production to. They're creating real, personal, honest music for the purposes it was always intended, stimulation, intellectual growth and inspiration.

A common misconception is the assumption that Stoner Rock bands compose songs with lyrical content referring solely to cannabis and the like.  Quite to the contrary, some bands are even opposing the term 'Stoner' as they feel their music has nothing to do with cannabis or being stoned.  This is not to say that none of them sing about Marijuana and its effects, just not all of them.  Kyuss, for instance, often delve into metaphysical concepts in their songs having vague references to death and afterlife, love, benevolence and malevolence in deities, etc. as would most musicians or artists, I guess.  Then there's Orange Goblin and Thumlock, for example, who seem quite fixated on Ritual Majick and make several references to Astral Projection and the use of natural hallucinogens to achieve this.  This is quite evident in, say, the lyrical content of Zygocact from Thumlock's Emerald Liquid Odyssey album which is an obvious reference to the flower, Zygocactus, a Brazilian cacti believed to have psychoactive potential.  Because of this broad spectrum of passions and ideas of bands involved in the scene there have been several suggestions toward renaming the genre to Fuzz Rock, Riff Rock, Cosmic Doom, etc.  But, as I've said, with the music being so open to personal interpretation, it shouldn't be considered bound or restricted by some supposed name or class.  Josh Homme of Queens Of The Stone Age expressed this quite clearly by saying the following in an interview on antimtv.com:

"But I think the Stoner rock lists and Stoner rock sites are really cool. It's about people loving music and it's a labor of love. But if anyone thinks that they are going to build a box around me, try to shut the lid, expect me to get in, crawl in there, get in the fetal position, and lock the lid then you are out of your mind. Kyuss never did that, Queens (Of The Stone Age) has never done that. You expect me to do it now because you want me to. Then you must be crazy. You must not have heard anything I have ever played. Or you must never have understood any of it."

If Stoner Rock is the term people have come to associate the sound with, then it needn't change simply because some feel they aren't being properly categorized.  People shouldn't expect strict conformity to something which is already so vague.

Largely due to its small size, I'm sure, there is still a considerably tight-knit community surrounding Stoner Rock, and as result many of the bands are in some way connected.  Kyuss, for example, is responsible for several awesome bands which formed after their break-up, namely Queens Of The Stone Age (formed by Josh Homme after John Garcia's (vocalist) departure), Slo-Burn, which is no more, but was an 'in-between' thing for Garcia before he joined Unida with Scott Reeder (ex-Kyuss bassist).  Tool fans might recognize the name, Scott Reeder.  He played live with Tool some years ago when they performed their cover of Demon Cleaner which is a Kyuss song from the Sky Valley album.  Brant Bjork, ex-drummer of Kyuss went solo and has released some great stuff.  Bjork is also part of Fu Manchu, another superb Kyuss offspring, with Scott Reeder.  Orange Goblin's latest release, Coup de Grace was produced by Scott Reeder and also features John Garcia performing vocals on two tracks.  But it's not all about Kyuss, other band correlations include High On Fire which was formed by Matt Pike after the break-up of Sleep, another leader of the genre.  Scott "Wino" Weinrich of The Obsessed left to form Spirit Caravan, of which, the members, have collectively, played for about seven different Stoner Rock bands.  Scott Reeder was also in The Obsessed, and the other members, Greg Rogers and Guy Pinhas (previously in Beaver) created Goatsnake of whom Pete Stahl (ex-earthlings?) is also a member.  Anyway, there are probably hundreds of little connections between bands which I could use to construct an entirely different article on, mapping them all out, but I'm sure by now you get the idea.

Another interesting aspect is the impact that the Internet has had on the rapid growth of the Stoner Rock community. I think it's one of the first genres of its kind to make such an effective utilization of this medium. I live in a small town in the beautiful Garden Route of South Africa, called George, with a population not exceeding 200,000 and thanks to MP3, the Internet and Stoner Rock bands' willingness to share their music in an effort to gain exposure, I'm able to proudly call myself part of this fabulous community. I'm also well aware that unless I do eventually travel overseas (which I will), the chances are quite slim that I'll ever see the bands I am such a devout fan of perform live, but that doesn't stop me from being able to follow and support this vibrantly creative musical variant through newsgroups, forums, IRC channels, websites, e-zines, etc.

So where is Stoner Rock going?  With its rapidly increasing popularity one is inclined to think that it's simply hurtling toward commercialism and the business machine like pretty much every other genre.  Bands like Monster Magnet, Fu Manchu, Queens Of The Stone Age, etc. are probably your most commercial/well known of the lot at the moment, yet they're still putting out frightfully good tunes.  I don't doubt that commercialism will eventually take over, it's inevitable to a degree, but I think it will be just that little bit harder with the Stoner Rock scene because it's one of the things that sets this genre apart from all the rest.  The absolute 'I don't give a damn, I'm making real music here' kind of attitude is what's going to keep things alive, and I hope it lasts as long as humanly possible.

Well, now you know it's out there, I can only urge, those who haven't yet, to try some out for yourself.  As I said before, Stoner Rock is very much an umbrella genre so there is a large variety of bands considered part of it.  A good idea would be to look at a few essential stoner lists, although opinionated, they'll give you a pretty good idea of what to check out.  Below is also a small list of bands and sites which should also as a good introduction to this great musical experience.

Bands

Thumlock
Orange Goblin
High On Fire
Grand Magus
Queens Of The Stone Age
Half Man
cog
Solace

Sites

StonerRock.com
DALnet #StonerRock
StonerRockChick.com
Sleazegrinder
Voodoo Fire
White Trash Devil

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Will you give Stoner Rock a try?
o Yes 22%
o No 22%
o Already have, I love it! 22%
o I can't stand it! 11%
o This stuff is amazing! 3%
o Why haven't I heard of this? It's great! 0%
o I love you ThirdEye! 4%
o Is thing thing on? 14%

Votes: 63
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o sad
o perverse
o Kyuss
o Monster Magnet
o albums
o wooden chair
o Orange Goblin
o Thumlock
o Zygocactus
o psychoactive
o Queens Of The Stone Age
o interview
o antimtv.co m
o Tool
o stuff
o Fu Manchu
o High On Fire
o The Obsessed
o Spirit Caravan
o Beaver
o Goatsnake
o earthlings ?
o Internet
o George
o share
o essential
o stoner
o Grand Magus
o Half Man
o cog
o Solace
o StonerRock .com
o DALnet #StonerRock
o StonerRock Chick.com
o Sleazegrin der
o Voodoo Fire
o White Trash Devil
o Also by ThirdEye


Display: Sort:
Novus sonitus seclorum | 133 comments (113 topical, 20 editorial, 1 hidden)
We need more of this! (2.50 / 2) (#4)
by Fran Spy on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 06:28:20 AM EST

While no one wants to read every K5 user's playlist and musical oddities, this article is great because it is a very well presented area of music which a lot of people wouldn't know about.

I like my music serious and somber, whether its Rock, Jazz, Blues, Folk or Trance - but I absolutely ove Stoner Rock because no matter where I am or what I'm doing it puts this massive smile on my face. My feet itch and I wanna clap my hands, and I just love everyone - which is my take on the name, cause you just look damn Stoned man!

+FP

'I'm sick to death of the inarticulate hero' - John Fowles
interesting (3.00 / 3) (#5)
by tps12 on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 06:57:13 AM EST

I will just point out that pretty much every musical genre has started out with that same "I don't give a damn, I'm making real music here" attitude. Any movement consists of individuals, and some of the individuals will be willing to sell out.

Also, if all of these bands (like, all five) came from the same one band (Kyuss?), does it really make sense to give them all those different names (riff rock, et al)? I think this trend of hyper-categorization, begun with "electronica" (I still call it techno), is getting out of control. Pretty soon every new song will be given its own unique genre. Remember when a good band could put out album after album of the most varied and interesting and original music, and be content calling it "rock?"

This is true (none / 0) (#15)
by ThirdEye on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 08:27:12 AM EST

But your points weren't disagreed with, I did mention that commercialism is probably inevitable and that hyper-categorization is unnecessary. People have just grown accustomed to associating this certain sound with the term Stoner Rock, but they shouldn't expect bands to conform to that, nor should bands feel expected to. I think the reason we name genres or group anything for that matter is simply for convenience, to be able to speak more specifically about something quite vague. See? I just did it right there.

I guess I did get a bit carried away with the Kyuss off-shoots, there are in fact hundreds of Stoner Rock bands, not just five :)



[ Parent ]
Music transitions (5.00 / 3) (#8)
by tombuck on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 07:10:59 AM EST

Whilst I appreciate (and largely agree with) the argument against the "quality" of music produced in the last few years, I do get some amusement from a widely unknown fact: That the western music theory we are taught to treat as the gospel truth is, in fact, a lie and not really all that great.

You see, natural tunings don't fit together very well. Going by pythagoras' methods, the note "A natural" is slightly different in every key. This would slightly hinder the keyboard players out there, and so we now have "equal temprement" which assigns slightly off-natural tunings in order to have all the notes fit in there and sound 'good' together.

I particularly find asian music fascinating. Yes, at first it sounds out of tune... until you realise that it is, in fact, in tune - our ears have become accustomed to the unnatural tunings. It's a disgrace.

--
Give me yer cash!

amen! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by jcw2112 on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:24:19 AM EST

i'm a conservatory-trained classical guitarist. in my 3rd year of undergraduate work i got a chance to sit in on a series of sitar masterclasses. i had no idea until that point just how limited traditional western music is.

since then i have been quite interested in 'alternate' tunings (which as a composer of electronic music is deliciously simple!). you're a keyboardist, correct? ever played with wendy carlos' tunings? some of them are quite a bit of fun.

do you ever get into gamelan? have any (western) composers of microtonal music that you enjoy?

it's nice to hear someone who feels the same way about the lie that is 'equal' temperment.



____________________
suck. on. it.
[ Parent ]

Hrm (none / 0) (#23)
by tombuck on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:34:23 AM EST

I like messing around with a few non-standard tunings such as the pythagorean, pure major and minor and meantone, but I don't exactly feel that equal temprement is A Bad Thing.

My only real gripe against it is that the classical music schools don't elaborate on other tuning methods, thus missing out on specific keys' timbres. This is quite a big deal when you consider that we have only really been capable of tuning pianos to equal temprement in the last hundred years - we miss out on the composer's reasons for choosing the key they used.

--
Give me yer cash!
[ Parent ]

what's sad is... (none / 0) (#24)
by jcw2112 on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:45:03 AM EST

...that the little attention that most schools give to the topic falls into music history. most of that is bemoaning how harpsichords had to be retuned depending on the piece (which is pretty sweet, if not a little tedious after the first 5 times).

i don't think that any tuning is a 'bad thing', but given that equal temperment is given as the only way to do things, i feel that a closer look at what it's all about is in order.

harry partch's book genesis of a music is a pretty good read on his philosophy of departure from the accousitcally sad equal temperment and a return to what he assumes to be the greek method.

but you are correct, back in the bad old days, there was a reason for choosing a key, whereas now we're more or less left with all keys sounding more or less alike (as opposed to how they would sound in a more accoustically 'pure' situation).



____________________
suck. on. it.
[ Parent ]

Ahem (none / 0) (#29)
by lb008d on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:05:59 AM EST

less left with all keys sounding more or less alike

Not with perfect pitch they don't. F# major sounds completely differerent to me than Db major, for instance.

Ever wonder why so much "pretty music" is in Db? It sounds "softer" than any other key, I think.

[ Parent ]

that may be the case... (none / 0) (#37)
by jcw2112 on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:51:58 AM EST

...but sadly (or in my opinion, thankfully) most of us don't have perfect pitch. thus the effect (arguably) is not as clear as it might be if instruments were tuned with less of an emphasis on equal temperment.



____________________
suck. on. it.
[ Parent ]
Just because you cant hear it... (none / 0) (#43)
by Altus on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:27:02 AM EST


Doesnt mean that you cant HEAR it.

the difference is there, and it does effect the way you preceive a song, even if you are not conciously aware of it.

sound is cool like that.

 
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

oh i understand... (none / 0) (#50)
by jcw2112 on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:57:31 AM EST

...that there are differences that are not necessarily perceived consciously, but i maintain my position that the subtle colorings that are available when tuning instruments to the key are lost along with their more prominent attributes when equal temperment is used.

i won't argue that there is no difference, i would just say that there is not an obvious one. and while it would appear that music, especially good music, is all about subtlety, i would mention that there comes a point where the shades of gray disappear into a fog and the intended effect goes along with it.



____________________
suck. on. it.
[ Parent ]

Alternate tunings (none / 0) (#114)
by andfarm on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 11:38:24 AM EST

If anyone's fascinated by alternative tuning methods, see this page for some fun introductory information.

[ Parent ]
"sad and perverse" (4.50 / 8) (#10)
by eLuddite on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 07:41:18 AM EST

Why is popular music "very sad and pervese," "plastic, synthetic," "something which was once art" etc, but unpopular popular music high art? What pretentious act of fringe identity politics does the perfectly nice and talented Britney Spears have to commit before the sultans of cool take her music as seriously as "Queens of the Stone Age?"

Hello? It's all pop; haircuts dont matter.

---
God hates human rights.

It's just terminology really (4.50 / 2) (#13)
by ThirdEye on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 08:22:57 AM EST

I just can't bring myself to call something with absolutely no substance or intellectual value, music. I need something to seperate what I consider art from what I consider purely entertainment. I won't deny being entertained by Miss Spears and her lovely assets, but I'm certainly not enlightened by them.

It's sad and perverse because it pushes to be considered one and the same, completely stripping the term music of whatever value it once held.



[ Parent ]
the question was (none / 0) (#19)
by eLuddite on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:05:15 AM EST

why is unpopular popular music better than popular popular music? They both sound like pop to me. So, for example, when you say
I need something to seperate what I consider art from what I consider purely entertainment,
I can reasonably reply "Right! That's why I dont listen to your brand of pop." Without trying to single your taste out for abuse, all shit stinks to someone, somewhere, as it were. At least I have the shelter of Britney's lovely body to weather your bafflegabbing assault on the aural landscape. I'm just playing with you, of course, but the stiff remains of my point endure.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Perhaps (none / 0) (#20)
by ThirdEye on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:20:43 AM EST

I'm not understanding your argument, but if what you're saying is that all music taste is ultimately not much more than personal opinion and that each and every opinion should be granted the same credibility then it doesn't really matter what your argument is other than that, if that's your perspective. I can accept someone enjoying Britney Spears or whatever, but then it must be for specifically different reasons than they would enjoy Tool, for example.

[ Parent ]
i'm saying (none / 0) (#27)
by eLuddite on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:55:00 AM EST

pop music is pop music modulo opinions that have nothing to do with the musical business of notes and structure. Like haircuts and pants, the "opinions" you refer to are debated in the arena of fashion. When you write "I'm certainly not enlightened by [Britney Spears]," your subject is not music, it is the flash in the pan of your bubbly peerage. This is why Grunge was once pernicious cool but now shopworn. Ten years from now your CD collection will sound like an act of staggering indiscretion. Repeat ten years thence, and so on ad pop music nauseum.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Hmmm (4.00 / 1) (#55)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:20:10 PM EST

Ten years from now your CD collection will sound like an act of staggering indiscretion

I suppose this is a test for good music.  "The Girl From Ipanema" was once a pop hit, but it still sounds as good as it ever did (not that I'm old enough to really say this).

I put very little stock in the "art" value of music.  I judge music solely on enjoyability and "depth".  Depth I define by the ability to enjoy the same music through many repititions.  

You can predict "depth" by looking at the internal variance of a song and its complexity.  Music with more components and more interplay between those components is more likely to be deep.

music's value = "first time enjoyability" * depth
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

hurm (none / 0) (#74)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 08:06:26 PM EST

Define complexity.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Complexity (none / 0) (#100)
by jmzero on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 10:32:02 AM EST

Imagine the sheet music to the song you're listening to.  Now imagine the minimum description you'd need in order to define all the notes and instruments of the song.  The length of this minimum description would correspond with the complexity of the song.

A complex song might have:

  1.  Many instruments
  2.  Little repetition
  3.  Many notes
  4.  Variance between simultaneous themes
Of course, though a billion random notes compressed into a 5 minute song might be very complex it would likely fail the more subjective parts of the music value test though...  Complexity, in any case is only a means of predicting depth.  Certainly other subjective, emergent factors of music will, in practice, determine the depth and enjoyability of a song.

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
so your theory has no predictive power? (none / 0) (#111)
by adequate nathan on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 10:36:28 PM EST

What good is it? As a myth, it might tell me about you deeply believe, but apart from that...

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Well.. (none / 0) (#112)
by jmzero on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 10:31:01 AM EST

I'd say it has little predictive power, but certainly some.  This is to be expected in such a subjective field.  If we had a comprehensive theory for evaluating music, then we would no longer need composers.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
as music is subjective, (none / 0) (#113)
by adequate nathan on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 11:35:52 AM EST

What makes you an authority of any sort on it? If you're not an authority, what's the source of your credibility?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Uhh... (none / 0) (#115)
by jmzero on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 11:47:14 AM EST

What makes you an authority of any sort on it? If you're not an authority, what's the source of your credibility

There's no reason for you to put any stock in anything I say.  I was trying to give an idea of how I evaluate music.  

It may work for you to evaluate music based on the color of the album cover, frequency of alliteration, or whether it scares your cats.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

help me out here (none / 0) (#116)
by adequate nathan on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 11:22:49 PM EST

In your own opinion, what is the signal-to-noise ratio of your expressed beliefs on evaluating the quality of music?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Hmm (none / 0) (#122)
by jmzero on Tue Jul 02, 2002 at 10:24:45 AM EST

If you want to talk for the sake of talking, I suggest Yahoo! chat.  In any case, the signal-to-noise ratio here has gotten out of hand....  
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
and whose fault is that? (none / 0) (#123)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jul 02, 2002 at 05:14:10 PM EST

Your theory is crap. Congratulations on not admitting it.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Yep (none / 0) (#124)
by jmzero on Tue Jul 02, 2002 at 05:22:00 PM EST

Your theory is crap. Congratulations on not admitting it.

Yep.  You're right. I thought you were just a dick who wanted to keep yacking and didn't care about the subject at hand - but you've proved me wrong.  

That's great.  

If you do actually have anything to say about musical complexity or depth or anything vaguely related to the initial subject, I'd be curious to hear it.  Based on your posting thus far, I suspect you don't have anything even vaguely interesting to say, but I'd love to be proven wrong.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

a note from a dick. (none / 0) (#126)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jul 02, 2002 at 07:44:15 PM EST

You wrote:
I put very little stock in the "art" value of music. I judge music solely on enjoyability and "depth". Depth I define by the ability to enjoy the same music through many repititions.

You can predict "depth" by looking at the internal variance of a song and its complexity. Music with more components and more interplay between those components is more likely to be deep.

You haven't even come close to defending this questionable assertion. I was hoping you'd at least try. Unfortunately, you seem more interested in making me a bad guy for asking the question.

If it makes you feel better, here: "you win. I am a dick."

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

On the off chance that you're serious... (none / 0) (#125)
by jmzero on Tue Jul 02, 2002 at 05:38:03 PM EST

There is a fair bit of value in using complexity as a predictor of depth (replayability) - at least for me.

Over time, I've experienced many songs that I enjoyed, but recognized as having low complexity.  Example, fairly recently I went through some of Louis Armstrong's catalog.  I thoroughly enjoyed songs like "Skokianne" and "Two to Tango" on first listening, but recognized a lack of complexity.  

Over time, these songs did indeed age (become less enjoyable, more boring) faster than similar songs that were more complex.

Of course it's impossible to do research like this by yourself in that there's a tendency towards self-fulfilling prophecy.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

a few questions (none / 0) (#127)
by adequate nathan on Tue Jul 02, 2002 at 07:48:26 PM EST

1) How can you objectively describe complexity in music? This isn't an idle question, as musical initiates of whatever tradition are far more capable of discerning nuances within the music with which they're familiar than with foreign musics.

2) Why does depth correlate with replay value? I offer the counterexample of kids reading the same simple storybook over and over every night as they grow up.

3) Lots of XXth century experimental music is extremely complex in the terms you offer. By your criteria, Xenakis and Stockhausen ought to be tearing up the charts.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

3 good questions... (none / 0) (#128)
by jmzero on Wed Jul 03, 2002 at 10:28:53 AM EST

  1.  You can only make an approximation of the complexity of a piece.  Certainly someone more familiar with the piece or with the means of performance is going to be able to identify more information in the song than someone less acquainted.  However, even a novice listener can identify the basics - more instruments, less repitition, more notes.  The things you are able to identify are likely going to be the things most important to your experience of depth.
  2.  I have defined depth as replay value, simply because I didn't want to keep repeating "replay value".  Thus, a storybook with great replay value could be said to have great depth.  It wouldn't offend me if you thought "depth" was a stupid term for this.  The other factor, which I called "first time enjoyment" is usually called "height" by the folks I listen to music with.
  3.  Complexity is not the sole determinant of depth, only a good predictor...  And depth is certainly not what sells records.  Records are sold primarily by "height".  Often the things you do to attain good "height" are opposite to the things you do to get "depth" (not that height is a bad thing).  A song usually has a fair bit of internal repetition if it is to do well on the radio.  People enjoy songs they're familiar with, and usually only purchase music they remember well.  
Depth is actually a bit of a negative for a pop record.  If you don't get sick of a song, why buy the new album?

In any case, depth is valueless without some height.  45 instruments, all playing random 8th notes for 20 minutes would be horrible.  It would also have significant depth.  It would lose novelty quickly for me, I'd think - but after that, it would remain just about as enjoyable as it ever was.

You'll remember I said before something like:

music value = height * depth

It would be a little more clear geometrically if one of the dimensions was clearly along the "x" axis.  We usually think of depth as being along the "x" axis, corresponding to time.  The curve usually goes up at the beginning then winds it's way back down.  The entire graph is shifted so that "0" is defined as the level of enjoyment at which you would no longer bother to listen to the song.  The "music value" is, then, the total area under this curve - corresponding to the total enjoyment you could have got out of the piece.

And yes, we're nerds.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

hmmm (none / 0) (#129)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jul 03, 2002 at 05:02:38 PM EST

Well, good for you and your friends and your theory. Let me see if I can restate it:
Great works of art are both pleasing and complex.
Well, that certainly clears a lot up. Now take a real work of art and show me an analysis of it within your paradigm, and we'll see how it compares with such established analytical paradigms as Schenkerianism, common-practice analysis, jazz theory, the analytical works of great interpreters (viz. Marguérite Long on Débussy,) and (for that matter) the rock criticism in Rolling Stone, for descriptive and predictive ability.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not convinced that you're on to anything, and I think that you are completely unacquainted with music analysis as it is seriously practiced by hundreds of thousands of scholars and amateurs worldwide. Look at the amount of theoretical and analytical tools that you have to learn to jam with an amateur jazz band after hours. Why not study how analysis is practiced rather than making up a new system from whole cloth for a discipline at which you are inexpert? Does your system describe music that is "simple," such as monophonic Gregorian chant? Does it account for cultural factors in musical reception?

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Perhaps I've misstated my intent (none / 0) (#130)
by jmzero on Wed Jul 03, 2002 at 06:16:56 PM EST

This system is principally for me to judge what kind of music to buy.  Over the course of a few listening sessions (when lots of people bring in records) and a few trips to the record store, I'm exposed one or two times to a lot of different music.  Height * Depth is a way to force myself to think critically about which albums and artists I'm going to get the most enjoyment out of.  

Great works of art are both pleasing and complex.

A better way of summing up my evaluation process might be:

Great music is that which provides the most enjoyment.

Enjoyment is the sole reason I listen to music.  The goal I have in defining complexity is simply to better predict the music I will get the most enjoyment out of.  For me (as well as for others among my group) complexity serves as a fairly good predictor of how long music will remain satisfying.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not convinced that you're on to anything

Neither am I.  That said, it's worked for me so far.  I have consistently better experiences buying and listening to music when I think about it in this way.

Does your system describe music that is "simple," such as monophonic Gregorian chant?

My "system" is not out to classify or even really describe - only to predict value.  The "system" would likely predict that I would soon tire of a simple Gregorian chant.  And, given my experience with Gregorian chants, it would be right.  

It could be for you that lack of complexity is a better predictor of depth.  It could be that enjoyment is not the only factor (or even a factor) for you in evaluating music.  It may be that you value music that is innovative, emotionally stirring, or that demonstrates some other property.  That's fine.  

As to analyzing or classifying music, I'm sure I have no great insight - and I hope I haven't pretended I have.  

Does it account for cultural factors in musical reception?

Evaluating music is something that you really have to do for yourself.  How am I to guess what someone else is going to enjoy, or for how long they're going to enjoy it?  I can only make this prediction for myself - it is valuable to others  only to the extent that they are similar to me.  

To me, any more analysis than "How much enjoyment can I get out of this music?" is wasted.  I am only vaguely interested in musical theory, and get no enjoyment out of knowing the background or technical details of a piece.  I am not intested in performing or creating music, only listening to it.

If there's some element of another means of analysis that might better predict how much I will enjoy a piece of music then I would be glad to hear of it.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

appears I misread (none / 0) (#131)
by adequate nathan on Wed Jul 03, 2002 at 06:45:53 PM EST

I suppose this is a test for good music...

I should have interpreted this as:

This is how I explain my purchasing decisions at the record store.

Sorry about the long thread.

Nathan
"For me -- ugghhh, arrgghh."
-Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, in Frank magazine, Jan. 20th 2003

Join the petition: Rusty! Make dumped stories & discussion public!
[ Parent ]

Fair enough (none / 0) (#132)
by jmzero on Wed Jul 03, 2002 at 07:09:36 PM EST

It's odd how meaning can so easily get lost when you can't see the other person.

In any case, sorry for thinking you were a troll back there...

Have a good day...
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

The eternal cycle of pop ... (none / 0) (#79)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 12:35:16 AM EST

Ten years from now your CD collection will sound like an act of staggering indiscretion. Repeat ten years thence, and ...

... all the artsy people of that time will be gushing about how cool those bands really were. You wouldn't believe how many of today's musicians love the Carpenters, ABBA and Kiss ...
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Funny... (none / 0) (#93)
by TheEldestOyster on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 05:00:46 AM EST

Nine Inch Nails' "Pretty hate Machine" (released 1989) sounds nothing like an act of staggering indiscretion. Neither does Pink Floyd's "The Wall" (1981?). Not all music listened to is "pop music". (Neither is the criterion that it be popular.) Pop music takes on various forms throughout the years, but good music is good music, no matter when.
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]
ah yes, the wall (5.00 / 1) (#95)
by eLuddite on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 07:31:02 AM EST

Fraulein I. Palewurst bestowed a glorious gift to Mankind the day she decided to gather up the remains of her unrequited ardor and dedicate her withering years to teaching immigrant sons a love for oompapa. If you should ever hear my rendition of "Who Stole the Kielbasa," you will understand what I'm talking about when I compare pop anthems to Ingrid P.'s tender squeezebox. The Girl From Ipanema got hers. Alas poor Ingrid, even I disappointed her in the end. Never again. If I ever meet a Stoned Rocker, I shall bludgeon him to death with my accordion. Twice. For Ingrid.

I agree that good music is good music and that we dont need no education. I guess what I'm trying to say is that not everyone's radio is tuned to the same FM frequency.

---
God hates human rights.
[ Parent ]

Or... (none / 0) (#108)
by TheEldestOyster on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 05:12:33 PM EST

That some radios (mine for example) aren't even turned on? ;)
--
TheEldestOyster (rizen/bancus) * PGP Signed/Encrypted mail preferred
[ Parent ]
It's in your eyes (none / 0) (#96)
by PigleT on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 07:36:06 AM EST

I think it's down to what constitutes the driving force behind the noise you hear on the radio.

If it's someone who's got something to be saying (U2, insert_political_song_here, etc), has written it themselves from scratch and taken it to a label to be produced, I'm going to score it up in the "original, good" stakes.

If it's some brainless twinkle-bra who's a pawn of the pop industry, "*whipcrack* Write another one! And another!" then it's going to come out as diluted aural diarrhorea.

I'm just surprised Kylie admits to writing her own songs at least some of the time - quite an interesting combination ;)
~Tim -- We stood in the moonlight and the river flowed
[ Parent ]

Stoner Rock? (4.00 / 3) (#18)
by ChiefHoser on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:05:00 AM EST

You mentioned that the first bands of this genre where Kyuss and Monster Magnet. While they are among the earlier bands they are not the first.

Ever heard of a band called Pink Floyd, or Greatful Dead, just to name a few. You should at least say a sentence or two about the real roots of this fine musical genre. But other than the above a very well written article.
-------------

Chief of the Hosers
Not really (4.66 / 3) (#40)
by leviramsey on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:13:49 AM EST

Using pot does not make a band a stoner band.

Stoner rock generally tends to be similar to Black Sabbath (especially to Sabbath's bluesier tracks). I've seen it described sometimes as Black Sabbath with the riff-o-rama of early Metallica, but played at half speed.

That said, QOTSA and Monster Magnet seem to be moving away from traditional stoner rock. QOTSA (especially on Rated R) seem to be going in a garage rock direction, while the Magnet seems to be attracted to more traditional hard rock (see "God Says No" and "Powertrip").



[ Parent ]
Blooze riffs and old Sabbath (none / 0) (#51)
by IHCOYC on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:00:58 PM EST

That's one way of describing it. The real roots of this stuff seem to be in bands like Hawkwind, at least the early, Space Ritual and DoReMi material, stuff like Orgone Accumulator or Master of the Universe. Some of it also reminds me of early Blue Oyster Cult from the Cities on Flame with Rock and Roll period.
--
"Complecti antecessores tuos in spelæis stygiis Tartari appara," eructavit miles primus.
"Vix dum basiavisti vicarium velocem Mortis," rediit Grignr.
--- Livy
[ Parent ]
Ahh. Well-written but no... (4.00 / 3) (#22)
by m0rzo on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:27:22 AM EST

+1 Section anyway. Britney Spears and Limp Bizkit are today's music? No. There are plenty of good bands out there that have a solid fan-base. My favourites right now? Idlewild, Tom Mcrae, Ben Folds, Jimmy Eat World, Our Lady of Peace, Foo Fighters, Silver Chair, Five for Fighting, Goo Goo Dolls etc, etc, etc, ad nauseum. +1 for 'discussion value'.


My last sig was just plain offensive.

Errr (none / 0) (#83)
by Souhait on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 01:53:00 AM EST

I believe it's just Our Lady Peace - no of.

[ Parent ]
!Kneels Humbly! (none / 0) (#86)
by m0rzo on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:47:09 AM EST

My sincere apologies. Please accept?


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

Goo Goo Dolls!? (none / 0) (#99)
by CodeWright on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 10:31:49 AM EST

That stuff is toxic pop pap.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Bah (none / 0) (#106)
by m0rzo on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:17:27 PM EST

I love 'em. Heard their new album? Great stuff!


My last sig was just plain offensive.
[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, yes. (none / 0) (#121)
by CodeWright on Sun Jun 30, 2002 at 01:46:35 PM EST

Listening to an "alternative rock" radio station to hear about new interesting stuff like Puddle of Mud, or new stuff from Aphex Twin, sometimes (more than sometimes) means I am tortured into listening to the Goo Goo Dolls. If I weren't in my car on a Detroit highway where two hands should be required, I would claw my eyes and ears out.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
See also: (4.00 / 1) (#28)
by Ludwig on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 09:55:48 AM EST

New York's Aytobach Kreisor. They're playing at the Knitting Factory tonight.

Music is poor right now (4.80 / 5) (#30)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:29:27 AM EST

But people like it.

I always have to chuckle a little at people who say things like "Yeah, Britney Spears sucks.  I like good bands like Pink."  

Or Creed.  Or Nickleback.  Or - God forbid - that guy who sings "Now she's back from the atmosphere, with drops of Jupiter in her hair".  Or the people who post Jewel lyrics on their web sites.  It's like the record companies have some Jedi power that makes people like what they want - "You are an 18-25 year old male, you will enjoy this absolute turd of a Creed song."

I wonder how good, simple, accessible music would fare today.  Say, for example, they released Louis Armstrong's "Shadrach, Meshack, Abednego".  Or Brubeck's "Time Out".  Would people's heads just start smoking, like the robots on Star Trek when Kirk gave them a contradiction?

I think good music could be successful, but somewhere there's some hair in the pipe.  Even in "sophisticated" genres, singers seem to require a certain look and an exaggerated sound to get by (witness Diana Krall or Norah Jones).  

At the same time, Stacey Kent (an amazing singer) teeters on the brink of success.  She always sells well (often a top ten on Amazon), but somehow her latest album still has no North American release.  It's as though someone's scared that good music would destroy the market.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

Jazz (5.00 / 1) (#41)
by Altus on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:21:07 AM EST

Is the ultimate stoner music.

 
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

not really. (none / 0) (#75)
by jazzido on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:21:07 PM EST

Songs like "Giants Steps" or "Donna Lee" are quite difficult to play being high. *really*. I'm a jazz bassist, and playing this kind of music (in particular some sub-genres like {hard,be}bop) requires an aware brain.

--
"Patriotism is the last resource of scoundrels" (Samuel Johnson)

[ Parent ]
actualy I didnt mean... (none / 0) (#103)
by Altus on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 11:51:05 AM EST

played while high (I am a sax player myself, while I can do some stuff hight, real hard stuff is just not happening)

I meant  that is is cool to listen to when you are high.  Take 5 while stoned is great!

 
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

yeah (none / 0) (#117)
by jazzido on Fri Jun 28, 2002 at 11:54:54 PM EST

Take 5 while stoned is great!
When it comes to listening, every jazz tune is great. (although i prefer Cool Jazz, like Baker, Desmond, Tristano, Mulligan, et cetera)

--
"Patriotism is the last resource of scoundrels" (Samuel Johnson)

[ Parent ]
not marijuana (none / 0) (#98)
by kubalaa on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 09:54:44 AM EST

Heroin.

[ Parent ]
Blasphemer (none / 0) (#101)
by CodeWright on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 10:34:08 AM EST

To mention an artist like Armstrong in the same breath as an abomination like Brubeck is profane.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Indeed, Brubeck isn't a God (none / 0) (#109)
by jmzero on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 05:19:28 PM EST

But Time Out is certainly a good song (and a simple and accessible one, and one that was fairly popular in its day).

And I think Louis is immune to blasphemy.  Otherwise he would have risen from his grave to avenge himself against Kenny G.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Ooh.. aside... (none / 0) (#110)
by jmzero on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 05:21:45 PM EST

I assume you've heard Brubeck, Louis (and uhh.. those guys who sung fast) do "Real Ambassador"?  

Charming song that...  though the other stuff they produced at the session was indeed abominable.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

True... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
by CodeWright on Sun Jun 30, 2002 at 01:42:07 PM EST

Okay, I'll give you that, but it is only through the divine influence of Armstrong that Brubeck was granted temporary grace.

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Something about Brubeck (none / 0) (#120)
by CodeWright on Sun Jun 30, 2002 at 01:44:15 PM EST

Has always rubbed me very much the wrong way.

But I agree -- you're right about the blasphemy. Surely Kenny G. will pay an eternity for his sins. :P :)

--
"Humanity's combination of reckless stupidity and disrespect for the mistakes of others is, I think, what makes us great." --Parent ]
Sigh (4.33 / 6) (#31)
by pyramid termite on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:30:04 AM EST

The state of popular music today is a very sad and perverse one. It has become nothing more than a plastic, synthetic world of taking something which was once art and twisting it into a manufactured product for the masses to lap up and suck on until their needs are temporarily satisfied and the next batch is released.

I'm going against the grain here and say something outrageous - top 40 pop music today is imaginative, diverse and on the cutting edge. It's combining the talents of some of the major electronic artists of the day (or those who are imitating them) with world music grooves from Latin America, Africa and India. A few records I happen to like - Shaggy - "It wasn't me" - combines pop, Jamaican toasting and a monster groove with hilarious lyrics about a guy who got caught cheating and the lame excuse he decides to use - "it wasn't me". Missy Elliot - "Get Ur Freak On" - probably the most twisted groove to hit top 40 in years - many have called it the Best Song of 2001 and I agree. "If at First You Don't Succeed ..." - no idea who does this, but it's got an intricate shuffling beat I find fascinating. No Doubt - "Keep on Dancing" - in which Gwen Stefani imitates Madonna singing over an unlikely combination of a generic nu-metal riff and Chic's "Good Times". Speaking of Madonna, I find most of her singles in the last few years to be interesting - "Beautiful Stranger" is probably the best, combining 60's pop, Indian pop, Hawkwind-ish guitars and a dance beat with a riff stolen from Love. True, there's a lot of crap out there, too, but any genre has a lot of crap.

It's common to say that it's all manufactured cookie cutter pop, and there is stuff that sounds like that, but listening to it over a period of a couple of years will reveal that there is a great more diversity going on than people realize, and furthermore, the music's evolving pretty fast - the top 40 of last year sounds somewhat different than this year's does. Beats are getting more syncopated and complex.

My best anology? "It's 1962. There's a bunch of girl and boy group manufactured bands on the radio and everything is commercial crap and rock and roll is finally dead. There couldn't possibly be anything new coming along that's worthwhile."

Wait five years and then see.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
Madonna (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:34:25 PM EST

Speaking of Madonna, I find most of her singles in the last few years to be interesting - "Beautiful Stranger" is probably the best, combining 60's pop, Indian pop, Hawkwind-ish guitars and a dance beat with a riff stolen from Love

I'm actually going to agree with this.  Madonna has come a long way.  At some point (and I'm not sure when, as I haven't payed too much attention) she somehow learned how to sing.  The first song I noticed this on was "Ray of Light" - a perfectly fine piece, though not exactly in my preferred genre.

Her worst crime is "The Day the Music Died".  I hate her for discarding the emotion of the original song.  I hate her more because it's kind of catchy the way she put it together.
.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Bye, bye, slice of American Pie (none / 0) (#58)
by pyramid termite on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:51:54 PM EST

Her worst crime is "The Day the Music Died".

Her version of American Pie was minor, but intriguing - she basically took all the obscure, referential middle verses and kept the first and the last. It's a whole different song like that - oddly, it's more mysterious than the original. If it hadn't been arranged so cheesily, it might have even worked.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Evita (none / 0) (#104)
by gidds on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 12:23:03 PM EST

At some point... she somehow learned how to sing.

Yep; back in 1996 she starred in the film version of `Evita', and IIRC she did six months of vocal training in preparation.  When I heard she was going to be in it, I wasn't hopeful, but she excelled herself, both vocally and in the performance: she'd really learned to use her voice properly, and sounded more like a West End/Broadway singer than a pop singer.

Obviously, her subsequent albums aren't sung in the same style, but her voice still has much more control and depth than it used to, and she sounds much the better for it.  I must admit to not liking her much as a person, but I've a lot of respect for what she did, and I love the Ray of Light album.

Andy/
[ Parent ]

Progressive music (5.00 / 3) (#70)
by kisielk on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 04:02:36 PM EST

I think you did make some good points in your comment, however I also think that you are wrong, and here is my explanation.

I think it is safe to say that a majority of these Pop Top 40 "artists" do not write nor perform their own music. I have known several friends who work in the recording industry and have even worked with some Top 40 artists (98 Degrees comes to mind). The music that these artists "perform" is actually recorded and created by producers and studio musicians. The actual artist usually does little more than lay down some vocal tracks.

There is a reason they are often referred to as "performance" artists, their primary reason is to put on a nice show. They lead a daily PR campaign, showing up for autograph sessions and the like, and then perform concerts or show up on television. If you have ever seen any of pop bands performing on TV, you will notice that the background is usually filled musicians who were hired just for the purpose of performing this music on the road. The artist may or may not actually sing the song they are performing (people like Brittney Spears or TLC are notorious for lip syncing their music, and don't forget Milli Vanilli!). How does this in any way make them creative or imaginative?

Now, contrast this music with some totally different genres. Let's start with some classic composers: Bach, Motzart, Beethoven, Chopin. These people were truly innovative, they wrote AND performed highly technical and creative pieces of music and spread the acceptance of their style. This is what is called "cutting edge".

Today there are many bands and artists who continue to do the same. While I can't say I've ever heard any "Stoner Rock" and thus can't provide an opinion on those particular groups, bands such as Led Zeppelin, King Crimson, Yes, Emmerson Lake & Palmer, Queen, and most recently Dream Theater have been pioneering new music that combines elements of music from all around the world. Their music is highly imaginative, technical, and often complex and their lyrics have much more depth than most pop music. Individual artists like Jimi Hendrix, Steve Vai, Steve Morse, Michael Hedges, and Aphex Twin have also made significant contributions to today's music and their influence can be seen in just about any genre.

I could go on and on about these people and their achievements, but I think I have made my point. Next time you hear an artist's music, be more critical. Think to yourself, is this original? Did this person write this? What kind of contribution has it made to the state of music as a whole?


--
Talk, talk, it's only talk. Arguments, agreements, advice, answers, articulate announcements. It's all just talk."
- Elephant Talk, King Crimson


[ Parent ]
Prog rock? Been there, done that (4.00 / 1) (#78)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 12:29:01 AM EST

I think it is safe to say that a majority of these Pop Top 40 "artists" do not write nor perform their own music.

Neither did Frank Sinatra, Elvis, Aretha Franklin (for the most part), or the average symphony orchestra. It's good when an artist can do their own material but it's not necessary.

The music that these artists "perform" is actually recorded and created by producers and studio musicians. The actual artist usually does little more than lay down some vocal tracks.

I know that. I listen to the results, not the method used. The recording studio IS a musical instrument. The singers may not be creative or imaginative but the people putting together some of this music are.

You list a group of artists that you feel were creative and cutting edge and I would agree, although my old ELP records don't sound quite as good to me as they did 30 years ago. There's just one problem with your list - they're all artists who started at least 10 years ago and a lot of them are gone.

Next time you hear an artist's music, be more critical. Think to yourself, is this original?

Is anything these days? Really, truly original? Was anything really ever? Right now, I'm listening to MP3s off the Tuning Punks page at mp3.com - music written in 13, 14, 19, 22 note octaves and god knows what else. Lots of different people on this page, lots of different styles. Maybe that's the real cutting edge these days as everything else has been tried, and even these "punks" have a lot of musical influences and ancestors. Hmmm ... ever heard the Shaggs?

I could go on and on about these people and their achievements, but I think I have made my point.

Which is music must be Art with a capital A. Not always ...

Next time you hear an artist's music, be more critical. Think to yourself, is this original? Did this person write this? What kind of contribution has it made to the state of music as a whole?

This is what I ask myself - is it good? Does it have personality? Does it have soul? Is it reasonably distinct? And, most important of all, can I dance to it? The Tuning Punks are doing pretty well on the first 4, not too well on the last.

As for me, the last piece of music that really blew my mind was DJ Soulwax mixing Destiny Child's Bootylious over Nirvana's Smells Like Teen Spirit. Innovative, adventurous and you can dance to it. Kid 606 and his cutups of Madonna are pretty interesting too. And I think these Tuning Punks would be pretty great if some of them did something to dance to ...

All I can say is as a prowd owner of most of King Crimson's, ELP's, Yes', and Led Zeppelin's records, Macy Gray's "I Try" says more to me than most of their songs do. Sorry, but that's how I hear it.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Progressive music, not progressive rock (none / 0) (#82)
by kisielk on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 01:14:46 AM EST

While my comment did have a focus on progressive rock, as that is the style of music I primarily listen to / compose / record, you should not that it was titled "progressive music". I didn't intend for it to downplay the contributions of other genres, if you notice I DID mention some classic composers and modern artists from other genres. I can understand how maybe they feel a bit dated after you've listened to them for 30 years ;) However, just because an aritst is old doesn't mean they should not be recognized or listened to any more.

As for the studio being an instrument, sure it is, but how much recognition do the people who work in these studios get compared to the artists who are supposedly recording the music? How often do you see studio musicians receive awards at award shows?

It seems that much like you, I believe that smaller independant groups that distribute music on the internet are the future of music. The internet is pretty much the opposite of the Pop Top 40, with few big popular artists and lots of grassroots work. It has the possibility to promote a much greater spectrum of original music than the record companies do, without many of the downsides. Aritsts don't have to be forced by the ir record companies to go against their creative vision.

When I am ready to release my album, I am not expecting to get signed on to any record companies. In fact, I am not even going to try, I know several people who have gone down that road and none of them have had a positive experience. I'd rather handle it myself.


--
Talk, talk, it's only talk. Arguments, agreements, advice, answers, articulate announcements. It's all just talk."
- Elephant Talk, King Crimson


[ Parent ]
Engineers, Producers and other middlemen (none / 0) (#84)
by andrewhy on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:07:55 AM EST

As for the studio being an instrument, sure it is, but how much recognition do the people who work in these studios get compared to the artists who are supposedly recording the music? How often do you see studio musicians receive awards at award shows?

Sure, on the commercial level the performers get all the recognition and fame. But on the financial side, the engineers, producers and probably even the session musicians make more money on average than the performers do.

The major label music biz is like an upside down pyramid. The record label is at the top; managers, agents, producers and songwriters are in the middle; and the artists themselves are at the very bottom. Long after their star has faded, the other people responsible for the performer's career will still have careers of their own.

If "Noise" means uncomfortable sound, then pop music is noise to me -- Masami Akita, aka "Merzbow"
[ Parent ]

I checked out Orange Goblin (4.33 / 3) (#32)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:41:16 AM EST

Listened to "Rage of Angels" on StonerRock.Com.

Not only was the song poor, but unless it was some hideous self-parody I can confidently say that band will never produce anything of value.

Their "song" is a single, unoriginal, repititive guitar riff.  Their gimmick is heavy static and a slightly faster tempo than the typical 80's rock their work otherwise resembles.  The singer makes no effort at tone control, channeling all his energy into sounding like Morrison.  

Even if the lyrics had any originality - and I could discern none - that's hardly impressive.  There was no effort made to coordinate the singing with any instrumental.  Rather the song proceeded via:

(indistinguishable, lame guitar riff)
Uniform length, atonal recital of lyrics
(indistinguishable, lame guitar riff)
Uniform length, atonal recital of lyrics
(indistinguishable, lame guitar riff)
Uniform length, atonal recital of lyrics

Yeah.  This is a real revival of great music.    

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife

Thanks (4.00 / 2) (#36)
by ThirdEye on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:48:50 AM EST

For forming an opinion from a single exposure, makes a lot of sense. Budd - Bocci, Thumlock - Zygocact, Lowrider - Texas Pt 1 & 2. There you go.

[ Parent ]
You're right (3.00 / 3) (#38)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:05:14 AM EST

I wasn't harsh enough in expressing my disdain for Orange Goblin.

I said that the singer was trying to sound like Morrison.  That was wrong.  He was trying to sound like that guy from the Tea Party trying to sound like Morrison, only cross that with the attitude of the guy from the Rollins Band.

Only to make the Tea Party (who have marginal musical talent) sound like these guys, you'd have to use a heavy mallet and a lot of duct tape (to wrap up their eyes, ears, hands, and instruments).

Did I mention I actually laughed out loud at the end of the song?  When they keep hitting the same "I'm bad" strum on the guitar.  It was like Beavis and Butthead doing a parody of Rob Zombie.

DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA DA

And you're right, I have no reason to hate Thumlock or Zygocact - other than that they were mentioned by you in the same breath as the aforementioned Orange Goblin.  

It's also unfair of me to assume they're poor because of their dumb names - at least "Orange Goblin" sounds kind of cool, like they understand that rock names are stupid so they purposely chose one that was kind of funny.  Kind of like "Spinal Tap".  

The name "Thumlock" is right up there "Gwar" or "Quiet Riot".
.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Nice one (4.50 / 2) (#39)
by ThirdEye on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:11:43 AM EST

Your statements are not at all constructive and offer nothing in the way of a discussion other than to be antagonizing, quite ridiculous in fact, please grow up.

[ Parent ]
Wha? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:42:47 AM EST

Why do you have emotional interest in this band?  Why do you care that I don't like them?

Your statements are not at all constructive

My review was not intended to help them.  They're not going to read it and are, in my belief, beyond help.  Nor was I attempting to help you.  It neither bothers nor concerns me whether or not you like this song.  

Rather, I was attempting to put sort of a warning to others who might explore your links - the same way I might put up a warning sign beside an uncovered manhole.  Perhaps they will find better music - "Thumlock" perhaps - because I steered them clear of the big OG.

Certainly some people might enjoy this song more than I did.  In fact, my review might read as glowing praise to someone who enjoyed Orange Goblin's brand of music.  In the same way, many people probably read warning reviews of "Freddy Got Fingered" and were thereby encouraged to see the movie.

If you do not agree with my review then I'd suggest you ignore it and any of my future reviews - as apparently my reviews would thus be of no value to you, coming from someone with very different musical tastes.  

.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

Better (none / 0) (#61)
by Fran Spy on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 01:24:36 PM EST

The previous one's were borderline trolls with no value, which is why the author was probably a bit ticked off - I was too. What you said in this comment wasn't even closely implied on the first one - which was of no use to anyone.

Not that it matters.

'I'm sick to death of the inarticulate hero' - John Fowles
[ Parent ]
What is trolling? (none / 0) (#62)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 01:52:03 PM EST

My first two posts gave a very negative review to a song.  I employed a little hyperbole, but otherwise gave my honest opinion of the song.

Saying why you do or don't like music is difficult, and of course subjective, but I don't think that makes it an invalid exercise (even if the review is overwhelmingly negative).

I thought trolling was espousing a position you did not hold in order to generate replies.  I affirm that this is not the case here.  I really do think that song is horrible, in pretty much exactly the terms I gave.  

...but...

I should have ended my first comment with "Can anyone point me to an example of this kind of music that I might enjoy more?"  

And I should have been a lighter in my second comment.  
.
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

jmzero (none / 0) (#71)
by Meatbomb on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 06:33:16 PM EST

offered me an interesting (and quite funny) counterpoint to the "rah rah" essay. I don't think it is fair calling his posts trollish, they seemed well written and honest to me.

_______________

Good News for Liberal Democracy!

[ Parent ]
Rollins Band Singer.... (3.00 / 1) (#45)
by Elkor on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:39:01 AM EST

The singer of the Rollins Band is Henry Rollins.

I agree, his singing sucks.

But, if you ever get a chance, listen to some of his spoken word stuff. Very funny and interesting. I heard his spoken word stuff and then saw him play on Saturday Night Live once and was boggled. It is a striking contrast, and not in a good way.

Regards,
Elkor


"I won't tell you how to love God if you don't tell me how to love myself."
-Margo Eve
[ Parent ]
Rollins (none / 0) (#47)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:48:04 AM EST

Interesting.

I actually didn't find his music all that repellant.  My most repeated exposure to him comes from the Tony Hawk 3 soundtrack ("What's the matter man?"), and the song still doesn't drive me batty.

His voice does sound like it would be interesting - I may try to find some of the spoken word stuff on Kazaa....
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]

I listened to the first half ... (none / 0) (#80)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 12:43:58 AM EST

... and the guy can't sing. Not in tune enough to be good, not rough enough to be raunchy. It's a pity, as I thought the band was pretty good and I liked the riff.
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Try Phototropic or Catamaran by Kyuss (none / 0) (#42)
by S1ack3rThanThou on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:25:44 AM EST

They are FAR more representative of the genre than Orange Goblin (who seem rather more blues/70's rock influenced) and are nowhere near as original.

"Remember what the dormouse said, feed your head..."
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the suggestions... (none / 0) (#48)
by jmzero on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:52:18 AM EST

I couldn't find them on StonerRock - can you provide a link or something (if they're available online)?
.
"Let's not stir that bag of worms." - my lovely wife
[ Parent ]
I could mail 'em to you? :-) [n/t] (none / 0) (#94)
by S1ack3rThanThou on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 05:39:37 AM EST


"Remember what the dormouse said, feed your head..."
[ Parent ]
Stoners (4.37 / 8) (#34)
by thefirelane on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 10:45:24 AM EST

I'm sorry,

This is not meant to be a troll, but I have two big problems with stoner rock, and they are as follows:

1) Stoners will ruin a good band.
A lot of musicians I enjoyed have fallen into this trap. Once they start becoming stoners, or start catering to the stoner crowd, their music quality declines. I know this is a subjective call, and is all ready based on whether you like stoner music in the first place, so it might not be relevant.

I just think that artists like Les Claypool and G. Love were much better before getting into the stoner audience. Although Les still does some good work, has anyone seen G. Love within th last year? Whereas once he was a smooth funky jazz musician, he has now devolved into a stoned unorganized jam band.

2) Ambiguous and Vague != deep and thoughtful.

This is something a lot of stoners don't seem to realize, because they don't question it. When you ask them what their "deep" music means, you'll often receive a response like: "uhhh, you know, like, he's saying it's all uhh like a box of rain, you know? whoaaaa" I know that may be a bit of a harsh stereotype, but I think it rings true.

If you want to hear music with a message, I would suggest downloading "Kill the Poor" by the Dead Kennedys (RIAA/MPAA haters will love that one)or "Holiday in Cambodia" by the same band.


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
You are confused by its poor name. (5.00 / 1) (#44)
by S1ack3rThanThou on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:27:57 AM EST

It was named because of its dazed and confused trippy sound, but the majority of stoner rock fans are not stoners.

Fuzzy riff rock with weird bits is probably a better description!

"Remember what the dormouse said, feed your head..."
[ Parent ]

Can't let that one fly... (none / 0) (#49)
by cr8dle2grave on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:53:23 AM EST

I just think that artists like Les Claypool and G. Love were much better before getting into the stoner audience.

Claypool has been a serious stoner from the get go. Are you telling me Primus wasn't a stoner band -- as in for and by pot smokers; I have no idea whats this new fangled stoner rock thing-a-ma-jig is.

---
Unity of mankind means: No escape for anyone anywhere. - Milan Kundera


[ Parent ]
Stoner (none / 0) (#56)
by thefirelane on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:24:08 PM EST

True,
There was an interesting odor at the last Primus show I attended :)

But there is a difference between stoner, and pot smoker (see the other reply to my comment)

Whereas music done under the influence of marijuana can take many forms, "stoner" music seems to just be a musical collision of jam sounds with a large helping of shrill floating high pitches (Disco Biscuts, I'm looking at you)


---Lane

-
Prube.com: Like K5, but with less point.
[ Parent ]
Believe it if you need it, or leave it if you dare (none / 0) (#66)
by snowlion on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:24:11 PM EST


This is something a lot of stoners don't seem to realize, because they don't question it. When you ask them what their "deep" music means, you'll often receive a response like: "uhhh, you know, like, he's saying it's all uhh like a box of rain, you know? whoaaaa" I know that may be a bit of a harsh stereotype, but I think it rings true.

Do you need help interpreting Box of Rain? or Ripple?

I'd be happy to explain for you...

--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]

Havent you heard (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by Altus on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:56:30 PM EST

Everything that is in any way connected to drugs has no literary or spiritual merit, its all just the drugs.

This counts doubly for all of john lennin's works...

 
"In America, first you get the sugar, then you get the money, then you get the women..." -H. Simpson
[ Parent ]

Can you explain China Cat Sunflower, too? (none / 0) (#81)
by pyramid termite on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 12:48:33 AM EST

Suuuuurrrree, Robert Hunter says it's just words strung together to sound good - that's what he wants us to think. Never trust a Prankster.

On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
O ho! What did Robert Hunter say? (none / 0) (#85)
by snowlion on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:43:18 AM EST

Suuuuurrrree, Robert Hunter says it's just words strung together to sound good - that's what he wants us to think. Never trust a Prankster.

Oh ho! But you just did! What did Robert Hunter say again?

(You do see what I am saying, no?)
--
Map Your Thoughts
[ Parent ]

G. Love (none / 0) (#87)
by booyeah451 on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:52:01 AM EST

I have not heard of G. Love until now. His stuff is really good. You should also listen to Jack Johnson, who debuts on one of G. Loves's albums. I would not call it stoner rock though.

[ Parent ]
My take on stoner rock (4.00 / 1) (#54)
by cyberdruid on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 12:12:15 PM EST

Good article! It made me remember my good ol' Kyuss CDs and I promptly had to listen to "...And the circus leaves town" :). Damn, stoner rock is good stuff. A few more suggestions of bands that you did not mention, but could still be said to be in that genre: Karma to burn (Purely instrumental), Sleep (almost exclusively songs about drugs - good music, not much variation), Solarized (just one album yet. Promising).

While Monster Magnet has had stoner influences, I don't really know if they should be mentioned as one of the originators, since most of their stuff is either conventional MTV-rock (like their later stuff) or too spaced out (their first albums "Spine of God" and "Tab"). IMHO you can say that Tool is mostly a stoner band, even though they always add other influences as well (this musical talent and originality is what makes them famous in the first place).

Stoner Metal (3.00 / 1) (#60)
by MicroBerto on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 01:18:32 PM EST

I see you have Orange Goblin on your list, which is a cool band. You might also like Sea Of Green and Nebula, those are some other stoner metal bands.

I, however, will stick to my death metal! dalnet - #mp3_death and #mp3_metal

Berto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Bertoline - My comic strip

So rock is dead... (1.00 / 1) (#67)
by dr k on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:37:56 PM EST

Who cares?


Destroy all trusted users!

not me... (none / 0) (#68)
by tbc on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 03:45:41 PM EST

...but I'll give it 0 because you put work into the article. Let bolder K5'ers shoot it down completely.


[ Parent ]
Message from the corps: (2.00 / 2) (#72)
by xriso on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 07:15:05 PM EST

All your music genre are belong to us.

If you like it, we sell it.

We will make your music popular, or we will let it die.

Well, that's what I think they would say.
--
*** Quits: xriso:#kuro5hin (Forever)

Natas (4.00 / 1) (#76)
by jazzido on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:30:01 PM EST

I began listening stoner rock after i discovered Natas
Cool argentinian band. If i remember well, they're touring in the US now.

natas.proyectounder.com has some mp3s.

--
"Patriotism is the last resource of scoundrels" (Samuel Johnson)

Pink Floyd? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
by Keepiru on Wed Jun 26, 2002 at 11:33:22 PM EST

My gods, man, how can you miss Pink Floyd? Through decades, they have pretty consistantly produced albums that are:

Musically sophisticated both compositionally and in production;

Deep and meaningful without being cheesy;

Unique from album to album - each one is innovative, instead of just producing more of the last one; Just plain fun to listen to, because it really is good quality music.

It's music that is quite stimulating, either stone sober or through any of several chemical filters.

--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom

What? (3.50 / 2) (#88)
by dipipanone on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 03:53:23 AM EST

Deep and meaningful without being cheesy;

We evidently use very different definitions of the words 'deep', 'meaningful' and 'cheesy'.

--
Suck my .sig
[ Parent ]
Simple examples (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by Keepiru on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 04:44:59 AM EST

Britney Spears:

Don't go knockin' on my door
Gotta stay away for sure
You say you miss me like crazy now
But I ain't buyin' that
You better get off my back
Don't go knockin' on my door

You can get the rest here if you really care to read it. I think you can figure out the theme, though.

Pink Floyd:

Into the distance, a ribbon of black
stretched to the point of no turning back
a flight of fancy on a wind swept field
standing alone my sense reeled
a fatal attraction holding me fast, how
can I escape this irresistible grasp?
can't keep my eyes from the circling sky
tongue-tied & twisted just an earthbound misfit, I
ice is forming on the tips of my wings
unheeded warnings, I thought I thought of everything
no navigator to guide my way home
unladened, empty and turned to stone

The rest is here if you care to read it.

I'm not saying Pink's music is full of mind puzzles and prophetic wisdom. It's just well written stuff that's perfectly readable poetry in its own right. It eloquently potrays emotions (for instance, A Momentary Lapse of Reason). It has storytelling that goes far beyond the simple pointless anecdotes that most pop potrays (For instance, The Wall). It is worthy of critical analysis.

--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom

[ Parent ]

'Just plain fun...' - I think not (3.50 / 2) (#89)
by Obvious Pseudonym on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 04:14:35 AM EST

Just plain fun to listen to, because it really is good quality music.

In my experience, nothing kills a party quicker than a Pink Floyd albumn.

Obvious Pseudonym

I am obviously right, and as you disagree with me, then logically you must be wrong.
[ Parent ]

Party music? Nah (4.00 / 1) (#91)
by Keepiru on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 04:59:09 AM EST

If you've got 30 friends over, the house is rockin' you're all talking up a storm, and you really think you've got a chance of getting in the pants of whoever you've been lusting after all night, no, forget it. Pink ain't gonna do it. It's not *that* kind of fun. THAT kind of fun usually involves Infected Mushroom, at least in my house.

I've spent more than one good night in my life with a couple close friends, "Dark Side of the Moon", a good bottle of scotch, and the peace of mind to just sit down, shut the hell up for a good hour, and let ourselves get lost in the music.

Of course, my friends and I are kind of weird.

--Kai
--slashsuckATvegaDOTfurDOTcom

[ Parent ]

But it's good for calming a party down... (none / 0) (#107)
by Ricdude on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 02:18:25 PM EST

We used to end every party in college with Pink Floyd. Around 2-4 in the morning, the guests would leave, and just the rest of us from the dorm would be left. Someone would put on an old Pink Floyd album (Animals, or Meddle, usually). And we'd all just mellow out, and drift off to sleep/pass out in our chairs. Select Floyd tunes can be used during the more lively segments of a party (e.g. Another Brick In The Wall), but definitely be careful.

[ Parent ]
Money rules (5.00 / 1) (#92)
by djguvnor on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 05:00:22 AM EST

Unfortunately money rules this world. The Pop Top 40 is full of records that are designed to make money. They are manufactured to sound good to the ear, make you feel good and are fronted by attractive celebrities to convince us to part with our cash.
Because there's so much money around quite a lot of them sound good and may even be fairly original so the jury is out on whether this is a good thing.
Yes there are original tunes in the charts but it's become a tough industry to break into and there's so much music out there that the people at the top who control it can be very selective what they let in. This is perhaps why "stoner rock" and other genres of music are using the internet to promote themselves. They see that they can publish whatever they want for minimal cost and risk and get their music out into the world.
New music starts underground. Eventually enough people get to hear it and then the rest of the world will take notice.
For truly original music you have to hunt... For some new talent that you won't have heard before check out these.
visit: ukbassline.co.uk for new music by unsigned artists.
You could have written (none / 0) (#105)
by FredBloggs on Thu Jun 27, 2002 at 12:42:17 PM EST

"Unfortunately money rules this world. The Pop Top 40 is full of records that are designed to make money. They are manufactured to sound good to the ear, make you feel good and are fronted by attractive celebrities to convince us to part with our cash."

that at any point in the last 35 years! Remember the Monkeys? "Hey, we need a band which looks like that other band thats making all the money...no..no, that doesnt matter...no, we`ll overdub some session musicians later...yeah, 4...no, 4 guys.."


[ Parent ]

Another great band (none / 0) (#118)
by greenshift on Sat Jun 29, 2002 at 03:05:14 PM EST

Check out:

The Fucking Champs:  Techincally skilled Indie Stoner rock.  It's all instrumental, and they play on 9 string guitars.  They're on Drag City.

Stinking Lizaveta:  Kinda Helmet or Melvins-esque with some Fugazi influence.  On Tolotta records.

I was going to mention Karma to Burn, but one of your lists mentions them.

Also, it's funny that Queens of the Stone Age was interviewed by Anti-MTV.  Now MTV mentions them pretty much every week.  Anti-MTV sucks almost as much as MTV.  About 1/4th of the bands on Anti-MTV now get played or coddled by MTV.  


You're the kind of person I make music for... (4.00 / 1) (#133)
by anylulu on Thu Jul 04, 2002 at 04:28:30 AM EST

I'm a musician - singer/songwriter. My band is called anylulu . My drive as a muscician is to share my heart, my spirit, my experience of this world with listeners. To touch a pair of ears and inspire a rumination, an action, a musing, a sense of wonder... to connect with another through my music. This is why I play. I believe in the power of music to open us, connect us and direct us toward acting in harmony with our intrinsic spirit of humanity. There will always be evil in the world and a little bit in each of us, but with music we can share moments of unity and cultivate the strength to be better to each other.. I love how you love your Stoner Rock.
-- peace, love and anylulu http://www.anylulu.com
Thank you (none / 0) (#134)
by ThirdEye on Mon Jul 08, 2002 at 02:03:15 PM EST

It's always nice to know someone actually feels the same way about something, at least I know I'm not all that crazy, which is comforting :) Good luck with your music, I'll be sure to check out the mp3's on your site.

[ Parent ]
We're probably both crazy (none / 0) (#135)
by anylulu on Wed Jul 17, 2002 at 06:55:10 AM EST

but it's usually the crazy people who are messengers. :)
-- peace, love and anylulu http://www.anylulu.com
[ Parent ]
Novus sonitus seclorum | 133 comments (113 topical, 20 editorial, 1 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!