Worst lyric(s) of all time?!
Neil Sarver
I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
My nomination is "I don't want to touch you too much baby, 'cos making
love to you might drive me crazy..." from "Love Bites" by Def Leppard
(if you disagree give the Softy Speaks Out at
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/speaks.html a shot).
Please fill out the questionaire at
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/form.html
Thank you :)
--
Neil
The Bleeding Tree
http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271
--
"In every country the Communists have taken over, the first thing they
do is outlaw cockfighting"
--John Monks, Oklahoma state representative
Geir Hongro
I'd advice you to listen to more records by Non-English-speaking
groups.
How about this passage from "You're My Heart, You're My Soul" by
Modern Talking?:
Deep in my heart there's a fire burning heart.
Deep in my heart there's desire for a start.
I'm dying in emotion. Makes the world my fantasy.
Living in my, living in my dreams.
You're my heart, you're my soul... etc.....
--
Geir Hongro
******************************************************
Beatles,Beach Boys,Paul Simon,Genesis,Yes, Pink Floyd,
10cc,Queen,ELO,Split Enz,Madness,XTC,Squeeze,Aztec
Camera,Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,Depeche Mode,
Human League,Yazoo,Erasure,Cure,Lightning Seeds,
Crowded House,Dodgy,Blur,Oasis,Radiohead, Supernaturals
*******************************************************
Norwegian: http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/
English: http://home.sol.no/knhongro/Geir/andnow.htm
Rick Tunnicliffe
In article <5t6htq$q0...@hkusud.hku.hk>, Paul McGregor's Microphone Stand
<NOJUNKj...@NOJUNKhotmail.com> writes
>In article <33F66A...@geocities.com>, soft...@geocities.com wrote:
>>I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
>>
From that Osmonds song recently covered by Boyzone:
Don't love me for fun, girl
Let me be the one, girl
Love me for a reason
Let the reason be love.
It makes me squirm just typing them in.
--
Rick Tunnicliffe aka Jennifer Beanbag at ri...@tunnicliffe.demon.co.uk
"Apparently Ocean Colour Scene have threatened to blow Radiohead off the stage
at Glastonbury. The only person Ocean Colour Scene are ever going to blow off
stage is Paul Weller, every night after every gig."-Noel's Glastonbury Review
Paul McGregor's Microphone Stand
In article <33F66A...@geocities.com>, soft...@geocities.com wrote:
>I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
>
>love to you might drive me crazy..." from "Love Bites" by Def Leppard
"If I was a booger would you blow your nose" - Lemonheads
"Suppose a rock's out of the question" - Def Leppard
Tom Ewing
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:04:42 -0700, Neil Sarver
<soft...@geocities.com> wrote:
>I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
Look no further than 'Russians' by Sting.
Tom.
"Fuck Godard, he's just another Beatle!"
- some detourned comic or other, the 60s.
Persi's Dead
In article <33f8ce74...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk says...
>
>On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:04:42 -0700, Neil Sarver
><soft...@geocities.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
>
>Look no further than 'Russians' by Sting.
Worse than Dodgy, Tom?
--
****Notable NEW Releases****
Christoph De Babylon -Seven Up EP (Dark scary jungle from the DHR label)
Coldcut - More Beats and Pieces EP (Including excellent Q-bert and Kid Koala
mixes)
Teenage Fanclub - Songs From Northern Britian
DJ's Wally and Swingsett - Dog Leg Left (Amazing US trip-hop)
Penny Black Presents 'Breakage Vol 1' (Ray Keith shows 'em how jungle is
done!)
Daniel W. Pyun
Paul McGregor's Microphone Stand wrote:
>
> In article <33F66A...@geocities.com>, soft...@geocities.com wrote:
> >I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
> >
> >love to you might drive me crazy..." from "Love Bites" by Def Leppard
>
> "If I was a booger would you blow your nose" - Lemonheads
>
> "Suppose a rock's out of the question" - Def Leppard
come on, that lemonheads line is great. gives a nice visual doesn't it?
damn funny too.
Daniel W. Pyun
how about that song that's starts
" I hate the world around me"
is that bitch(meredith brooks)?
anyway both songs blow goat. the lyrocs are pretty pathetic. she
sounds like she's trying to be angst filled and cynical but jsut sounds
like she is trying to much and not writing about her feelings. if
you're not pissed and angst filled, don't write about that shit. write
happy shit. you'll probably make a better song.
Heather
Neil Sarver wrote:
>
> I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
>
> My nomination is "I don't want to touch you too much baby, 'cos making
> love to you might drive me crazy..." from "Love Bites" by Def Leppard
> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/speaks.html a shot).
>
> Please fill out the questionaire at
> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271/form.html
>
> Thank you :)
> --
> Neil
> The Bleeding Tree
> http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/3271
> --
>
> "In every country the Communists have taken over, the first thing they
> do is outlaw cockfighting"
> --John Monks, Oklahoma state representative
I'd hafta say "rappers delight" by the sugar hill gang.
--
-Heather
Never trust a hippie.
Geir Hongro
eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:
>On 19 Aug 1997 07:51:50 GMT, cow...@ix.netcom.com (Persi's Dead)
>wrote:
>
>>>Look no further than 'Russians' by Sting.
>>
>>Worse than Dodgy, Tom?
>
>be beaten in my lifetime, although 'Dolphins Make Me Cry' by
>whoever-it-was had a good shot.
I suppose you don't like the lyrics of "Don't Kill The Whale" by
Yes.
Politically Correct lyrics may be a bit irritating, but nothing is
worse than uninspired love lyrics.
Anyway: Who am I to write about lyrics? After all I don't consider
the lyrics part of the music at all :-)
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
In article <33F9A3...@69.37>, 4...@69.37 wrote:
>how about that song that's starts
>" I hate the world around me"
>is that bitch(meredith brooks)?
Actually, it starts 'I hate the world today', but you're close.
>anyway both songs blow goat. the lyrocs are pretty pathetic. she
>sounds like she's trying to be angst filled and cynical but jsut sounds
>like she is trying to much and not writing about her feelings. if
>you're not pissed and angst filled, don't write about that shit. write
>happy shit. you'll probably make a better song.
Now, I'm not a huge fan of the song, but that's not what she's writing
about at all. Listen to the lyrics carefully. She's basically saying she
admires her boyfriend for putting up with her moods. According to
Meredith, she meant it as an 'embracing of all aspects of personality,
even the bad ones'. Whether it resulted in a good song, well, I won't pass
judgement, but she isn't trying to be angsty on it.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
Step-by-Step Guide to Being a Philosopher:
1. Exist.
2. Observe
3. Contemplate steps 1 and 2.
4. Continue to exist.
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
dougal mckinnon
Tom Ewing wrote:
> >I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
>
> Look no further than 'Russians' by Sting.
>
Or the entire Queen back catalogue.
Tom Ewing
>>Look no further than 'Russians' by Sting.
>
>Worse than Dodgy, Tom?
By a mile. I very much doubt whether the jaw-dropping 'Russians' will
be beaten in my lifetime, although 'Dolphins Make Me Cry' by
whoever-it-was had a good shot.
Tom.
The Last Five Records I Got:
V/A - Kiss And Tell (Girl Group Comp.)
V/A - United Dance Vol 6 (Happy Hardcore)
Can - Landed
Baader Meinhof - Baader Meinhof
Broadcast - Work And Non-Work
Investigate at your own risk. Satisfaction not guaranteed.
Tom Ewing
>I'd hafta say "rappers delight" by the sugar hill gang.
Now for all that Rapper's Delight runs out of steam around the, oh, 12
minute mark, it's still got enough great bits not to qualify. Super
sperm and all that.
Tom Ewing
On 19 Aug 1997 23:57:32 GMT, Geir Hongro <gho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I suppose you don't like the lyrics of "Don't Kill The Whale" by
>Yes.
>
>Politically Correct lyrics may be a bit irritating, but nothing is
>worse than uninspired love lyrics.
Havent heard the Yes track, but even from the titles there's a
difference. "Don't Kill The Whale" is a bit sanctimonious but just a
political song. "Dolphins Make Me Cry" OTOH brings the singer into it,
presumably to emphasise what a sensitive new man *he* is. That's when
I dont like it.
Gregg Ensminger
Neil Sarver wrote:
>
> I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
Honestly, I don't know what the worst lyrics of all time are, but
they're probably being written, recorded, or performed by Mariah Carey.
:)
Gregg Ensminger
(Replace "moc" with "com" in e-mail address to reply by e-mail)
Geir Hongro
eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:
>Havent heard the Yes track, but even from the titles there's a
>difference. "Don't Kill The Whale" is a bit sanctimonious but >just a political song.
As you may guess we Norwegians don't like political songs against
whale hunting :-)
Kris Srinivasan
What about that Big Black song where Albini goes "I've never hung a darkie
but I've clothed and fed one" or something like that? It has about the
same effect as that Russians song. Remember, we share the same biology,
regardless of ideology.
Kris.
===============================================================
Listen to "The Brick Collage" with me, d.Broglie.
Thursdays 4-7 AM (PST) on 90.3 KDVS in Davis, California
Visit http://www.geocities.com/soho/5708/bricolage.html
for playlists, a live Realaudio feed to KDVS, and assorted fun.
"They're gonna start with the Blitzkrieg Bop,
And we'll be havin' fun...
And when they get to the Cretin Hop,
We'll know they're almost done."
- "The End of the Ramones," Mr. T Experience
Stephen Miller
eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) writes:
>On 19 Aug 1997 07:51:50 GMT, cow...@ix.netcom.com (Persi's Dead)
>wrote:
>>>Look no further than 'Russians' by Sting.
>>
>>Worse than Dodgy, Tom?
>By a mile. I very much doubt whether the jaw-dropping 'Russians' will
>be beaten in my lifetime, although 'Dolphins Make Me Cry' by
>whoever-it-was had a good shot.
You bastard! Now I have "...there is no historical precedent to put the
words in the mouth of the president" running through my head. I shall
attempt to retaliate by bludgeoning you with Oreo Chuckwagon:
I heard it from a friend, who
heard it from a friend, who
heard it from another you been messin' around
But I don't believe it
Not for a minute
(pronunciation guide: it --> "et", minute --> "mee-net")
May you suffer for your transgression!
Steve.
Kris Srinivasan
Kris Srinivasan (ez05...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: What about that Big Black song where Albini goes "I've never hung a darkie
: but I've clothed and fed one" or something like that? It has about the
: same effect as that Russians song. Remember, we share the same biology,
: regardless of ideology.
I was just thinking...Sting isn't even correct. Assuming thoughts (and
therefore ideologies) have some sort of biochemical basis (which I think
is pretty well accepted truth; the brain does not operate through magic)
Sting is just talking his usual horseshit again.
Booty...
Path:
szdc!super.zippo.com!lotsanews.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.
net!Sprint!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!infeed2.internetmc
i.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!164.67.42.145!nntp.info.ucla.edu!mark.ucdavis
.edu!bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu!not-for-mail
From: ez05...@bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu (Kris Srinivasan)
Newsgroups:
alt.music,alt.music.alternative,alt.punk,rec.music.misc,alt.music.mariah.car
ey
Subject: Re: Worst lyric(s) of all time?!
Followup-To:
alt.music,alt.music.alternative,rec.music.misc,alt.music.mariah.carey
Date: 20 Aug 1997 18:14:27 GMT
Organization: University of California, Davis
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <5tfc63$r2n$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>
References: <33F66A...@geocities.com> <33FA9F...@geocities.moc>
NNTP-Posting-Host: bullwinkle.ucdavis.edu
X-Trace: mark.ucdavis.edu 872100867 27735 (None) 128.120.8.167
X-Complaints-To: use...@ucdavis.edu
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950824BETA PL0]
Xref: szdc alt.music:15041 alt.music.alternative:102230 alt.punk:125746
rec.music.misc:31108 alt.music.mariah.carey:6469
Kris Srinivasan wrote in article <5tfc63$r2n$2...@mark.ucdavis.edu>...
>What about that Big Black song where Albini goes "I've never hung a darkie
>but I've clothed and fed one" or something like that? It has about the
>same effect as that Russians song. Remember, we share the same biology,
>regardless of ideology.
>
>Kris.
>===============================================================
>Listen to "The Brick Collage" with me, d.Broglie.
>Thursdays 4-7 AM (PST) on 90.3 KDVS in Davis, California
>
>Visit http://www.geocities.com/soho/5708/bricolage.html
>for playlists, a live Realaudio feed to KDVS, and assorted fun.
>
>"They're gonna start with the Blitzkrieg Bop,
> And we'll be havin' fun...
> And when they get to the Cretin Hop,
> We'll know they're almost done."
>
> - "The End of the Ramones," Mr. T Experience
This off-topic spam forwarded to ISP abuse authority.
Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
Geir Hongro wrote:
>
> As you may guess we Norwegians don't like political songs against
> whale hunting :-)
Hmm...a smile indicating sarcasm? You're obviously not feeling well
today, Geir.
--
O-O-O- Founder of the alt.music.alternative Court of Star Chamber O-O-O-
O-O- Minister of Obscure Musics, Britpop/Isolationist Division, DNRC O-O
Ned Raggett n...@kuci.org nrag...@uci.edu
Listowner for the Oasis, Suede, Sparks and T. Rex lists -- ask for info!
"I just think I can play football
I wear a letterman jacket with no letter at all
Cause I is the jock and U is the homeboy..."
-- Raunchy Young Lepers, "(I Is the Jock) and U is the Homeboy"
O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- http://kuci.org/~nraggett/ O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-
Go...@mariahc.com
On 20 Aug 1997 00:43:01 -0700, Gregg Ensminger <gct...@geocities.moc>
wrote:
here's one of the worst lyrics...i think it's called Gregg
Ensminger...pathetic lyrics...just read the top.
Steve Monnot
Apparently, you haven't actaully LISTENED to the lyrics. I'm no Meridith
Brooks fan, but the song is about the many sides of our personalities.
No angst is intended. Use your ears.
Steve M.
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
In article <5thvp9$p...@news.cei.net>, gero...@fs.cei.net (Tom Geronimo) wrote:
> Thats a tough one to nail down since there are so many tunes to
>select from. How about "Rio" from Duran Duran. Hell! How about
>any song by Duran Duran?
My god, are you mad? Rio-period Duran Duran are brilliant...too bad they
are dreadful now. At any rate, nothing Duran Duran have done is equal in
sheer crap level to this:
Someone's knocking at the door
Somebody's ringing the bell
Someone's knocking at the door
Somebody's ringing the bell
Do me a favour?
Open the door...
...And let 'em in
Oooh yeah
Yeah, thanks for the fucking advice, Sir Paul. I couldn't have figured
that one out without you.
Cheers,
Lulu
N.B.: For full effect, sing the song while imagining crap flute noises in
the background, reminiscent of the Unbirthday Song from Alice in
Wonderland.
Stephen Miller
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds) writes:
>In article <33F9A3...@69.37>, 4...@69.37 wrote:
>>how about that song that's starts
>>" I hate the world around me"
>>is that bitch(meredith brooks)?
>Actually, it starts 'I hate the world today', but you're close.
>>anyway both songs blow goat. the lyrocs are pretty pathetic. she
>>sounds like she's trying to be angst filled and cynical but jsut sounds
>>like she is trying to much and not writing about her feelings. if
>>you're not pissed and angst filled, don't write about that shit. write
>>happy shit. you'll probably make a better song.
>Now, I'm not a huge fan of the song, but that's not what she's writing
>about at all. Listen to the lyrics carefully. She's basically saying she
>admires her boyfriend for putting up with her moods. According to
>Meredith, she meant it as an 'embracing of all aspects of personality,
>even the bad ones'. Whether it resulted in a good song, well, I won't pass
>judgement, but she isn't trying to be angsty on it.
My initial reaction upon hearing that song was "hmm, someone's
ripping off 'Sex, I'm A...' by Berlin". Regardless, the song isn't
up to par.
Returning to the thread's theme, I nominate the Smiths for this choice
lyric: "Some girls are bigger than others, and some girls' mothers
are bigger than other girls' mothers". Blech. Nice tune, otherwise.
Steve.
Keith Mills
Rick Tunnicliffe wrote:
>
> In article <5t6htq$q0...@hkusud.hku.hk>, Paul McGregor's Microphone Stand
> <NOJUNKj...@NOJUNKhotmail.com> writes
> >In article <33F66A...@geocities.com>, soft...@geocities.com wrote:
> >>I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
> >>
>
>
> Don't love me for fun, girl
> Let me be the one, girl
> Love me for a reason
> Let the reason be love.
>
> It makes me squirm just typing them in.
This is actually an old Osmonds song, and is not their worst ever lyric.
Try "Long Haired Lover From Liverpool", or "Morrning Side Of the
Mountain".
My candidate.
"Butterfly Kisses" by Bob Carlisle,
Keith
Doctor Badass
Anything by a japanese band singing in english.
--Dr. Badass
On Sun, 17 Aug 1997, Paul McGregor's Microphone Stand wrote:
> In article <33F66A...@geocities.com>, soft...@geocities.com wrote:
> >I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
> >
> >My nomination is "I don't want to touch you too much baby, 'cos making
> >love to you might drive me crazy..." from "Love Bites" by Def Leppard
>
Justin
On Sat, 16 Aug 1997 20:04:42 -0700, Neil Sarver
like so:
>I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
"Riot Naked" by Clit 45.
The song consists of a simble bass line, plinking guitar and the
words:
'Riot naked'
sung in the most idiotic voice over and over.
Justin
!!!KILL WHITEY!!!
Daniel W. Pyun
I didn't listen tot he song with that much concentration,(cause it
sucks). Meaning aside, it still sucks and has crappy lyrics. Can't
really explain it, it just hits me as REALLY shitty.
dan
Daniel W. Pyun
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds wrote:
>
> In article <33F9A3...@69.37>, 4...@69.37 wrote:
>
> >how about that song that's starts
> >" I hate the world around me"
> >is that bitch(meredith brooks)?
>
> Actually, it starts 'I hate the world today', but you're close.
>
> >anyway both songs blow goat. the lyrocs are pretty pathetic. she
> >sounds like she's trying to be angst filled and cynical but jsut sounds
> >like she is trying to much and not writing about her feelings. if
> >you're not pissed and angst filled, don't write about that shit. write
> >happy shit. you'll probably make a better song.
>
> Now, I'm not a huge fan of the song, but that's not what she's writing
> about at all. Listen to the lyrics carefully. She's basically saying she
> admires her boyfriend for putting up with her moods. According to
> Meredith, she meant it as an 'embracing of all aspects of personality,
> even the bad ones'. Whether it resulted in a good song, well, I won't pass
> judgement, but she isn't trying to be angsty on it.
>
> Lulu
>
> --
> Step-by-Step Guide to Being a Philosopher:
> 1. Exist.
> 2. Observe
> 3. Contemplate steps 1 and 2.
> 4. Continue to exist.
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
they were SO bad. Also,I'm not trying to be a philosopher. There was a
thread asking for what people thought what was the worst lyric. I
answered. The song is bad though from whatever standpoint you take.
You may like it, that's cool, just means your taste in music is probably
not that great.
dan
amanda elizabeth riley
let's see:
"My ding-a-ling...i want you to play with my ding-a-ling"
olivia newton john: "let's get physical, physical. i wanna get
physical..let me hear your body talk.." i don't know what she's
thinking but i don't think i want to hear someone's body talk and i
don't think that's possible anyway.
THE SMITHS: "Girlfiend in a coma, i know i know, it's serious..."
no really? if someone's in a coma it's definitely serious.
THE NORMAL: "WARM LEATHERETTE"...this song came before the saturday
night live skit "sprockets" so if any of you are thinking that the idea
was truly original...guess again
LIONEL RICHIE: 'Oh what a feeling...when were dancing on the
ceiling"...how does one dance on a ceiling?
OASIS: "Wonderwall"...what the hell is a wonderwall and how can a
person be one?
MORE TO COME....
In <5thvp9$p...@news.cei.net> gero...@fs.cei.net (Tom Geronimo) writes:
>
> Thats a tough one to nail down since there are so many tunes to
>select from. How about "Rio" from Duran Duran. Hell! How about
>any song by Duran Duran?
>
> Might want to toss in any Go-Go's piece as well.
jaded_fuk (SPICE GIRLS)
tigg...@ix.netcom.com(amanda elizabeth riley ) really meant to say
something about the Spice Girls but instead said this...:
Ordinarily I'd agree with most of what you said, but you seem to have
some trouble with humor and irony.
:let's see:
:"My ding-a-ling...i want you to play with my ding-a-ling"
It's supposed to be funny.
:
:olivia newton john: "let's get physical, physical. i wanna get
:physical..let me hear your body talk.." i don't know what she's
:thinking but i don't think i want to hear someone's body talk and i
:don't think that's possible anyway.
:
Um, well, yes, this one is sort of dumb.
:THE SMITHS: "Girlfiend in a coma, i know i know, it's serious..."
:no really? if someone's in a coma it's definitely serious.
:
Um, well, yes, out of context of the rest of the song, which is
supposed to be cynical and humorous, these lyrics are dumb but in
context they are rather clever.
:THE NORMAL: "WARM LEATHERETTE"...this song came before the saturday
:night live skit "sprockets" so if any of you are thinking that the idea
:was truly original...guess again
:
And if you think that Daniel Miller - aka the Normal, was original you
don't know much about european electonic music. He was inspired by
Kraftwerk, CAN, Neu and tons of others who came before him. Sprockets
was making more fun of Kraftwerk than of Daniel Miller.
:LIONEL RICHIE: 'Oh what a feeling...when were dancing on the
:ceiling"...how does one dance on a ceiling?
:
As much as I loathe Lionel Richie I do understand the sentiment in
this song. It's an expression of over the top joy. A metaphor, if
you will, for overwhelming happiness.
:OASIS: "Wonderwall"...what the hell is a wonderwall and how can a
:person be one?
:
Far be it from me to buck up Oasis. They suck.
-TEX
-
"Good art has no meaning"
-Jim Rantschler
Kevin Chan
amanda elizabeth riley wrote:
>
>
> OASIS: "Wonderwall"...what the hell is a wonderwall and how can a
> person be one?
>
regardless of whatever a "wonderwall" is, the song still doesnt qualify
as one of containing the worst lyrics of all time. I mean, its a rather
simple song about how someone is gonna be the one in their life...The
one that makes everything change for the better. "cos maybe you're gonna
be the one that saves me"...Its sorta a love song, y'know...I mean,
"I don't believe that anybody feels the way I do about you know" and
"There are many things that I would like to say to you, but I don't know
how" is rather love-ish and expressing the singer's need for(presumably)
his girlfriend or whatever...
btw, I think Bis is alright, but lyrically speaking, isnt Kandy Pop
rather horrible ? "sugar sugar kandy pop, just don't let the music stop"
kevin chan
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/6273/index.html
np: nothing
Geir Hongro
tigg...@ix.netcom.com(amanda elizabeth riley ) wrote:
>OASIS: "Wonderwall"...what the hell is a wonderwall and how can a
>person be one?
I would say this is an example of the one GOOD thing about Oasis
lyrics. You can search for days and days to search for Beatles
references in those otherwise dumb lyrics, and that "Wonderwall"
thing (Originally a Harrison soundtrack album released in 1967)
definitely is one of those numerous Beatles references.
--
Geir Hongro
******************************************************
Beatles,Beach Boys,Hollies,Paul Simon,Genesis,Yes,
Pink Floyd,10cc,Queen,ELO,Marillion,Split Enz,Madness,
XTC,Squeeze,Aztec Camera,Prefab Sprout,Scritti Politti,
Gangway,Depeche Mode,Human League,OMD,Yazoo,Erasure,
Cure,Pet Shop Boys,Lightning Seeds,Crowded House,Dodgy,
Blur,Oasis,Radiohead,Kula Shaker,Supernaturals,Orbital
Geir Hongro
>>select from. How about "Rio" from Duran Duran. Hell! How about
>>any song by Duran Duran?
>
>are dreadful now.
Duran Duran are underrated, but talking about lyrics, as we do
here, just take a look at the lyrics to "Planet Earth".
Look down, look all around.
Can you hear me now?
Voices - not a sound. Can you hear me now?
This is Planet Earth.
You're docking at Planet Earth.
Pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa
Calling Planet Earth.
Intelligent, eh?
>At any rate, nothing Duran Duran have done is equal in
>sheer crap level to this:
>Someone's knocking at the door
>Somebody's ringing the bell
>Someone's knocking at the door
>Somebody's ringing the bell
>Do me a favour?
>Open the door...
>...And let 'em in
>Oooh yeah
For all of McCartneys melodic brilliance (IMO he's the best
songwriter ever) that lyric is truly laughable, yes :-)
brad
On 23 Aug 1997 23:10:29 GMT, Geir Hongro <gho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I would say this is an example of the one GOOD thing about Oasis
>lyrics. You can search for days and days to search for Beatles
>references in those otherwise dumb lyrics,
Well, yes you can. But would you really fuckin want to?
I think not.
brad
15 days.
The new beauty school dropout page is at-
http://www.bradbsd.demon.co.uk/school.html
And it's still crap.
Geir Hongro
texstorm@*nospam*pacbell.net (jaded_fuk (SPICE GIRLS)) wrote:
>:"My ding-a-ling...i want you to play with my ding-a-ling"
>
>It's supposed to be funny.
Supposed, yes, but it is not.
Geir Hongro
How about "How Much Is That Doggie In The Window?"?
Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds
In article <5tnqua$6lu$1...@news1.sol.no>, Geir Hongro <gho...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lucy in the Sky with
>Diamonds) wrote:
>>My god, are you mad? Rio-period Duran Duran are brilliant...too bad they
>>are dreadful now.
>Duran Duran are underrated, but talking about lyrics, as we do
>here, just take a look at the lyrics to "Planet Earth".
>Look down, look all around.
>Can you hear me now?
>Voices - not a sound. Can you hear me now?
>This is Planet Earth.
>You're docking at Planet Earth.
>Pa pa pa pa pa pa pa pa
>Calling Planet Earth.
>Intelligent, eh?
I've heard far worse. Like, for instance, most anything Dodgy has ever written.
>>At any rate, nothing Duran Duran have done is equal in
>>sheer crap level to this:
>>Someone's knocking at the door
>>Somebody's ringing the bell
>>Someone's knocking at the door
>>Somebody's ringing the bell
>>Do me a favour?
>>Open the door...
>>...And let 'em in
>>Oooh yeah
>For all of McCartneys melodic brilliance (IMO he's the best
>songwriter ever) that lyric is truly laughable, yes :-)
My god, *Paul McCartney* is the best songwriter ever? Then you haven't
heard Martha My Dear? My Love? Say Say Say? He's a wanker; the talent in
the Beatles was John Lennon, who not only did nice work with the Beatles,
but also had a very good solo career. I mean, come on, melody isn't the
*only* thing in songwriting (and melodic 'brilliance' is off topic in this
thread at any rate, as you pointed out above, with Duran Duran). Paul just
went to nursery rhymes once he was solo, and when they went into the
period of the Beatles where they were no longer helping each other, he
didn't often get much better than nursery rhymes (obviously, there are a
few exceptions, like some of his work on Abbey Road). *shrugs* Paul's
easily as overrated as the Stone Roses, I think.
People like to get on Oasis's back for 'lyrical simplicity', but if you
want to see damn near lyrical mental retardation, just look at Paul's solo
work. Easily the creator of the worst lyrics of all time, far worse than
anything out today (some of his songs make Wannabe look lyrically
ingenious). For instance:
Wo wo wo wo wo
Wo wo wo wo wo
My love does it GOOD
Etc.
Or:
The butter wouldn't melt
So they put it in the pie
Hands across the water (water)
Hands (or is it heads, which makes even less sense) across the sky
I like what Dave Barry said about Sir Paul: 'The man was in the BEATLES,
yet this is what he does in his solo career? Did aliens suck out his
brain? Is this Pod Person Paul?' As far as I'm concerned, the man only had
two actually good songs in his entire solo career, which were Mull of
Kintyre and Band on the Run. The rest of it is rubbish, stuff you listen
to in the same way you listen to the Village People: to have a good laugh.
Cheers,
Lulu, who ain't too keen on Band on the Run either.
Tom Ewing
On Tue, 19 Aug 1997 15:50:18 -0700,
>In article <33F9A3...@69.37>, 4...@69.37 wrote:
>
>>how about that song that's starts
>>" I hate the world around me"
>>is that bitch(meredith brooks)?
>
>Actually, it starts 'I hate the world today', but you're close.
>
>>anyway both songs blow goat. the lyrocs are pretty pathetic. she
>>sounds like she's trying to be angst filled and cynical but jsut sounds
>>like she is trying to much and not writing about her feelings. if
>>you're not pissed and angst filled, don't write about that shit. write
>>happy shit. you'll probably make a better song.
>
>Now, I'm not a huge fan of the song, but that's not what she's writing
>about at all. Listen to the lyrics carefully. She's basically saying she
>admires her boyfriend for putting up with her moods. According to
>Meredith, she meant it as an 'embracing of all aspects of personality,
>even the bad ones'. Whether it resulted in a good song, well, I won't pass
>judgement, but she isn't trying to be angsty on it.
Yes, but this is the thing about writing songs with double meanings or
which are meant ironically. The meaning the author intends to subvert
*is still there*, authorial intention be damned. It's like, yes we all
know that 'Born In The USA' has 'subversive' lyrics and that Bruce
didn't mean it to be a big nationalistic anthem, but it is one for all
of that.
Tom.
The Last Five Records I Got:
The Beastie Boys - License To Ill
Ash Ra Tempel - Ash Ra Tempel
Workshop - Meguiweismeng Xiang
Lee Scratch Perry - Vs The Mad Professor In Dub
Mott The Hoople - Greatest Hits
DC Rude
dougal mckinnon wrote:
>
> Tom Ewing wrote:
>
> > >I'm searching for the worst lyric(s).
> >
> >
>
"I love to ride my bicycle I love to ride my bike, I love to ride my
bicycle I ride it where I like"
Queen can pull off some pathetic lyrics...
Andy
Nate Patrin
Joe McGlinchey <jb...@columbia.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.95L.97082...@ahnnyong.cc.columbia.edu>...
> Other personal choices:
>
> - "I'm so glad, I'm so glad, I'm glad I'm glad I'm glad"
> -CREAM, "I'm so Glad"
To be honest, that's just the chorus (albeit a stupid one). The rest of the
song, if a bit mumbly and hard to decipher, isn't that bad. (Not genius,
but not in the ranks with Alanis Morrisomethingorother.) I mean, by
extension you could slag lyrics like "No fun, my babe, no fun" or "kill
kill kill kill kill the poor" but in my opinion the entirety of those
songs' lyrics (by the Stooges and the Dead Kennedys, respectively) are
reasonably good. Otherwise, your choices are pretty damned dead on. Greg
Lake is the Antichrist.
-Nate "And Greg Lake is an anarchist...?" Patrin
DC Rude
>
> come on, that lemonheads line is great. gives a nice visual doesn't it?
> damn funny too.
Isn't this what happens when alt.punk gets cross-posted to
alt.music.alternative?
Andy
DC Rude
I'm prepared to award the latter Clash songs
("The Following is a poublic suhvice announcement! With Guitah!") Doood!
Rawk n' Roll!
Andy
(Or maybe the whole build-up to the Bullshit Initiative (The song not
the album) by Positive state. Actually that's just plain annoying.
Andy (once again)
Geir Hongro
DC Rude <acus...@erols.com> wrote:
>"I love to ride my bicycle I love to ride my bike, I love to ride >my bicycle I ride it where I like"
>Queen can pull off some pathetic lyrics...
:-)
How about "We Are The Champions"? :-)
Ben
L>>>He's <Paul> a wanker; the talent in
L>>>the Beatles was John Lennon, who not only did nice work with the
L>>>Beatles, but also had a very good solo career.
G>>
G>>Lennon's solo career? Now that's an overrated thing. I agree John
G>>did some great work with the Beatles (Although only before 1968),
C'mon Geir! His best stuff came out of 68's White Album sessions!
Songs such as 'Sexy Sadie', 'Cry Baby Cry', 'Happiness is a Warm Gun',
'Dear Prudence', 'Revolution', 'Everybody's got something to hide...', &
'I'm So Tired', as well as my fave solo Lennon song 'Jealous Guy', which
was also written in '68 in India, are amongst his - & musics - greatest
moments ever.
Along with 'Rain' & 'I Am the Walrus' these songs are all his best, IMO.
G>>but after that the only decent songs he wrote were "Imagine",
G>>"Woman" and "Watching The Wheels". The rest is untalented 50s
G>>inspired rock, sounding as if though the Beatles had never
G>>existed.
Well he didn't care at the time if they did or not (although he said
later he went too far in making a point of this), but songs like
'Mother', 'God', 'Dear Yoko', 'Instant Karma', 'Give Me Some Truth',
'Mind Games', 'Happy xmas' etc. etc. are all generally considered to be
better than the rather overly soppy (IMO) 'Woman'.
-BEN
"The clouds will be a daisy chain,
So let me see you smile again"
(remove x's to mail)
Lulu Spice
In article <34048b20...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>On 26 Aug 1997 21:14:57 GMT, Geir Hongro <gho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Nothing wrong with "Martha My Dear". And if you are to point out
>>terrible examples of his solo work there are certainly worse
>>things than "My Love" and "Say Say Say". "You Gave Me No Answer"
>>was lousy, but McCartney has always written the greatest ballads
>>in the world.
>I'd take hundreds of ballad writers over McCartney, who had a knack
>for penning standards, but whose songs rarely touch me. Brian Wilson
>and Smokey Robinson, to name two of his contemporaries, were way
>better.
My opinion exactly. McCartney is easily the most overrated balladeer of
this century, hands down. His idea of a ballad is to put some cheesy
lyrics ('Wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo, my lurrve does it *good*', etc)
over 'emotional' music, and it's all a bit of a mess. I reckon that the
only McCartney songs I truly like are Mull of Kintyre (and I don't know
why I like that one, cos it's no good at all) and Maybe I'm Amazed. Most
of his work with the Beatles is overrated, too. Smokey Robinson is
great...there are just so many ballads and love songs out there that blow
every last thing that McCartney has *ever* done away. Incidentally, I
can't be the only one who sees a very major mistake in that first sentence
of Geir's...
>That said, "You Gave Me The Answer" isn't so bad. I've certainly no
>problem with McCartney returning to the 20s tin pan alley / show tune
>stuff that his parents liked - I think it's quite endearing, in fact,
>and anything that broadens his palette past the soft rock/pop styles
>he'd lapsed into by that point was to be welcomed.
Hey, I agree with you here too. Except for the insufferable Martha My
Dear. But, for instance, I reckon one of his best songs with the Beatles
was When I'm 64. It's not much cop, but that's the point. It's fun. As
opposed to his horrible, slumberous ballads that make 2 Become 1 look the
model of subtlety.
>Not quite. But Lennon's solo career is a really uneven thing, true -
>the primal scream album may have been daring at the time (though way
>less so than Yoko's counterpart, as I think I've said elsewhere) but
>it's a lot of work now. "Imagine" has either been played to death or
>was a stiff all along, and the rest of that album is variable - the
>odd stunning song ('Jealous Guy') and a fair amount that hasn't aged
>well for me. And 'Double Fantasy' I find pretty wretched, despite
>Yoko's closer involvement.
I really liked Double Fantasy; most of it was just silly pop songs,
similar to the stuff Paul had tried to produce, but it was a much better
excuse for silly pop. As for Imagine, I think that the album itself is
stunning, but you're entirely right on the overplaying of Imagine
(remember on the tenth anniversary of his death? Every radio station in
the world at the time played that song, all at once, I think). And I like
some of his other solo albums better than that one. But I will note that,
though I deleted it, I marked Lennon's solo career as being 'much better
than Paul's' -- and as far as I'm concerned, a manatee making weird little
sounds under the ocean is better than things like 'Silly Love Songs' and
'Hi Hi Hi'.
>"Walking On Thin Ice", incidentally, beats anything either man
>recorded solo hands down.
Wow -- someone else who can talk about Yoko without mentioning the words
'untalented' and 'bitch'. She's a very interesting artist; I reckon she's
very underrated.
>>What the fuck is wrong with nursery rhymes? Nursery rhymes are
>>some of the most wonderful melodic songs ever written.
Right. I will reply to Geir's entry, in full, as soon as I get the full
message on my server, but I will reply to THIS right now: There is a whole
helluva lot more to music than melody, and, in fact, I reckon that if Paul
McCartney knew that you were basing your estimation of his music on the
melody alone, and that 'lyrics don't matter', he would be highly offended,
though possibly too polite to say it.
>>>(obviously, there are a
>>>few exceptions, like some of his work on Abbey Road). *shrugs* >Paul's
easily >>>as overrated as the Stone Roses, I think.
>Incidentally, I'm glad someone else thinks the Roses are overrated.
Wow! There we go again...a Yoko fan and a 'Roses aren't THAT good' type.
Amazing. As I said recently on alt.music.oasis, to some wanker who
insinuated that the Roses 'invented' that style of music (I've not worked
out quite what 'that style' is), the Stone Roses are quite possibly the
most overrated band of the past ten years. And I am including Spice Girls
as a band in this estimation. I've never heard such adoration for a band
that had a grand total of one decent album, and even that was highly
spotty. And only one of them has done anything worthwhile since, and even
then, I don't think Primal Scream would've sucked otherwise. So what is
the big deal?
>>LYRICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSICAL QUALITY!!!
>>Lyrics is literature. Music is music. As long as the melody is
>>good the song is also automatically good.
>Oh Geir, this is such bullshit. The two work together, that's partly
>the reason why most people even *listen* to songs. You obviously don't
>listen to very much soul music (or music with soul), where the lyrics
>are for me inseparable from the melody - the power of expression lies
>in both of them.
>Your arguments would baffle, for example, Paddy MacAloon, who doesn't
>adore Cole Porter, say, just because of his melodies.
They would also baffle, for instance, Sir Paul, who is just as much a
lyrics writer as he is a melody writer (such as they are).
Cheers,
Lulu
Geir Hongro
eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:
>I'd take hundreds of ballad writers over McCartney, who had a >knack
>for penning standards, but whose songs rarely touch me. Brian >Wilson
>and Smokey Robinson, to name two of his contemporaries, were way
>better.
You have just named two of the greatest songwriters ever, but none
of them (well, maybe Wilson) could possibly compete with McCartney
at his best.
>This surprises me, Geir. I know John could be sweet now and then, >but
>what he's celebrated for mostly is his grainy, gritty singing. Or >is
>roughness in the voice a god thing, and in the production not? >And if so, why?
I DO like John Lennon as a singer. While there is nothing wrong
with a rough voice (Marvin Gaye was great!) the main reason why I
like Lennon is he was the man who introduced that typically
British nasal vocal style. Lennon has inspired a lot of my
favourite singers, like Alan Clarke and Liam Gallagher.
>Your arguments would baffle, for example, Paddy MacAloon, who >doesn't adore Cole Porter, say, just because of his melodies.
Probably would, as McAloon definitely writes some good lyrics (I
especially love the words to "The Sound Of Crying". Still if his
lyrics were shit we would still have been one of the greatest
songwriters ever.
Geir Hongro
Ben <bark...@cygnusx.uwax.edux.au> wrote:
>L>>>He's <Paul> a wanker; the talent in
>L>>>the Beatles was John Lennon, who not only did nice work with the
>L>>>Beatles, but also had a very good solo career.
>G>>
>G>>Lennon's solo career? Now that's an overrated thing. I agree John
>G>>did some great work with the Beatles (Although only before 1968),
>
>C'mon Geir! His best stuff came out of 68's White Album sessions!
>Songs such as 'Sexy Sadie', 'Cry Baby Cry', 'Happiness is a Warm Gun',
>'Dear Prudence', 'Revolution', 'Everybody's got something to hide...', &
>'I'm So Tired', as well as my fave solo Lennon song 'Jealous Guy', which
>was also written in '68 in India, are amongst his - & musics - greatest
>moments ever.
I have the impression that you like those songs because they
aren't overplayed.
In fact all of Lennon/McCartneys greatest songs are heavily
overplayed. I still think that "Yesterday" is a marvellous song,
but that's doesn't mean I would be happy to hear it less.
Lennon's best songs IMO were, apart from the ones he wrote with
Paul in the early days, "I Should Have Known Better", "Help!", "If
I Fell", "Girl", "In My Life", "I'm Only Sleeping", "Strawberry
Fields Forever" and "I Am The Walrus".
Lulu Spice
In article <3405A0...@cygnusx.uwax.edux.au>, Ben
<bark...@cygnusx.uwax.edux.au> wrote:
>L>>>He's <Paul> a wanker; the talent in
>L>>>the Beatles was John Lennon, who not only did nice work with the
>L>>>Beatles, but also had a very good solo career.
>G>>Lennon's solo career? Now that's an overrated thing. I agree John
>G>>did some great work with the Beatles (Although only before 1968),
>C'mon Geir! His best stuff came out of 68's White Album sessions!
>Songs such as 'Sexy Sadie', 'Cry Baby Cry', 'Happiness is a Warm Gun',
>'Dear Prudence', 'Revolution', 'Everybody's got something to hide...', &
>'I'm So Tired', as well as my fave solo Lennon song 'Jealous Guy', which
>was also written in '68 in India, are amongst his - & musics - greatest
>moments ever.
>Along with 'Rain' & 'I Am the Walrus' these songs are all his best, IMO.
Exactly. And, if we are allowed to digress into pre-68 works, John still
outshone Paul 100 times over. Let's look at the Beatles' most dated and
overrated piece, 'Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band', since I'm sure
everyone would know this stuff: Paul writes 'When I'm 64'. John writes
most of 'A Day in the Life', and was the one who came up with the idea of
seguing his and Paul's songs in the first place, working with all the
arrangements thereforth. Most of the Beatles' very best songs were written
by John. He was incredibly forward-thinking and had a much harder edge
than Sir Paul.
NB: I actually like the song 'When I'm 64'. I like it because it is just
so crap.
>G>>but after that the only decent songs he wrote were "Imagine",
>G>>"Woman" and "Watching The Wheels". The rest is untalented 50s
>G>>inspired rock, sounding as if though the Beatles had never
>G>>existed.
>Well he didn't care at the time if they did or not (although he said
>later he went too far in making a point of this), but songs like
>'Mother', 'God', 'Dear Yoko', 'Instant Karma', 'Give Me Some Truth',
>'Mind Games', 'Happy xmas' etc. etc. are all generally considered to be
>better than the rather overly soppy (IMO) 'Woman'.
I'm so glad someone else mentioned 'Gimme Some Truth'. Brilliant
song...'Woman' bores me and seems like something that Paul would've
written. I always skip that track. And what about stuff like 'Whatever
Gets You Through the Night'? That seems like something that would be right
up Geir's street.
Joe McGlinchey
On 27 Aug 1997, Nate Patrin wrote:
> > Other personal choices:
> > - "I'm so glad, I'm so glad, I'm glad I'm glad I'm glad"
> > -CREAM, "I'm so Glad"
>
> To be honest, that's just the chorus (albeit a stupid one). The rest of the
> song, if a bit mumbly and hard to decipher, isn't that bad. (Not genius,
That chorus, however, comprises about 80% of the song. And the verses are
equally silly: "I don't know what to do, don't know what to do, don't know
what to do", etc. Actually, though, I really like the song anyway just
because it does have that goofy charm to it.
Joe McGlinchey
Teachers College
Columbia University
BrowningTX
Geir Hongro wrote:
(snip a whole loada' shit just so I can post this)
> LYRICS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSICAL QUALITY!!!
Anythign else has nothing to do with this thread! Which is way too
cross-posted anyways.
Matt B Parisi
>
>eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:
>
>>I'd take hundreds of ballad writers over McCartney, who had a >knack
>>for penning standards, but whose songs rarely touch me. Brian >Wilson
>>and Smokey Robinson, to name two of his contemporaries, were way
>>better.
>
>You have just named two of the greatest songwriters ever, but none
>of them (well, maybe Wilson) could possibly compete with McCartney
>at his best.
>
>>This surprises me, Geir. I know John could be sweet now and then,
>but
>>what he's celebrated for mostly is his grainy, gritty singing. Or >is
>>roughness in the voice a god thing, and in the production not? >And
if so, why?
>
>I DO like John Lennon as a singer. While there is nothing wrong
>with a rough voice (Marvin Gaye was great!)
Marvin Gaye with a rough voice????
He is widely regarded as having amongst the smoothest, most mellow
voices in the entirely of soul music. Otis Redding sounds like
scraping fingernails across a blackboard compared to Marvin Gaye!
the main reason why I
>like Lennon is he was the man who introduced that typically
>British nasal vocal style.
If true, that's the bane of his existence. The impenetrablely accented
nasal whine of Billy Bragg was the one thing that kept me from ever
enjoying his albums.
And it was one several things that kept me from ever enjoying Cure and
Depeche Mode albums.
IMO, Lennon's greatest gift was his ability to interpret R&B and blues
music styles. Only a handful of British singers have ever gotten to
his level in this regard.
Matt P
Matt B Parisi
In <Pine.SUN.3.95L.97082...@ahnnyong.cc.columbia.edu>
Joe McGlinchey <jb...@columbia.edu> writes:
>
>On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, dougal mckinnon wrote:
>
>> Geir Hongro wrote:
>>
>> > >"I love to ride my bicycle I love to ride my bike, I love to ride
>my bicycle I ride it where I like"
>> > >Queen can pull off some pathetic lyrics...
>> > :-)
>> > How about "We Are The Champions"? :-)
>>
>
>No way! Both great lyrics! God, doesn't anyone have a sense of humor
>anymore?
>
>Joe McGlinchey
>Teachers College
>Columbia University
Sure they do! Like the Ramones: "Beat on the Brat/Beat on the Brat,
Beat on the Brat with a baseball bat/OH YEAH"
It's OK to be stupid if you know that you are being stupid.
Matt P
Lulu Spice
In article <340701...@cygnusx.uwax.xedux.au>, Ben
<bark...@cygnusx.uwax.xedux.au> wrote:
>Lulu Spice wrote:
>>I wrote:
>>>G>>but after that the only decent songs he wrote were "Imagine",
>>>G>>"Woman" and "Watching The Wheels". The rest is untalented 50s
>>>G>>inspired rock, sounding as if though the Beatles had never
>>>G>>existed.
>>>Well he didn't care at the time if they did or not (although he said
>>>later he went too far in making a point of this), but songs like
>>>'Mother', 'God', 'Dear Yoko',
>I actually meant "Oh Yoko" here, not "DY". Although "DY" is quite
>upbeat for that album & one of the better ones.
Oh, good. I'm not entirely keen on DY myself...
>>>'Instant Karma', 'Give Me Some Truth',
>>>'Mind Games', 'Happy xmas' etc. etc. are all generally considered to
>>>be better than the rather overly soppy (IMO) 'Woman'.
>>I'm so glad someone else mentioned 'Gimme Some Truth'. Brilliant
>>song...
>I reckon the whole of that side 2 of the "Imagine" album is brilliant.
>Side one is patchy, "I" & "JG" are classics, but one or 2 of the others
>are a bit slow... Side 2 is great though! (I esp. dig the guitar in
>"GMST".)
Hey, I agree with you 100%. Have you ever heard Ash's version of GST?
Fucking terrible.
>Geir would probably love 'The John Lennon Collection', just great song
>after great song (although Double Fantasy if a bit over represented), &
>great melody after great melody. :)
I wonder if Geir has actully heard many of John's solo works. And I reckon
that version of Stand By Me on JLC is brilliant.
Ben
Geir Hongro wrote:
>Ben <bark...@cygnusx.uwax.edux.au> wrote:
>>C'mon Geir! His best stuff came out of 68's White Album sessions!
>>Songs such as 'Sexy Sadie', 'Cry Baby Cry', 'Happiness is a Warm Gun',
>>'Dear Prudence', 'Revolution', 'Everybody's got something to hide...',
>>& 'I'm So Tired', as well as my fave solo Lennon song 'Jealous Guy',
>>which was also written in '68 in India, are amongst his - & musics -
>>greatest moments ever.
>
>aren't overplayed.
>
>In fact all of Lennon/McCartneys greatest songs are heavily
>overplayed.
So they are or they aren't overplayed? None of John's soley album
material is not played at all. The only Lennon songs overplayed IMO
would be 'Help', 'A Hard Days Night', 'IWTHYH', 'She Loves You', & maybe
'Day tripper' (although that's pushing it). You virtually never hear
any of the songs you mentioned below (apart from 'Help') or I
mentioned above on radio, which is quite unfortunate. Of course, when
radio has the option of playing 'Revolution' & 'I Am The Walrus' or
'Yesterday' & 'Let It Be', they will always choose the latter two...
it's less offensive to grannies, y'see. :)
Like John said in his last Playboy interview, there's a whole heap of
material to choose from, but radio only plays the same 10 songs. It's a
pity that songs like 'Sexy Sadie' & 'Dear Prudence' are unheard of to
the vast majority of people simply because they aren't singles.
>Lennon's best songs IMO were, apart from the ones he wrote with
>Paul in the early days, "I Should Have Known Better", "Help!", "If
>I Fell", "Girl", "In My Life", "I'm Only Sleeping", "Strawberry
>Fields Forever" and "I Am The Walrus".
Well you have good taste in *this* regard ('ISHKB' is a *classic* early
song for John), but how can you possibly write off the songs I listed??
BEN
Ben
Lulu Spice wrote:
>I wrote:
>>G>>but after that the only decent songs he wrote were "Imagine",
>>G>>"Woman" and "Watching The Wheels". The rest is untalented 50s
>>G>>inspired rock, sounding as if though the Beatles had never
>>G>>existed.
>>Well he didn't care at the time if they did or not (although he said
>>later he went too far in making a point of this), but songs like
>>'Mother', 'God', 'Dear Yoko',
I actually meant "Oh Yoko" here, not "DY". Although "DY" is quite
upbeat for that album & one of the better ones.
>>'Instant Karma', 'Give Me Some Truth',
>>'Mind Games', 'Happy xmas' etc. etc. are all generally considered to
>>be better than the rather overly soppy (IMO) 'Woman'.
>
>I'm so glad someone else mentioned 'Gimme Some Truth'. Brilliant
>song...
I reckon the whole of that side 2 of the "Imagine" album is brilliant.
Side one is patchy, "I" & "JG" are classics, but one or 2 of the others
are a bit slow... Side 2 is great though! (I esp. dig the guitar in
"GMST".)
>And what about stuff like 'Whatever Gets You Through the Night'? That
>seems like something that would be right up Geir's street.
Geir would probably love 'The John Lennon Collection', just great song
after great song (although Double Fantasy if a bit over represented), &
great melody after great melody. :)
BEN
"I'm sick & tired of hearing things"
Ace Shot w/ a Sardine
Just for the record, that new nauseating Forest For the Trees
single has one of the most trite and insipid choruses I've heard in a
while. "When I'm dreaming I'm not sure if I'm dreaming or if I'm awake;
when I'm awake I'm not sure if I'm awake or if I'm still dreaming." Or
something similar. Bleah.
_____
"Who threw the fish? Who threw the fish?" GEORGE TABB
... spice girls ...
Delete NOSPAM to e-mail me.
Ben
Lulu Spice wrote:
>
>Ben <bark...@cygnusx.uwax.xedux.au> wrote:
>>I reckon the whole of that side 2 of the "Imagine" album is brilliant.
>>Side one is patchy, "I" & "JG" are classics, but one or 2 of the
>>others are a bit slow... Side 2 is great though! (I esp. dig the
>>guitar in "GMST".)
>
>Fucking terrible.
Ash is *not* the band I'd picture covering this. I had no idea they
did it either until I just read this then. I'm trying to imagine it
though.. that voice & those guitars trying to play this song... ewww...
I'd rather not. :)
BEN
Lulu Spice
In article <3408EB...@cygnusx.uwax.xedux.au>, Ben
<bark...@cygnusx.uwax.xedux.au> wrote:
It's a b-side to Angel Interceptor. If you'd like to be horrified
sometime, pick this up.
Geir Hongro
Ben <bark...@cygnusx.uwax.xedux.au> wrote:
>Oasis should cover 'Rain', Liam would do a great job of that too. >(I can always dream... :)
Hey! I always thought about the same thing.
Tom Ewing
On 28 Aug 1997 22:33:46 GMT, Geir Hongro <gho...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom Ewing) wrote:
>
>>I'd take hundreds of ballad writers over McCartney, who had a >knack
>>for penning standards, but whose songs rarely touch me. Brian >Wilson
>>and Smokey Robinson, to name two of his contemporaries, were way
>>better.
>
>You have just named two of the greatest songwriters ever, but none
>of them (well, maybe Wilson) could possibly compete with McCartney
>at his best.
Can! Can't! Can! Can't! There, that's saved a bit of bandwidth. Why do
you think McCartney is better, incidentally?
Tom.
"Is he tall?" "Well, I gotta look up!"
Lulu Spice
In article <340c1bdf...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Aug 1997 02:26:50 -0700,
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
[Paul McCartney]
>I get the impression he's been writing songs for the last twenty-five
>or so years mostly for his own amusement, not because he thinks
>they're actually very good. Not that there's anything wrong with that
>particularly, it just doesnt make for very thrilling, or very
>anything, listening.
No, he's obviously just doing it because he can, but it annoys me that he
doesn't just keep such rubbish for himself and Linda. I don't fault him
for doing what he likes. I more fault the irrational worship of Sir Paul,
when it's obvious he's given up on actual writing himself.
>Agreed. While I always get annoyed with people who go "oh god, i like
>alternative music because the lyrics aren't all that love shit, man",
>there does need to be an interesting angle, or metaphor, or wordplay,
>or just some evidence of incredibly strong feeling to make the love
>song affecting. McCartney's always crafted 'good' love songs, but
>there's nothing there which has ever remotely moved me in any way.
Yeah. The description I like: they're 'good' for junior prom dance theme
songs, but wank for anything else (courtesy my friend Sophie). I love love
songs, but I just can't find it in my heart to love contrived rubbish like
'My Love'. That's not a love song, that is a see-how-much-cash-we-can-get
song.
>>Hey, I agree with you here too. Except for the insufferable Martha My
>>Dear. But, for instance, I reckon one of his best songs with the Beatles
>>was When I'm 64. It's not much cop, but that's the point. It's fun. As
>>opposed to his horrible, slumberous ballads that make 2 Become 1 look the
>>model of subtlety.
>Would you be thinking of 'Hey Jude' here, perhaps?
Actually, I wasn't in specific, but now that you mention it, fucking hell!
How did that song become classic? I mean, it amounts to two bits:
brilliant, quiet two-minute song that is this short of beautiful, and an
eight-minute chanting of utter nonsense. I bet some of those people are
still doing the na-na-na-hey-jude bit. It wasn't even made interesting by
building upon melody, or chord changes or ANYTHING.
>Of course, when Lennon died the radio programmers would have
>immediately reached for the most sentimental songs the man had
>written, which inevitably does his ouevre a huge disservice.
Exactly. I mean, who wants to hear Woman when you could hear Instant Karma?
>I thought
>even then - and still do - that Roxy Music's reading of 'Jealous Guy'
>was magnificent.
This is because Roxy Music are brilliant. Actually, this is a point: I've
very rarely heard a GOOD cover of a Lennon song, both Beatles and
post-Beatles.
>Manatees are friendly and gregarious creatures, rather like Sir Paul.
Yes, but loveable as they may be, they're no damned good at songwriting.
At least, I don't think manatees songwrite. They might, I suppose.
>I used to love Smash Hits when they were constantly on at his 'Fab
>Macca Wacky Thumbs Aloft' image. That would have been the 'No More
>Lonely Nights' era, in case you were looking for more ammunition.
Please, don't give me more. I'm seething at life, you don't want me to
vent my anger upon friendly albeit completely lyrically talentless Sir
Paul ;)
>>Wow -- someone else who can talk about Yoko without mentioning the words
>>'untalented' and 'bitch'. She's a very interesting artist; I reckon she's
>>very underrated.
>Oh, incredibly. I think as an artist she's underrated too - certainly
>she's more interesting than most of the hot BritArt conceptualists
>we're expected to like these days.
You know what especially annoys me? Some Bjork fans once ripped Yoko on a
BBS. I mean, Christ Almighty, Bjork fans...that was rich. Yoko is a bit
bizarre, and has been around for ages, totally a 'forefather' (so to
speak) of some of this conceptual music out there. I love her to bits.
>>Right. I will reply to Geir's entry, in full, as soon as I get the full
>>message on my server, but I will reply to THIS right now: There is a whole
>>helluva lot more to music than melody, and, in fact, I reckon that if Paul
>>McCartney knew that you were basing your estimation of his music on the
>>melody alone, and that 'lyrics don't matter', he would be highly offended,
>>though possibly too polite to say it.
>I think he'd be secretly relieved, too :)
Yeah -- 'Pfew, at least someone won't take this piss outta me lyrics.
Linda, where's my MBE, I'm going to look at it again. Oh, are those
Teletubbies on again? Brilliant. I think I'm going to write a song based
on their dialogue'.
>All the Roses 'invented' was the idea of British indie pop actually
>getting in the charts, as far as I can tell. I loved the album to bits
>for six months then never played it again, so I can't say I dislike
>them, but to revise history to make them the saviours of British pop
>sticks in my craw.
I agree. They were a second rate band. They had their moments on the first
album, but that was that.
>The Roses are also one of those bands whose music is malleable enough
>to be claimed for whatever 'youth revolution' needs their spurious
>patronage. In 90/91 they were always hailed as the first indie-dance
>band, despite their complete lack of groove before 'Fool's Gold'.
Ironic that Fool's Gold was such an awful song, then. Though you're right.
Indie-dance trailblazers, my arse.
Speaking of such a thing, I saw an interesting cd today that was some sort
of rock-techno thing, with some high profile artists in both techno and
indie rock collaborating with one another. Which makes me wonder why in
the hell today, in the store, was the first I had heard about it. I didn't
buy it, cos it was dead expensive, but I do wonder if it's any good.
(Americans: it most definately wasn't the Spawn soundy, so don't post
that)
>Now of course they were aparently Oasis before Oasis were. Whatever.
That's always brilliant. I mean, tossing aside the fact that they sound
virtually nothing alike...*ponders* I think that Oasis bashers in general
should all decide on what band Oasis is ripping off, because conflicting
insistances are funny and do little but prove the idea that Oasis don't
sound specifically like anyone, save for a little Manc band called Oasis.
>Mondays were consid'rably better on both counts, I submit. (Do you
>remember the initial publicity for Oasis - they're the new Mondays!
>How bitterly I laugh now.)
I never did understand that one either. Oasis sound like the Mondays like
Kula Shaker sound like Marilyn Manson.
>>. So what is
>>the big deal?
>To be fair, 'Mersey Paradise' is a blinding pop song.
Well, to be fair, so are Made of Stone and I am the Resurrection. I just
don't think a handful of good songs warrants such insane praise.
Speaking of 'insane praise', pick up the copy of Time with Lady Di on it.
They have an article in the music section about 'good' British music (as
opposed to Spice Girls, from what I could gather) -- and proceed to rave
about Bjork, who is most definitely not a Brit. That floored me, don't
they check these things?
>On topic...lots of praise elsewhere for the Manics' lyrics. Can I just
>remind people of Simon Price's excellent observation that the lines
>about "When I was young P.C. meant Police Constable / Nowadays I can't
>seem to tell the difference" are incredibly bad.
I always loved the bits saying words like 'axeminster' or something
similar to that. And the lyrics to Revol are appauling. And the song about
anorexia (I can't for the life of me recall the exact numbers in the title
through this medication :( ) is horribly contrived and out of touch. The
Manics have had more than their share of terrifically bad lyrical moments,
but they've also had genius enough times to hide the really bad things.
Cheers,
Lulu
--
Visit the Spice Rack: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/6151
(E! says that it's the #4 site on the net)
Tom Ewing
>My opinion exactly. McCartney is easily the most overrated balladeer of
>this century, hands down. His idea of a ballad is to put some cheesy
>lyrics ('Wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo wo, my lurrve does it *good*', etc)
>over 'emotional' music, and it's all a bit of a mess. I reckon that the
>only McCartney songs I truly like are Mull of Kintyre (and I don't know
>why I like that one, cos it's no good at all) and Maybe I'm Amazed.
I get the impression he's been writing songs for the last twenty-five
or so years mostly for his own amusement, not because he thinks
they're actually very good. Not that there's anything wrong with that
particularly, it just doesnt make for very thrilling, or very
anything, listening.
> Most
>of his work with the Beatles is overrated, too. Smokey Robinson is
>great...there are just so many ballads and love songs out there that blow
>every last thing that McCartney has *ever* done away.
Agreed. While I always get annoyed with people who go "oh god, i like
alternative music because the lyrics aren't all that love shit, man",
there does need to be an interesting angle, or metaphor, or wordplay,
or just some evidence of incredibly strong feeling to make the love
song affecting. McCartney's always crafted 'good' love songs, but
there's nothing there which has ever remotely moved me in any way.
>Hey, I agree with you here too. Except for the insufferable Martha My
>Dear. But, for instance, I reckon one of his best songs with the Beatles
>was When I'm 64. It's not much cop, but that's the point. It's fun. As
>opposed to his horrible, slumberous ballads that make 2 Become 1 look the
>model of subtlety.
Would you be thinking of 'Hey Jude' here, perhaps?
>I really liked Double Fantasy; most of it was just silly pop songs,
>similar to the stuff Paul had tried to produce, but it was a much better
>excuse for silly pop. As for Imagine, I think that the album itself is
>stunning, but you're entirely right on the overplaying of Imagine
>(remember on the tenth anniversary of his death? Every radio station in
>the world at the time played that song, all at once, I think).
Of course, when Lennon died the radio programmers would have
immediately reached for the most sentimental songs the man had
written, which inevitably does his ouevre a huge disservice. I
remember - kind of - the actual death, in that I'd just got keen on
Top Of The Pops and suddenly there were all these boring ballads on
instead of Aneka doing 'Japanese Boy' (or whatever). Though I thought
even then - and still do - that Roxy Music's reading of 'Jealous Guy'
was magnificent.
> And I like
>some of his other solo albums better than that one. But I will note that,
>though I deleted it, I marked Lennon's solo career as being 'much better
>than Paul's' -- and as far as I'm concerned, a manatee making weird little
>sounds under the ocean is better than things like 'Silly Love Songs' and
>'Hi Hi Hi'.
Manatees are friendly and gregarious creatures, rather like Sir Paul.
I used to love Smash Hits when they were constantly on at his 'Fab
Macca Wacky Thumbs Aloft' image. That would have been the 'No More
Lonely Nights' era, in case you were looking for more ammunition.
>>"Walking On Thin Ice", incidentally, beats anything either man
>>recorded solo hands down.
>
>Wow -- someone else who can talk about Yoko without mentioning the words
>'untalented' and 'bitch'. She's a very interesting artist; I reckon she's
>very underrated.
Oh, incredibly. I think as an artist she's underrated too - certainly
she's more interesting than most of the hot BritArt conceptualists
we're expected to like these days. I'm looking for more of her stuff -
I found 'Walking On Thin Ice', with its realy touching liner notes,
for 10p on vinyl, and taped her 'Plastic Ono Band' album recently too
- also remarkable stuff.
>Right. I will reply to Geir's entry, in full, as soon as I get the full
>message on my server, but I will reply to THIS right now: There is a whole
>helluva lot more to music than melody, and, in fact, I reckon that if Paul
>McCartney knew that you were basing your estimation of his music on the
>melody alone, and that 'lyrics don't matter', he would be highly offended,
>though possibly too polite to say it.
I think he'd be secretly relieved, too :)
>Wow! There we go again...a Yoko fan and a 'Roses aren't THAT good' type.
>Amazing. As I said recently on alt.music.oasis, to some wanker who
>insinuated that the Roses 'invented' that style of music (I've not worked
>out quite what 'that style' is), the Stone Roses are quite possibly the
>most overrated band of the past ten years.
All the Roses 'invented' was the idea of British indie pop actually
getting in the charts, as far as I can tell. I loved the album to bits
for six months then never played it again, so I can't say I dislike
them, but to revise history to make them the saviours of British pop
sticks in my craw.
At the time, tellingly, the NME album reviewer was distinctly lukewarm
('Quite nice. Sounds like the Byrds. So what?' is a fair summary).
The Roses are also one of those bands whose music is malleable enough
to be claimed for whatever 'youth revolution' needs their spurious
patronage. In 90/91 they were always hailed as the first indie-dance
band, despite their complete lack of groove before 'Fool's Gold'. Now
of course they were aparently Oasis before Oasis were. Whatever. The
Mondays were consid'rably better on both counts, I submit. (Do you
remember the initial publicity for Oasis - they're the new Mondays!
How bitterly I laugh now.)
>. So what is
>the big deal?
To be fair, 'Mersey Paradise' is a blinding pop song.
On topic...lots of praise elsewhere for the Manics' lyrics. Can I just
remind people of Simon Price's excellent observation that the lines
about "When I was young P.C. meant Police Constable / Nowadays I can't
seem to tell the difference" are incredibly bad.
Tom.
Andrew Gilmour
On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 21:35:15 -0700,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
<snip>
>>I thought
>>even then - and still do - that Roxy Music's reading of 'Jealous Guy'
>>was magnificent.
>
>This is because Roxy Music are brilliant. Actually, this is a point: I've
>very rarely heard a GOOD cover of a Lennon song, both Beatles and
>post-Beatles.
>
Try Siouxsie & The Banshees "Dear Prudence" or The Breeders "Happiness
Is A Warm Gun" for starters.
Andrew
"Since I was born I started to decay" - Placebo
Tom
>>Would you be thinking of 'Hey Jude' here, perhaps?
>
>Actually, I wasn't in specific, but now that you mention it, fucking hell!
>How did that song become classic? I mean, it amounts to two bits:
>brilliant, quiet two-minute song that is this short of beautiful, and an
>eight-minute chanting of utter nonsense. I bet some of those people are
>still doing the na-na-na-hey-jude bit. It wasn't even made interesting by
>building upon melody, or chord changes or ANYTHING.
Incidentally, I can't believe someone actually said to you "Wait a
minute, you just called the Beatles overrated." (or whatever it was)
in another post. There are times when I truly wish I could honestly
say I thought the Beatles sucked. Meanwhile, I don't even like the
first bit of Hey Jude very much, but you're right that it's the
'na-na-na-na' part that's the killer, not just because in it's own
right it's a crashing bore but because it's persuaded generations of
dullards that the right way to make a song big and important is just
to make it longer.
>This is because Roxy Music are brilliant.
Roxy Music music (how stupid that looks) has aged very well, which is
surprising when you consider that it's basically a combination of glam
riffs, lounge lizard crooning and synth noodling, three things which
in themselves haven't dated very well at all (glam riffs apart,
actually). It would have been so damn exciting to have been around
when they were getting big.
>You know what especially annoys me? Some Bjork fans once ripped Yoko on a
>BBS. I mean, Christ Almighty, Bjork fans...that was rich. Yoko is a bit
>bizarre, and has been around for ages, totally a 'forefather' (so to
>speak) of some of this conceptual music out there. I love her to bits.
As usual, you can't help thinking that most of the people who rip Yoko
haven't actually listened to her very much. Like 'Metal Machine
Music', which I'm positive 95% of the people who namedrop it haven't
listened to. Not that their guesses as to what it sounds like are
necessarily far off.
>Yeah -- 'Pfew, at least someone won't take this piss outta me lyrics.
>Linda, where's my MBE, I'm going to look at it again. Oh, are those
>Teletubbies on again? Brilliant. I think I'm going to write a song based
>on their dialogue'.
Paul McCartney's very worst song is surely "Mary Had A Little Lamb",
his first stab at a kid's record. It's astonishingly bad, far far
worse than the Frog Chorus. Runner-up is his Festive B-Side, "Rudolf
The Red-Nosed Reggae", which is exactly as awful as it sounds. I
notice that Geir has gone oddly quiet, by the way.
>Speaking of such a thing, I saw an interesting cd today that was some sort
>of rock-techno thing, with some high profile artists in both techno and
>indie rock collaborating with one another. Which makes me wonder why in
>the hell today, in the store, was the first I had heard about it. I didn't
>buy it, cos it was dead expensive, but I do wonder if it's any good.
>(Americans: it most definately wasn't the Spawn soundy, so don't post
>that)
The Spawn Soundtrack, though, is absolute drivel. Even someone addled
enough to think "Fuel My Fire" is good couldn't enjoy some of the
stuff on there. Who was on this mystery CD, anyhow.
>>Now of course they were aparently Oasis before Oasis were. Whatever.
>
>That's always brilliant. I mean, tossing aside the fact that they sound
>virtually nothing alike...*ponders* I think that Oasis bashers in general
>should all decide on what band Oasis is ripping off, because conflicting
>insistances are funny and do little but prove the idea that Oasis don't
>sound specifically like anyone, save for a little Manc band called Oasis.
Well song-to-song Oasis do sound like a few people, but that's not
important really. Their songs never come as a surprise, that's the
difficulty: it doesn't matter who they sound like, what matters is the
general ennui I invariably get when I hear an Oasis song for the
*first* time, let alone the hundredth. It's that they sound like rock
music is meant to sound like, which isn't for me the point.
>>Mondays were consid'rably better on both counts, I submit. (Do you
>>remember the initial publicity for Oasis - they're the new Mondays!
>>How bitterly I laugh now.)
>
>I never did understand that one either. Oasis sound like the Mondays like
>Kula Shaker sound like Marilyn Manson.
Though the Mondays, on reflection, do sound a bit like Oasis, if that
makes any sense. The sneer's pretty much the same, at least on the
more blitzed, mid-late period Mondays stuff like "Judge Fudge".
>>>. So what is
>>>the big deal?
>>To be fair, 'Mersey Paradise' is a blinding pop song.
>
>Well, to be fair, so are Made of Stone and I am the Resurrection. I just
>don't think a handful of good songs warrants such insane praise.
I think 'I Am The Resurrection' is dreadful, sorry. The music's fine,
alright, but the tune goes nowhere. Even when I was a kid I only liked
it for the 'Hey Jude' reason outlined above, viz. it's long, so it
must be good.
>>On topic...lots of praise elsewhere for the Manics' lyrics. Can I just
>>remind people of Simon Price's excellent observation that the lines
>>about "When I was young P.C. meant Police Constable / Nowadays I can't
>>seem to tell the difference" are incredibly bad.
>
>I always loved the bits saying words like 'axeminster' or something
>similar to that.
No, you've utterly lost me. The best bit in PCP is the quote from
Nemesis The Warlock.
> And the lyrics to Revol are appauling. And the song about
>anorexia (I can't for the life of me recall the exact numbers in the title
>through this medication :( ) is horribly contrived and out of touch.
4 st 7 lb. I'm good with numbers, though Wire's 'Map Ref....' single
always floors me. I like both those songs. I wouldn't presume to know
anything about anorexia, mind, but aside from the crass supermodel
references, I do find it a pretty affecting lyric/song. It's similar
to 'Little Baby Nothing', where despite the surface anti-porn outrage
it's fairly clear that the boys see Tracey (sp?) as a source of
intense fascination and a role model, witness their breathless
assumption of the victim-role in the last bit of the song. In '4 st 7
lb', the song is 'about' the lyricist's apparent erotic fascination
with anorexia as much as it is an actual portrait of an anorexic.
As for Revol, I think those are great lyrics, though I was sorely
disappointed when I found out the title was 'Lover' spelt backwards
rather than a hipster abbreviation. I love their disconnected,
emergency telegram syntax, and "Raus! Raus! Fila! Fila!" is classic
Manics. What's said is much less important than the way they do it,
which is also the only possible way to approach some of the really
dreadful lyrics on the first album.
The only other lyics I don't think are great on that record are "The
Intense Humming Of Evil". It's not only that associating your misery
with the Holocaust is in dubious taste, it's also that it was done
more pithily and effectively by Pere Ubu with "Final Solution".
>The
>Manics have had more than their share of terrifically bad lyrical moments,
>but they've also had genius enough times to hide the really bad things.
Oh, surely. I still think Richey is/was the best, or at least most
interesting, lyricist of this decade, assuming I've got which songs he
wrote down right.
Cheers, (& get well soon if you've still got flu, btw)
Tom.
"I wore my fringe like Roger McGuinn / I wore it hoping to impress /
So frightfully camp, it made you laugh / Tomorrow I'll buy myself a
dress." - Orange Juice.
Lulu Spice
In article <340dddfa...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 21:35:15 -0700,
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>Incidentally, I can't believe someone actually said to you "Wait a
>minute, you just called the Beatles overrated." (or whatever it was)
>in another post. There are times when I truly wish I could honestly
>say I thought the Beatles sucked.
You'd be surprised. Pop into the Oasis newsgroop and read the one directly
addressed to me in the subject header. It's an amazing post, from an Oasis
fan -- the same sort of person who would say, if one was to call Oasis
Beatle rip offs, that people just don't understand Oasis used quotes from
Noel Gallagher to 'prove' that the Beatles are the best thing ever, and
then said that that was the reason they loved Oasis. *boggles* Seriously,
this hysterical, disgusting, unadulterated worship of the Beatles floors
me. They are a band who had some decent songs. They also had some of the
WORST songs of all time under their belt too. It's like the above
mentioned Noel said (and this was part of my reply to the above fan): 'The
Beatles invented and revolutionised nothing'. If it wasn't *them*, it
would've been another Britbeat band taking the world by storm. And you
know what? They probably would've been a good deal more talented.
>Meanwhile, I don't even like the
>first bit of Hey Jude very much, but you're right that it's the
>'na-na-na-na' part that's the killer, not just because in it's own
>right it's a crashing bore but because it's persuaded generations of
>dullards that the right way to make a song big and important is just
>to make it longer.
The first bit of Hey Jude has parts where it gets too...well, the only way
I can describe it is it gets too McCartney. But I think that if the song
had been cut to two minutes, it would've been a good song. However, no one
needs to hear 'na-na-na' for five hours.
>>This is because Roxy Music are brilliant.
>Roxy Music music (how stupid that looks)
It's sort of like when you have a sentance that says 'that that'. I mean,
it's right but it doesn't look right.
>has aged very well, which is surprising when you consider that it's
basically a
>combination of glam riffs, lounge lizard crooning and synth noodling, three
>things which in themselves haven't dated very well at all (glam riffs apart,
>actually). It would have been so damn exciting to have been around
>when they were getting big.
Yeah, it is amazing. Actually, I have a friend (wahey!) who insists that
Pulp are virtually Roxy Music. Which really is irrelevant, but I thought
I'd throw it in and see what was thought, if anything. Incidentally,
didn't 10,000 Maniacs do a cover of a Roxy song? I'm not sure which one,
because I am on a mission to completely avoid post-Natalie 10,000 Maniacs.
>As usual, you can't help thinking that most of the people who rip Yoko
>haven't actually listened to her very much. Like 'Metal Machine
>Music', which I'm positive 95% of the people who namedrop it haven't
>listened to. Not that their guesses as to what it sounds like are
>necessarily far off.
Most people just don't listen to things at all. It's like, to go back to
the overrated Beatles point, I'm quite sure a good portion of their Holy
Crusaders from rec.music.beatles haven't actually *heard* anything beyond
the red & blue greatest hits compilations. Maybe the terrible Sgt.
Pepper's too. And I'm 100% sure that the people in that same newsgroop who
rip Yoko have had no experience with her music, beyond skipping her tracks
on Double Fantasy.
>Paul McCartney's very worst song is surely "Mary Had A Little Lamb",
>his first stab at a kid's record. It's astonishingly bad, far far
>worse than the Frog Chorus. Runner-up is his Festive B-Side, "Rudolf
>The Red-Nosed Reggae", which is exactly as awful as it sounds. I
>notice that Geir has gone oddly quiet, by the way.
Oh, jesus, I forgot about that. That's just horrible, really horrible. I
mean, that's not even trying. Why does he keep releasing Christmas songs,
btw? I'm assuming Rudolf is a Chrimble tune, actually. It could just be an
insanely dodgy thing with an equally dodgy title. I've not heard it. It's
possibly the only one I've not heard, unfortunately.
>>Speaking of such a thing, I saw an interesting cd today that was some sort
>>of rock-techno thing, with some high profile artists in both techno and
>>indie rock collaborating with one another. Which makes me wonder why in
>>the hell today, in the store, was the first I had heard about it. I didn't
>>buy it, cos it was dead expensive, but I do wonder if it's any good.
>>(Americans: it most definately wasn't the Spawn soundy, so don't post
>>that)
>The Spawn Soundtrack, though, is absolute drivel. Even someone addled
>enough to think "Fuel My Fire" is good couldn't enjoy some of the
>stuff on there. Who was on this mystery CD, anyhow.
The Spawn thing is AWFUL. Did you hear the story about Sneaker
Pimps/Marilyn Manson? Apparently Mr. Manson redid the song without their
consent, and they want their name off the cd because it's so bad (I'm not
saying Sneaker Pimps are actually *good* here, but that track IS a
disgrace to them). Mystery cd...I don't fully recall. I'm going to buy it
at some point though. I remember it had all the biggie electronic ones
though, the Chems and Orbital and FSOL and the oh so predictable Prodigy,
though it did have some more obscure ones too. It was a two cd set, and I
think it was some sort of import too. Not that I've overly answered
questions.
>Well song-to-song Oasis do sound like a few people, but that's not
>important really. Their songs never come as a surprise, that's the
>difficulty: it doesn't matter who they sound like, what matters is the
>general ennui I invariably get when I hear an Oasis song for the
>*first* time, let alone the hundredth. It's that they sound like rock
>music is meant to sound like, which isn't for me the point.
Well, obviously, I have no problem with you not liking Oasis with your
reasons cos it's like, well, if it's not your thing it's not your thing,
but it's the people that just go off it with really no rhyme or reason
that annoy me. I defend Spice Girls and Boyzone when people give 'em
irrational attacks too. Actually, if you want to have top fun, get into an
anti-Spice discussion where someone is calling all their song wank and
calling them all untalented, and then ask, 'So then what did you think of
Naked?' They'll be floored cos not a one of them know any songs beyond the
point of 2 Become 1. I hate people that do that. It's like in that Pete
vs. Alex thread, when they started ragging on Mel C, but when pressed the
reply was 'Well, I don't have to listen to it, if it's shit' or something
like that. Brilliant.
>Though the Mondays, on reflection, do sound a bit like Oasis, if that
>makes any sense. The sneer's pretty much the same, at least on the
>more blitzed, mid-late period Mondays stuff like "Judge Fudge".
Erm, I still don't hear it :)
>I think 'I Am The Resurrection' is dreadful, sorry. The music's fine,
>alright, but the tune goes nowhere. Even when I was a kid I only liked
>it for the 'Hey Jude' reason outlined above, viz. it's long, so it
>must be good.
I have never noticed it as a long song. I like...actually, I haven't
listened to it in ages, so I can't explain what I did like about it, cos I
forgot. There was something specific about it though.
>>>On topic...lots of praise elsewhere for the Manics' lyrics. Can I just
>>>remind people of Simon Price's excellent observation that the lines
>>>about "When I was young P.C. meant Police Constable / Nowadays I can't
>>>seem to tell the difference" are incredibly bad.
>>I always loved the bits saying words like 'axeminster' or something
>>similar to that.
>No, you've utterly lost me. The best bit in PCP is the quote from
>Nemesis The Warlock.
Oh, I was talking about some other song, I don't know what I'm on about.
And yeah, that's got to be true.
>4 st 7 lb. I'm good with numbers, though Wire's 'Map Ref....' single
>always floors me. I like both those songs.
I like both Revol and 4st 7lb if I ignore most of the lyrics, but when I
read the lyrics I get annoyed with it.
>As for Revol, I think those are great lyrics, though I was sorely
>disappointed when I found out the title was 'Lover' spelt backwards
>rather than a hipster abbreviation.
That's exactly my problem with it. That whole lover backwards thing just
annoyed me to no end.
>Oh, surely. I still think Richey is/was the best, or at least most
>interesting, lyricist of this decade, assuming I've got which songs he
>wrote down right.
He was an interesting lyricist, that's for sure. I like what Nicky said
about him, that he had too much he wanted to get into songs and would tend
to end up sounding cryptic and weird (he cited Revol as an example of
this). "We never knew what the hell he was going on about a lot of times".
>Cheers, (& get well soon if you've still got flu, btw)
Thank you :)
Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
Couldn't resist, even though this post covers more areas -- that still
remains one of the best bits of crowd chanting in live rock records,
from where I'm at [in this case the well-groovy _Viva! Roxy Music_].
Anyway, seemed to have missed out on an interesting thread here...
Tom wrote:
> LuluSpice wrote:
>
> Incidentally, I can't believe someone actually said to you "Wait a
> minute, you just called the Beatles overrated." (or whatever it was)
> in another post.
Well, it *was* Neil, after all. *wink*
> There are times when I truly wish I could honestly
> say I thought the Beatles sucked.
*scratches head* But I thought you had done that! Wasn't there that
one post where you trashed just about every classic rock band ever?
I was rather impressed...
> Roxy Music music (how stupid that looks) has aged very well, which is
> surprising when you consider that it's basically a combination of glam
> riffs, lounge lizard crooning and synth noodling, three things which
> in themselves haven't dated very well at all (glam riffs apart,
> actually). It would have been so damn exciting to have been around
> when they were getting big.
I can't entirely imagine what that whole time must have been like
-- T.Rextasy in full swing, Bowie unleashes Ziggy, the Sweet keep
chugging along, then Roxy touches down. Add to that the Stooges
immolating themselves, Funkadelic getting very *very* weird, Miles
Davis charging off into the ether, Neu and Kraftwerk and Can
perfecting the art of Kraut -- *and* some of the goofiest fluffiest
pop songs ever, not to mention Led Zeppelin. I can actually
say with pride I was born in 1971, frankly!
> Paul McCartney's very worst song is surely "Mary Had A Little Lamb",
> his first stab at a kid's record. It's astonishingly bad, far far
> worse than the Frog Chorus. Runner-up is his Festive B-Side, "Rudolf
> The Red-Nosed Reggae", which is exactly as awful as it sounds. I
> notice that Geir has gone oddly quiet, by the way.
I hope to hell you were kidding about the reggae number. As for
Geir...I won't say anything if you wo--d'oh!
> The Spawn Soundtrack, though, is absolute drivel.
All of it? I was pondering picking it up used...
> Though the Mondays, on reflection, do sound a bit like Oasis, if that
> makes any sense. The sneer's pretty much the same, at least on the
> more blitzed, mid-late period Mondays stuff like "Judge Fudge".
It's all a question of enunciation. Now, here's the thing to scare
everyone -- whatever *did* happen to Northside? And Flowered Up, for
that matter?
> It's similar
> to 'Little Baby Nothing', where despite the surface anti-porn outrage
> it's fairly clear that the boys see Tracey (sp?) as a source of
> intense fascination and a role model, witness their breathless
> assumption of the victim-role in the last bit of the song.
I still love that part, to be frank -- the ultimate definition of
Manics as informed, willing and aware victims. Martyrology was
never so exhilirating, I think...but when you consider the comparison
being made in the song, is victimization the appropriate thing to
think?
--
O-O-O- Founder of the alt.music.alternative Court of Star Chamber O-O-O-
O-O- Minister of Obscure Musics, Britpop/Isolationist Division, DNRC O-O
Ned Raggett n...@kuci.org nrag...@uci.edu
Listowner for the Oasis, Suede, Sparks and T. Rex lists -- ask for info!
"So don't go away, say what you say/But say that you'll stay
Forever and a day...in the time of my life/Cos I need more time
Yes I need more time/Just to make things right..."
-- Oasis, "Don't Go Away", _Be Here Now_ -- for the departed
O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O- http://kuci.org/~nraggett/ O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-
Lulu Spice
In article <01bcb8db$d0fb25c0$8d1a5ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"
<patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>Lulu Spice wrote:
>> >>This is because Roxy Music are brilliant. Actually, this is a point: I've
>> >>very rarely heard a GOOD cover of a Lennon song, both Beatles and
>> >>post-Beatles.
>> >Try Siouxsie & The Banshees "Dear Prudence" or The Breeders "Happiness
>> >Is A Warm Gun" for starters.
>> Siouxsie's is the exception to the shite cover rule, I believe. Actually,
>> I think Siouxsie's version is better than the original version in many
>> ways. I have heard both you mentioned, btw.
>I actually heard (a) a Lennon tribute album which had an OK cover of "I
>Found Out" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers and a not-bad version of "How Do
>You Sleep" by the Magnificent Bastards (the closest I've come to liking
>something Scott Weiland was on). I also heard a rather interesting cover of
>"Mind Games" off the new DJ Krush LP, but I forgot who sang vocals.
Yeah, and I've seen some bands do a few live covers that were alright, but
he's covered so often and usually so poorly...I actually have heard the
first two songs (the DJ Krush one is a new one for me), and both of them
are alright, but I think the rest of that album is pretty much drivel (we
are talking about the Working Class Hero tribute album, right?)
>-Nate "Now Candlebox's 'Steel and Glass'- THAT blew." Patrin
Candlebox *anything* blows.
Nate Patrin
Lulu Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> wrote in article
<bitchyspice-03...@mp27.dancris.com>...
> Yeah, and I've seen some bands do a few live covers that were alright,
but
> he's covered so often and usually so poorly...I actually have heard the
> first two songs (the DJ Krush one is a new one for me), and both of them
> are alright, but I think the rest of that album is pretty much drivel (we
> are talking about the Working Class Hero tribute album, right?)
'Fraid so. Actually, speaking of "Mind Games", George Clinton did a cover
of that on the WCH album. Sadly, it was almost entirely bereft of funk.
> >-Nate "Now Candlebox's 'Steel and Glass'- THAT blew." Patrin
>
> Candlebox *anything* blows.
Well, yeah. Good point. (grin) Is there any truth to the rumor that their
lead singer is really Skid Row's Sebastian Bach? Someone at an old job last
winter told me and for some reason I can believe it, given Bach's Lennon
fixation in his infamous "what a loser Kurt Cobain was" letter to Rolling
Stone back in '94.
-Nate "Corporate 'alternative': The next "cock rock"?" Patrin
sla...@guvax.acc.georgetown.edu
Although it's been covered too many times, Marianne Faithful did an
affecting version of "Working Class Hero," IMHO. As to the Beatles,
does anyone besides me remember an old collection of covers of their
songs (circa late 1970s) called "All This and World War II"? It was
mostly dreck, but had a few gems, including Peter Gabriel's
"Strawberry Fields..." and Keith Moon's "When I'm 64."
The weirdest Beatle cover I've ever heard--and I mean weirder than the
Flying Lizard's version of "Money"--is the Italian progressive rock
band Esperanto's unbelievably over-the-top take on "Eleanor Rigby."
They sure ain't recording 'em like that anymore.--Joe Slater
Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
Tom wrote:
>
> While we're on at classic rock, does anyone else think that far and
> away the best thing Neil Young has ever been involved with is CSN &
> Y's "Our House"?
Unfortunately said song defines yawnsome proto-Eagles/Linda
Rondstadt rock to me. Or at least calls up way too many memories
of such drivel.
> Not to mention Tim Buckley's 'Starsailor'. (Led Zep bedamned!).
Oh, fooey on Tim Buckley. And Jeff Buckley, for that matter. But
as for Tim, he's much more interesting to me as an influence
[This Mortal Coil, natch, but also Butterfly Child and A. R. Kane
and so forth] than in and of himself. Nick Drake, now *that's*
something else from where I sit.
As for ze Zep -- brought together more musical influences than
ever fully understood in context, while influencing more unusually
interesting bands than realized [Swans, the God Machine, Jane's
Addiction, Depeche Mode circa _Faith and Devotion_], which outweighs
the oodles of folly all the ripoffs could never capture. Americans
will remember when Kingdom Come were the proto-rock gods, of course...
*wink*
> Of
> course, I bet that at the time it would have been a rare cat who liked
> Krautrock and bubblegum, for all Neu! and Cluster's obvious trash
> roots and influences (to name but two). And much has been written
> about the schoolyard rivalries between the glam kids and those heads
> into prog rock.
So cheers to the rare cats, then. There had to have been some.
No doubt the rivalries were vicious, but those with the sense to
say that good music is where you find it were perhaps the bravest of
the lot!
> The early 70s glam band you don't mention is the outrageously good
> Mott The Hoople,
Damn, you're right! And they are stupendously great indeed...
> who are pretty much the only people ever to write
> good meta-rock, i.e. songs about rock'n'roll. The bit on 'Saturday
> Gigs' where Ian Hunter yells "AND THEN WE WENT TO CROYDON!" is a
> definitive musical moment, (though may not mean so much to anyone not
> from the South-East of England).
Although it does illuminate the Suede bit where Brett sings about
going to Worthing...
> And all of "All The Way From Memphis"
> is immaculate. And then of course there's 'All The Young Dudes', which
> Oasis would surely have tackled by now (love to hear Liam doing the
> "concrete al around" bit, though he'd fluff the crowd interaction)
> except it's rude about some band called the Beatles.
Yes, but it celebrates T. Rex...and that's more than a perfect
tradeoff! Besides which, it would confuse the hell out of everyone.
> (Yes, I do only own their Greatest Hits. But at least I own that.)
Ah, but which phase? Island period or Columbia? I have both
collections -- taken together, one hell of a box set equivalent...
> No, no, it's all true. And then there was Percy 'Thrills' Thrillington
> and Suzy And The Red Stripes' "Seaside Woman", which really do take
> things to a whole new level of Macca Hell.
Stop, I refuse to hear more. I believe you, while shuddering all the
time inside...
> Out of 14 tracks, I found only 3 anything more than 'horrible'. But
> the kind of sludge-rock bands who were playing on it are so far from
> being my sort of thing that this may not be a fair estimation. I'm
> sure Todd McFarlane thinks it's 'kewl'.
McFarlane's an egomaniacal posing wanker, and if that meant he selected
a fair amount of the rock groups featured therein, I'm not surprised. I
was just hoping that the techno outfits selected had done a nice job
transforming the tracks appropriately, but apparently not...
> Northside are still going, or were a year or so ago. I saw a poster
> advertising a gig in Leeds.
*horrible look of shock* Dear lord. Are Birdland still going?
> Liam Maher is working a stall on Camden market, as any fule kno.
? Tell me more about this strange beast called a 'fule' -- *wink*
> "Weekender" ensures their name will live as long as I do, anyway.
Now, there's a song I heard everything about but never heard. Rumor
has it that it would have fitted in perfectly on the _Trainspotting_
soundtrack in place of the song "Trainspotting" itself...
> More so than 'Yes'?
Yup -- because for all that Richey poured his bile for himself into
that one, "Little..." captures more of what James Dean Bradfield
once told me in an interview was the whole 'gang mentality' of
the band -- after all, that killer end chorus is 'we', not 'I'.
For a band with inspiration from similar 'gang of guys together'
outfits -- the Pistols, Public Enemy, Guns n' Roses -- I think it's
the collective nature of some of their songs which can elevate it to
a beautiful, strangely informed communalism. See also "You Love
Us," "A Design For Life" ["We don't talk about love..."] and so forth.
> It's my favourite Manics single, incidentally, in part because of
> that, in part because it contains *the* definitive Manics sum-up
> ("culture, alienation..."), in part because it's the best AOR tune
> I've ever heard.
Hell, most of that album is the best AOR ever heard. I should really
relisten to _Gold..._ -- haven't touched it in years.
> Well, the theme of victim-as-hero, indeed victim-as-actant (only by
> rendering yourself impotent can you gain control over your life) is a
> fairly explicit one throughout the first three Manics' albums, though
> the opposite p.o.v. is also taken (cf.'Patrick Bateman'). If that's
> what you were talking about, which I'm not quite sure it was.
Interesting point -- I think I was clumsily trying to note the vexed
question of 'are porn actresses victims or not, in which case would
terming them and portraying them as victims be in fact simply
patronizing?' Of course, the more likely truth is that some are,
some aren't...but I hesistate to get too lost in a subject about which
I don't consider myself to be necessarily expert [beyond being
a pathetic male hetero, that is -- *wink*].
Miscreant
Charles De Goal does an excellent version of "Instant Karma."
Lennon, like Dylan and Neil Young, sounds better when someone else is
singing.
Regards,
Bill
Tom
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 17:31:53 -0700,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
> Seriously,
>this hysterical, disgusting, unadulterated worship of the Beatles floors
>me. They are a band who had some decent songs. They also had some of the
>WORST songs of all time under their belt too. It's like the above
>mentioned Noel said (and this was part of my reply to the above fan): 'The
>Beatles invented and revolutionised nothing'. If it wasn't *them*, it
>would've been another Britbeat band taking the world by storm. And you
>know what? They probably would've been a good deal more talented.
It's interesting to note that the Beatles, like any other band, have
waxed and waned even in critical favour: the current glib assumption
that even if other things are to be questioned, the Beatles are some
sort of objective touchstone, handily ignores the fact that from
around 1976 to around 1986, The Beatles, like the rest of the 60s,
were generally thought of as dated and naive. Their critical revival
began with the rise of the CD, which shifted critical attention from
current popular music to reissue programmes on the new format. (It
might be more accurate to say that critical attention followed
advertising dollars, since the people consuming the reissued CDs were
a lot better off than the people consuming the new pop music). This
shift also kicked off the exercises in canon-building that plague
rockcrit to this day.
Even in 1991 - and to neatly tie up both ends of this conversation -
it was still possible for the Manics to get away with "I laughed when
Lennon was shot." They wouldn't say that now (IIRC, they don't when
they play 'Motown Junk' in concert). The current apotheosis of the
Fabs kicked off with the 'Anthology' release and such ghastly
phenomena as Mojo's triple-covered special issue, which included a
stunningly arrogant article by Paul Du Noyer where he accused all who
didn't like the Beatles of being resentful, and then decided that they
could only be pretending to dislike the band anyhow. Get a grip, man!
>Yeah, it is amazing. Actually, I have a friend (wahey!) who insists that
>Pulp are virtually Roxy Music.
I don't really see it - both Ferry and Eno are too much the
dilettantish theorists to come up with Jarvis' more visceral,
class-based viewpoints: there's no earthly way either man could write
something as good as 'Mile End'. Although to be fair, I'd be surprised
if Jarvis wrote anything as good as 'In Every Dream Home A Heartache'.
Different strokes, in other words.
>Most people just don't listen to things at all. It's like, to go back to
>the overrated Beatles point, I'm quite sure a good portion of their Holy
>Crusaders from rec.music.beatles haven't actually *heard* anything beyond
>the red & blue greatest hits compilations. Maybe the terrible Sgt.
>Pepper's too.
Much more likely to be 'Revolver', actually. Every time the Beatles'
star is in the ascendant, a different album is singled out for the
ultimate accolades. Now people find concept albums slightly sad, the
weight of the Beatle Legend falls upon 'Revolver', which apparently
marks the apex of their songwriting. Similarly, the track which
everyone likes no matter what they think has stopped being 'A Day In
The Life', and become instead 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. Which invented
dance music, you know. Ho yuss.
I like both those tracks, incidentally,
Now, looking elsewhere in this group, the hipsters are all naming
tracks from the White Album, so that's going to be next.
> And I'm 100% sure that the people in that same newsgroop who
>rip Yoko have had no experience with her music, beyond skipping her tracks
>on Double Fantasy.
I have to say that I don't think those tracks are anywhere near her
best work - they still seem fairly forgettable to me, which isn't
something I'd usually say of Yoko's music.
>Oh, jesus, I forgot about that. That's just horrible, really horrible. I
>mean, that's not even trying. Why does he keep releasing Christmas songs,
>btw? I'm assuming Rudolf is a Chrimble tune, actually. It could just be an
>insanely dodgy thing with an equally dodgy title. I've not heard it. It's
>possibly the only one I've not heard, unfortunately.
It's perhaps the B-Side to his trite and sickly stab at Christmas
immortality, 'Wonderful Christmastime', which still pops up on all
those Yuletide compilations. Pointless, since the only decent Yuletide
compilations would be a) the Spector Xmas album and b) a double A-Side
of Slade and Wizzard. Nothing else Christmassy need ever be released.
Actually, you could do without the Spector and the Wizzard, too.
>disgrace to them). Mystery cd...I don't fully recall. I'm going to buy it
>at some point though. I remember it had all the biggie electronic ones
>though, the Chems and Orbital and FSOL and the oh so predictable Prodigy,
>though it did have some more obscure ones too. It was a two cd set, and I
>think it was some sort of import too. Not that I've overly answered
>questions.
Oh, wait a minute, there was a compilation of indie-dance crossover
smashes put out in the UK around 6 months ago. Surely you're not
thinking of that, whatever its name was?
>It's like in that Pete
>vs. Alex thread, when they started ragging on Mel C, but when pressed the
>reply was 'Well, I don't have to listen to it, if it's shit' or something
>like that. Brilliant.
I've never bothered arguing with Alex, since ultimately I don't give a
flying fuck about techno music arguments, which are *invariably*
either ten years old or anal beyond belief. The only time I've ever
been angry reading a.m.a. is when arguing with Pete, through
frustration more than wrath, but even so, enough to make me not really
bother any more. Even the guy who claimed Persi, Geir and me were vile
cancers destroying alternative music (or something) didn't annoy me as
much. Actually I was quite flattered on that occasion, naturally.
>>Oh, surely. I still think Richey is/was the best, or at least most
>>interesting, lyricist of this decade, assuming I've got which songs he
>>wrote down right.
>
>He was an interesting lyricist, that's for sure. I like what Nicky said
>about him, that he had too much he wanted to get into songs and would tend
>to end up sounding cryptic and weird (he cited Revol as an example of
>this). "We never knew what the hell he was going on about a lot of times".
Yes, but that also gave him the edge over his contemporaries, Nicky
Wire included, who is a good, sometimes inspired but sadly often
pretty leaden, lyricist. I mean, bar a couple of Gang Of Four tracks I
can't think of a single straightforward 'political' lyric I like, and
they're what Nicky tends to deal in. Richey's overloading and mangling
of his messages saved his stuff from triteness, I'm saying.
Cheers,
Tom
On Wed, 03 Sep 1997 20:12:14 -0700, Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
<ned.deat...@kuci.org> wrote:
>> There are times when I truly wish I could honestly
>> say I thought the Beatles sucked.
>
>*scratches head* But I thought you had done that! Wasn't there that
>one post where you trashed just about every classic rock band ever?
>I was rather impressed...
I'm sure there was one....if it's the one I'm thinking of, it was more
that I just didnt like them that much, rather than that they suck in
the way I think Ocean Colour Scene or Alice In Chains suck. As long as
I enjoy some of their earlier pop singles and 'A Day In The Life', I
won't be able to say they suck.
Or I actually *have* done it, in which case I was lying then or I'm
lying now. Take your picks.
While we're on at classic rock, does anyone else think that far and
away the best thing Neil Young has ever been involved with is CSN &
Y's "Our House"?
>I can't entirely imagine what that whole time must have been like
>-- T.Rextasy in full swing, Bowie unleashes Ziggy, the Sweet keep
>chugging along, then Roxy touches down. Add to that the Stooges
>immolating themselves, Funkadelic getting very *very* weird, Miles
>Davis charging off into the ether, Neu and Kraftwerk and Can
>perfecting the art of Kraut -- *and* some of the goofiest fluffiest
>pop songs ever, not to mention Led Zeppelin. I can actually
>say with pride I was born in 1971, frankly!
Not to mention Tim Buckley's 'Starsailor'. (Led Zep bedamned!). Of
course, I bet that at the time it would have been a rare cat who liked
Krautrock and bubblegum, for all Neu! and Cluster's obvious trash
roots and influences (to name but two). And much has been written
about the schoolyard rivalries between the glam kids and those heads
into prog rock.
The early 70s glam band you don't mention is the outrageously good
Mott The Hoople, who are pretty much the only people ever to write
good meta-rock, i.e. songs about rock'n'roll. The bit on 'Saturday
Gigs' where Ian Hunter yells "AND THEN WE WENT TO CROYDON!" is a
definitive musical moment, (though may not mean so much to anyone not
from the South-East of England). And all of "All The Way From Memphis"
is immaculate. And then of course there's 'All The Young Dudes', which
Oasis would surely have tackled by now (love to hear Liam doing the
"concrete al around" bit, though he'd fluff the crowd interaction)
except it's rude about some band called the Beatles.
(Yes, I do only own their Greatest Hits. But at least I own that.)
>I hope to hell you were kidding about the reggae number. As for
>Geir...I won't say anything if you wo--d'oh!
No, no, it's all true. And then there was Percy 'Thrills' Thrillington
and Suzy And The Red Stripes' "Seaside Woman", which really do take
things to a whole new level of Macca Hell.
>> The Spawn Soundtrack, though, is absolute drivel.
>
>All of it? I was pondering picking it up used...
Out of 14 tracks, I found only 3 anything more than 'horrible'. But
the kind of sludge-rock bands who were playing on it are so far from
being my sort of thing that this may not be a fair estimation. I'm
sure Todd McFarlane thinks it's 'kewl'.
>> Though the Mondays, on reflection, do sound a bit like Oasis, if that
>> makes any sense. The sneer's pretty much the same, at least on the
>> more blitzed, mid-late period Mondays stuff like "Judge Fudge".
>
>It's all a question of enunciation. Now, here's the thing to scare
>everyone -- whatever *did* happen to Northside?
Northside are still going, or were a year or so ago. I saw a poster
advertising a gig in Leeds.
> And Flowered Up, for
>that matter?
Liam Maher is working a stall on Camden market, as any fule kno.
"Weekender" ensures their name will live as long as I do, anyway.
>> It's similar
>> to 'Little Baby Nothing', where despite the surface anti-porn outrage
>> it's fairly clear that the boys see Tracey (sp?) as a source of
>> intense fascination and a role model, witness their breathless
>> assumption of the victim-role in the last bit of the song.
>
>I still love that part, to be frank -- the ultimate definition of
>Manics as informed, willing and aware victims.
More so than 'Yes'?
It's my favourite Manics single, incidentally, in part because of
that, in part because it contains *the* definitive Manics sum-up
("culture, alienation..."), in part because it's the best AOR tune
I've ever heard.
> Martyrology was
>never so exhilirating, I think...but when you consider the comparison
>being made in the song, is victimization the appropriate thing to
>think?
Well, the theme of victim-as-hero, indeed victim-as-actant (only by
rendering yourself impotent can you gain control over your life) is a
fairly explicit one throughout the first three Manics' albums, though
the opposite p.o.v. is also taken (cf.'Patrick Bateman'). If that's
what you were talking about, which I'm not quite sure it was.
Cheers,
Matt B Parisi
In <340dbf0...@news.demon.co.uk> And...@broxibear.demon.co.uk
(Andrew Gilmour) writes:
>
>On Tue, 02 Sep 1997 21:35:15 -0700,
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>
><snip>
>>>even then - and still do - that Roxy Music's reading of 'Jealous
Guy'
>>>was magnificent.
>>
>>This is because Roxy Music are brilliant. Actually, this is a point:
I've
>>very rarely heard a GOOD cover of a Lennon song, both Beatles and
>>post-Beatles.
>>
>
>Is A Warm Gun" for starters.
>
>
>"Since I was born I started to decay" - Placebo
>
Bowie's cover of "Across the Universe" is really good.
Matt P
Nate Patrin
Lulu Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> wrote in article
<bitchyspice-04...@mp40.dancris.com>...
> In article <01bcb961$d5abbea0$30185ea0@default>, "Nate Patrin"
> <patr...@tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> >Well, yeah. Good point. (grin) Is there any truth to the rumor that
their
> >lead singer is really Skid Row's Sebastian Bach? Someone at an old job
last
> >winter told me and for some reason I can believe it, given Bach's Lennon
> >fixation in his infamous "what a loser Kurt Cobain was" letter to
Rolling
> >Stone back in '94.
>
> *grins* I wouldn't doubt it. What letter was this? I missed that one, to
> be honest. Actually, I probably have just forgot, considering it was '94.
This was some letter in which he sniveled and pissed about Kurt "cowardly
abandoning" his kid, and he went on about how he got all misty-eyed
listening to Lennon's "Beautiful Boy" while playing with his L'il
headbanger son. Pleaugh.
Funny part was, someone responded to him with a remark to the effect of
"Bach's just pissed because Nirvana made hair-metal bands like his
obsolete." Wish it was true- the anti-alternative backlash includes a lot
of mullet-rock* on the horizon. Motley Crue's latest made it to #4 on the
Billboard charts (surpassing Wyclef and the Chemical Brothers, who released
albums that were actually /good/ and got stuck at #16) and the latest
"Entertainment, Weakly" called Hair Metal a "guilty pleasure" in a
painfully nostalgic article that sneered at Prodigy in favor of Poison (I
don't care how much you hate Prodigy, you gotta admit that sentiment shows
really assbackwards taste). While the retro-'70s fad overlooks Jonathan
Richman and Can for the more easily accessible Bee Gees and Fleetwood Mac,
you can bet the retro-'80s will ignore the Replacements and the Minutemen
for Twisted Sister and Judas Priest. And I'll be burning large piles of
checkered shoes and camo pants in protest.
-Nate "Kids of today should defend themselves against the... what?!" Patrin
*"mullet-rock" originates from the term "mullet head", a hairstyle favored
by contemporary hick white people who like that kind of music. The style is
short on the sides, floofy on the top and stringy in the back. SEE: Cyrus,
Billy Ray.
Geir Hongro
eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom) wrote:
>It's interesting to note that the Beatles, like any other band, >have
>waxed and waned even in critical favour: the current glib >assumption
>that even if other things are to be questioned, the Beatles are >some
>sort of objective touchstone, handily ignores the fact that from
>around 1976 to around 1986, The Beatles, like the rest of the >60s, were generally thought of as dated and naive.
That's not the early 80s that I remember. Most early 80s rock
critics wrote off all of the present pop music as "machine music",
and said that the REAL music was made in the 60s (or, among
younger critics, in the late 70s).
>Now people find concept albums slightly sad,
Too bad, actually. Concept albums rule!
>Now, looking elsewhere in this group, the hipsters are all naming
>tracks from the White Album, so that's going to be next.
That's just because it's hip for alternative fans liking something
that most people haven't heard at all. Out of all the songs on
that double album VERY few can be considered the kind of
"evergreens" that are continiously played on Classic Rock stations
throughout the world.
>It's perhaps the B-Side to his trite and sickly stab at Christmas
>immortality, 'Wonderful Christmastime', which still pops up on >all those Yuletide compilations. Pointless, since the only decent >Yuletide
>compilations would be a) the Spector Xmas album and b) a double >A-Side
>of Slade and Wizzard. Nothing else Christmassy need ever be >released.
>Actually, you could do without the Spector and the Wizzard, too.
There ARE some other good Christmas song too. Remember Pogues and
Kirsty MacColl? Or even Wham!?
Tom
>
>Tom wrote:
>>
>> While we're on at classic rock, does anyone else think that far and
>> away the best thing Neil Young has ever been involved with is CSN &
>> Y's "Our House"?
>
>Unfortunately said song defines yawnsome proto-Eagles/Linda
>Rondstadt rock to me. Or at least calls up way too many memories
>of such drivel.
Go go soft rock! Benefit of living in Not-America, I suspect, that I
don't make these associations. In fact, more because of an old
housemate's odd music tastes than anything else, I link it with old
candyfloss gems by the Honeybus, Amen Corner, et al.
>> Not to mention Tim Buckley's 'Starsailor'. (Led Zep bedamned!).
>
>Oh, fooey on Tim Buckley. And Jeff Buckley, for that matter. But
>as for Tim, he's much more interesting to me as an influence
>[This Mortal Coil, natch, but also Butterfly Child and A. R. Kane
>and so forth] than in and of himself. Nick Drake, now *that's*
>something else from where I sit.
Nick Drake is for weeds, whereas Tim is a Lover Man, and nails to
boot, at least in the puny world of the singer-songwriter. More
seriously, I do think they're in different leagues. It's not the voice
- why do Tim fans always monomaniacally obsess on the voice?? - as
much as the music. "Starsailor" itself still sounds unprecedented,
stuff like "Lorca", "Gypsy Woman", "Driftin'" are a peerless fusion of
folk and spacerock (and yes, jazz influences too, though again too
much is made of those, I think). And then to make a record as nasty as
"Goodbye From L.A."....well, I dig Tim. Jeff I can take or leave,
though, and 'Goodbye And Hello' is one *bad* album.
AS for Nick Drake, of course I like him, but only in specifc moods and
on specific days, whereas Tim has something for all seasons, I find.
Not that I'd have even compared the two, myself.
>As for ze Zep -- brought together more musical influences than
>ever fully understood in context, while influencing more unusually
>interesting bands than realized [Swans, the God Machine, Jane's
>Addiction, Depeche Mode circa _Faith and Devotion_], which outweighs
>the oodles of folly all the ripoffs could never capture. Americans
>will remember when Kingdom Come were the proto-rock gods, of course...
>*wink*
Welll....of the bands you list only Swans really float my boat, and
even then in a limited sense. It's just rock music and me, I think. We
don't get on in some basic manner. I don't actually think Led Zep are
bad (though the people who praise them on the rec.groups almost
invariably have lousy taste), they obviously did do a lot of varied
things and rarely wanked out as far as I can see - it's more that they
define fairly well an area of music which remains a bit of an Empty
Quarter for me, as far as pleasure goes.
>So cheers to the rare cats, then. There had to have been some.
>No doubt the rivalries were vicious, but those with the sense to
>say that good music is where you find it were perhaps the bravest of
>the lot!
Not just where you bump and grind it. Naturally.
>> The early 70s glam band you don't mention is the outrageously good
>> Mott The Hoople,
Did you mention Slade, btw? Only really good for a couple of singles
and the look, but what singles (and what a look). The Rough Guide To
Rock, supposedly comprehensive UK reference book, doesn't mention
Slade, who, like, only had six No.1 singles. Reason one to boycott it,
reason two being its dreadful entry on Cluster by me, written in
circumstances which would cause a virtuous ten-listens reviewer such
as Lulu to never 'speak' to me again. (It also doesn't have Win and
Van Dyke Parks, whose interview in this month's Wire is lovely - what
an enthusiast the man is.)
>Damn, you're right! And they are stupendously great indeed...
>
>> who are pretty much the only people ever to write
>> good meta-rock, i.e. songs about rock'n'roll. The bit on 'Saturday
>> Gigs' where Ian Hunter yells "AND THEN WE WENT TO CROYDON!" is a
>> definitive musical moment, (though may not mean so much to anyone not
>> from the South-East of England).
>
>Although it does illuminate the Suede bit where Brett sings about
>going to Worthing...
I love that song, too. Worthing is *so* horrible, though (as, frankly,
is Croydon). Roger Waters comes from the same town as me, though there
isn't a blue plaque yet for the sad old fool.
>> And all of "All The Way From Memphis"
>> is immaculate. And then of course there's 'All The Young Dudes', which
>> Oasis would surely have tackled by now (love to hear Liam doing the
>> "concrete al around" bit, though he'd fluff the crowd interaction)
>> except it's rude about some band called the Beatles.
>
>Yes, but it celebrates T. Rex...and that's more than a perfect
>tradeoff! Besides which, it would confuse the hell out of everyone.
This is something I'd actually, like, *want* to hear by Oasis. Who'd
have thunk it?
>> (Yes, I do only own their Greatest Hits. But at least I own that.)
>
>Ah, but which phase? Island period or Columbia? I have both
>collections -- taken together, one hell of a box set equivalent...
I don't know (blush). Whichever 'phase' has those songs, I'd guess.
>> Out of 14 tracks, I found only 3 anything more than 'horrible'. But
>> the kind of sludge-rock bands who were playing on it are so far from
>> being my sort of thing that this may not be a fair estimation. I'm
>> sure Todd McFarlane thinks it's 'kewl'.
>
>McFarlane's an egomaniacal posing wanker, and if that meant he selected
>a fair amount of the rock groups featured therein, I'm not surprised. I
>was just hoping that the techno outfits selected had done a nice job
>transforming the tracks appropriately, but apparently not...
No, the rock elements dominate throughout, except on the
Goldie/Rollins effort, which is also the best thing there. The Prodigy
track is probably the second most bearable, since they've rock-ised
their sound effectively enough anyway for Tom Morello's input to
integrate unobtrusively. Also, both Prodigy and Rage are po-faced
underground-fetishising whiners, though Liam's bunch do have a
distance to go before they match the Awfulness Degree Zero of RATM.
>> Northside are still going, or were a year or so ago. I saw a poster
>> advertising a gig in Leeds.
>
>*horrible look of shock* Dear lord. Are Birdland still going?
Almost certainly not, I'd say.
>> "Weekender" ensures their name will live as long as I do, anyway.
>
>Now, there's a song I heard everything about but never heard. Rumor
>has it that it would have fitted in perfectly on the _Trainspotting_
>soundtrack in place of the song "Trainspotting" itself...
God knows it's long enough. (Why Primal Scream insisted on putting
that tedious thing on their album too, I'l never know). It's well
worth hearing, if you can get past the vocals (which I easily can).
There's a jazzy bit in the middle which is slightly shit, though.
>> More so than 'Yes'?
>
>Yup -- because for all that Richey poured his bile for himself into
>that one, "Little..." captures more of what James Dean Bradfield
>once told me in an interview was the whole 'gang mentality' of
>the band
Good point. Gotcha.
>> It's my favourite Manics single, incidentally, in part because of
>> that, in part because it contains *the* definitive Manics sum-up
>> ("culture, alienation..."), in part because it's the best AOR tune
>> I've ever heard.
>
>Hell, most of that album is the best AOR ever heard. I should really
>relisten to _Gold..._ -- haven't touched it in years.
GATS doesn't deserve the dismissal it often gets, I think. If you
think of it as integrating the rock approach of the first album with
the a dry run for the lyrical approach of 'THB', it looks more
interesting. 'Life Becoming A Landslide' has aged particularly well,
and 'From Despair To Wear' also remains stunning - the best portrait
(for me, and of course this subject is even more subjective than most,
as we're finding out elsewhere on a.m.a.) of what depression is like
that I've heard, and also the first Manics tune I liked, bless 'em.
>> Well, the theme of victim-as-hero, indeed victim-as-actant (only by
>> rendering yourself impotent can you gain control over your life) is a
>> fairly explicit one throughout the first three Manics' albums, though
>> the opposite p.o.v. is also taken (cf.'Patrick Bateman'). If that's
>> what you were talking about, which I'm not quite sure it was.
>
>Interesting point -- I think I was clumsily trying to note the vexed
>question of 'are porn actresses victims or not, in which case would
>terming them and portraying them as victims be in fact simply
>patronizing?' Of course, the more likely truth is that some are,
>some aren't...but I hesistate to get too lost in a subject about which
>I don't consider myself to be necessarily expert [beyond being
>a pathetic male hetero, that is -- *wink*].
Yeah, God knows I know more than enough about the product, even if the
means of production remain mysterious. Ah well, you're a slave to
*something* then you die.
Anyhow, re the song: I think that the tension in the track is that the
Manics desperately want to believe in the exploitation/victimisation
aspects of it all, to the extent that this insistence on victimhood
becomes exploitation all its own - check out how James sings the "her
beauty and virginity..." line, and tell me he'd want it any other way.
And of course The Manics are aware of this, and aware also that
they're doing it not just because they want to play the White Knight
like all guys do, but also because - as we've been discussing - they
want to have endured that victimhood themselves, and to question any
part of it casts a shadow on that. (Which raises the interesting
larger question as to what extent in the wider world of porn men
consume it because they envy the perceived surrender of control that
objectification implies, as well as wanting to keep that control
themselves.)
Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
Tom wrote:
>
> Go go soft rock!
You sound like my roommate. At this rate, Boston will become the
new touchstone of music or something...*wink*
> Benefit of living in Not-America, I suspect, that I
> don't make these associations.
Entirely likely. I associate liking such stuff with being an
extremely humorless semi-ex-hippie wibbling on about 'real music' --
second listenings for quality on their own tend to still not cut it
for me.
> In fact, more because of an old
> housemate's odd music tastes than anything else, I link it with old
> candyfloss gems by the Honeybus, Amen Corner, et al.
Intriguing. But why not? Now Hall and Oates, there was a band...
[I'm interested to see what type of reaction *this* creates!].
> Nick Drake is for weeds,
So call me a dandelion. I'll still look beautiful in yellow.
> whereas Tim is a Lover Man, and nails to
> boot, at least in the puny world of the singer-songwriter.
*arched eyebrow* Oh, the passion.
> More
> seriously, I do think they're in different leagues. It's not the voice
> - why do Tim fans always monomaniacally obsess on the voice??
Because on certain songs, at least, it's annoyingly unavoidable.
First time I heard the original "Song to the Siren," I thought,
"*This* is what the hype is all about? Next." I don't feel the
raptures others do.
> - as
> much as the music. "Starsailor" itself still sounds unprecedented,
> stuff like "Lorca", "Gypsy Woman", "Driftin'" are a peerless fusion of
> folk and spacerock (and yes, jazz influences too, though again too
> much is made of those, I think). And then to make a record as nasty as
> "Goodbye From L.A."....well, I dig Tim.
So maybe if somebody made an instrumental backing mixdown of that
stuff, I might be more intrigued. It's sort of like listening to the
Smiths while hating Morrissey's voice and wishing to forget it isn't
there -- namely, it's hard to do.
Folk and spacerock -- call me a pathetic FSA fan, then. Dave Pearce
hits me with his beautifully understated vocals much more than
the arch-preener. Again, those who he influenced hit me much harder
than the man himself.
> Jeff I can take or leave,
I'll second that...specifically, the second option.
> AS for Nick Drake, of course I like him, but only in specifc moods and
> on specific days, whereas Tim has something for all seasons, I find.
> Not that I'd have even compared the two, myself.
Direct comparison is rather pointless, true, but it came to mind...
and for me, Drake is, shall we say, timeless. Buckley sounds trapped
in his era -- something which, again, many of his disciples seem to
have escaped nicely...
> Welll....of the bands you list only Swans really float my boat, and
> even then in a limited sense. It's just rock music and me, I think. We
> don't get on in some basic manner.
Depends how you define rock music, though. I mean, does something
like "Kashmir" actually hold more relation to, say, "Tutti Frutti"
or "Almost Grown" than "Catch the Breeze" by Slowdive does?
[TONIGHT! On a.m.a.'s brand new FALL SEASON! Ned with more
pointless conceptual comparisons!]
> I don't actually think Led Zep are
> bad (though the people who praise them on the rec.groups almost
> invariably have lousy taste),
D'oh. Unlike, say, Oasis. *wink*
> they obviously did do a lot of varied
> things and rarely wanked out as far as I can see -
Hm. Haven't heard the live album, have you?
> it's more that they
> define fairly well an area of music which remains a bit of an Empty
> Quarter for me, as far as pleasure goes.
Not everyone's cup of tea, to be sure. You might yet find some of
the Bonham stomp intriguing, though...
> Not just where you bump and grind it. Naturally.
Alone again? You'll have me singing "Claire" in a second...
> Did you mention Slade, btw?
Hm, thought I did...
> Only really good for a couple of singles
> and the look, but what singles (and what a look). The Rough Guide To
> Rock, supposedly comprehensive UK reference book, doesn't mention
> Slade, who, like, only had six No.1 singles.
*deeply confused look* Uh...that sucks. To put it mildly.
> I love that song, too. Worthing is *so* horrible, though (as, frankly,
> is Croydon).
Well, wasn't that the point of the songs justified, then?
> Roger Waters comes from the same town as me, though there
> isn't a blue plaque yet for the sad old fool.
If there ever is, I will tear it down myself. Admittedly, I'm also
one of the few people in the universe who will say that the secret
genius in Floyd was Dave Gilmour, but I don't want Geir and Bob
after me forever [and I *like* Syd a lot, before anyone complains].
> This is something I'd actually, like, *want* to hear by Oasis. Who'd
> have thunk it?
The world moves in mysterious ways, my sweet...
> the Awfulness Degree Zero of RATM.
I. HATE. THEM. Gene are fucking My Bloody Valentine in comparison.
But I'll spare you.
> GATS doesn't deserve the dismissal it often gets, I think.
I really should give it a new listen soon....
Would love to finish, but must dash...
Matt B Parisi
In <340F6E...@kuci.org> Ned 'the Nanite' Raggett
<ned.deat...@kuci.org> writes:
>
>
>Tom wrote:
>>
>> While we're on at classic rock, does anyone else think that far and
>> away the best thing Neil Young has ever been involved with is CSN &
>> Y's "Our House"?
No, it's not even close, but you are talking to one huge Neil Young fan
here. As far as "Our House," I don't think that Young did anything on
the song except play guitar. He certainly didn't write it, as he did
such better CSN&Y songs as "Helpless" and "Ohio."
Personally, I can think of between 5 and 7 Neil Young albums that would
make my top 100 of all time, were I to ever compile such a list. Most
artists would kill for just one masterpiece, but young has made
several.
>> The early 70s glam band you don't mention is the outrageously good
>> Mott The Hoople,
>
>Damn, you're right! And they are stupendously great indeed...
And don't forget about sort-of sound-a-likes Big Star!
Matt P
Michael Sims
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:36:49 -0700,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
Ok, I may regret this, but I'm gonna give it a shot.
Let me say first of all that my intention is not to flame, so
please don't take it as such. I've been a reader of a.m.a for about
2-3 months now but I've never posted before. I've read many of your
posts and you seem quite....opinionated. :) Most of this post is
going to be in disagreement with you, but it's all in the interest of
intelligent discourse and not a "I'm smarter or more informed than
you" type of ego-stroking debate. The moment the thread turns
inflammatory I'm outta here.
One other note: I'm going to make a lot of references to
music theory in this post. Let me say first thing that I am greatly
interested in music theory and have spent considerable time studying
it. I am by no means an expert and anything I say is utimately my
opinion. Anyone who is more versed in the subject than I are more
than welcome to add your thoughts or disagreements. So let it be
known that I prefacing this entire post with a big IMHO. :)
On with the post:
> I also love the fans that use the
>excuse that the Beatles were/are popular, thus good, but then when some
>Oasis person posted (in the Oasis groop, mind you) how many albums they
>sold first week, the exact same people decided to go into hysterics that
>popularity does not make a band good.
I agree with you that this is a hypocritical attitude.
Popularity does not indicate quality or depth of art. The Beatles
were of course amazingly popular but this is not what makes them a
great band. What makes the Beatles great is (among other things) is
the level of innovation and the complexity and depth of their music
THEORY-wise. Many music professors and theorists (people who have
spent most all of their lives dedicated to studying what makes music
satisfying) have agreed that the Beatles have done more than any other
performer this century to innovate popular music. Most of the more
complex nuances of music theory can be easily found in the music of
the Beatles. Transitions, counterpoint, use of dissonance and
harmonic tendencies, and of course the ever elusive melody (elusive
in the sense that it's extremely difficult to explain what makes a
good melody in a theoretical sense) are all present in the work of the
Beatles. The Beatles also knew how to appeal to the masses with their
music with simple catchy melodies. This along with their personality
and image (and many many other factors) made them popular all over
the world but this is not what makes them "good".
Oasis is IMHO a great band. When I first heard the Morning
Glory album I was amazed that Oasis were able to capture that
"elusive" melody that the Beatles were so good at. My opinion of
Oasis has always been this: Most all of music is derivative, and if
you're gonna copy someone, might as well be the best rock/pop band of
all time. Oasis are also wildly popular. But THEORY-wise they have
not innovated that much, and they have not re-invented themselves like
the Beatles did so many times. (I was sorely disappointed with "Be
Here Now". While it is a good album compared to most of the popular
music available now, it's not the quantum leap over "Morning Glory"
that I was expecting. Oasis are definitely not mirroring the Beatles'
career.) So to me that is the difference between The Beatles and
Oasis. Both were/are wildly popular, but one is respected by millions
theorists and performers from all walks of life who love music for the
sake of music itself, and one is not. (Please understand that I love
Oasis and I'm not bashing them in the slightest, and I'm sure that
there are theorists out there that see depth and innovation in their
music, but judging from their first 3 albums, their music will not be
as far reaching and influential as the music of the Beatles has been).
I'm not sure what your opinion of the Beatles is (judging from
your posts that I have read, you like them and a lot of their music,
but you think their popularity and innovativeness is overrated) and
the above may seem unnecessary or irrelevant (I know what I'm saying
is not a contradiction to your point, which was well taken) but I felt
like that little speech would give a little background on where I'm
coming from.
>Yeah, and even then, it didn't reach its histrionic peak until the release
>of those awful Anthologies (which you do say, further down, so consider
>this an agreement). I liked the comparison featured in Select: the
>Anthologies were like the Star Wars reissues. First one had a lot of extra
>stuff and a lot of care, second not quite as much, and third was just a
>toss off with a few more crap puppets. The masturbatory special about the
>Beatles was actually very interesting, but could've been cut in half and
>said a lot more.
I think you need to realize that the Anthologies were for the
die-hard fans. They were outtakes, for crissakes. Most of the stuff
is interesting only to people who are interested in the history of the
band, interested in the song-writing process they went through
(getting to hear a classic tune while it was still very rough around
the edges). Some of what makes the Anthologies interesting is hearing
the radical changes that the songs went through and hearing the "song
that could have been" if they had decided not to make those changes.
The Anthologies were never meant to be released as solid albums with
lots of new and interesting music.
For example, I love Beck's music. I bought his album
Stereopathic Soulmanure which I love. It is an album filled with
songs recorded on a four-track, some on a tape recorder, and none of
them are edited or for that matter performed particularly well. And
in all honesty most of the music on it is utter junk. I love it
because I am a Beck fan. I would never force a non-fan to listen to
it. Beck released the album for his fans only, much like the
Anthologies.
> It's
>really obnoxious, because you KNOW that a good deal of these kids that are
>'so into' the Beatles are into it solely because they are trying to be
>cool. Which obviously isn't to say that there aren't any real Beatles
>fans, but...it's really pretty bad.
Agreed. The types who go on and on about how "Lucy in the Sky
with Diamonds" was referring to LSD (it wasn't), etc. But there are
similar people who go on and on about Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc.
without really listening to most of their music and really
appreciating it for what it is. It's sad but I don't think most
Beatles fans are like this.
> I mean, honestly, what is
>the point of things like
And here's where I'm going to start taking issue with what you
say. Understand that I realize all of this is your opinion which you
are more than entitled to. But I'm going to try to answer your "what
is the point" question.
First a little discussion about makes one qualified to discuss
the merits of a particular piece of music. How do you debate what is
good and what is not? We've already established the popularity does
not make something good, so what does?
Some people (and most music critics) would argue that the more
albums that one listens to, the more music (and the more different
types of music) one exposes himself to, the better qualified that
he/she is to comment on the merits of a particular piece of music.
This type of thinking makes sense to a certain extent (after all,
music merit is usually a comparative thing, and how do you know if
something is really some of the best music that has been made unless
you've personally listened to most of the music that's ever been
made?) but does not take into account that one can listen to tons of
albums and not really comprehend on a artistic level the depth of what
they hear. And one can listen to hundred of albums but if few of
those exhibit the nuances of music that makes music great, then does
it really matter?
To me, the more one understands music theory the more they
are qualified to state whether a piece of music is "good" or not.
After all, most of the debate that goes on in this group is of the "it
sucks...it does not" variety. Even the more intelligent debates
consist of things like "this is derivate of [artist]....these songs
are too long...this song should've been split up in to 3 different
songs (a common criticism of Radiohead's "Paranoid Android" which from
a theory standpoint is brilliant)...this album is stagnant".. in other
words the reasons given to back up ones argument are often very vague
terms and concepts, and eventually come down to pure opinion, with no
real support.
Consider other forms of art. If you're talking about painting
you can discuss brush strokes, the techniques used, the effects of
lighting and shading, "negative space" (suggesting the presence of
objects that aren't actually present by the spaces between other
objects in the painting) , etc. If you're talking about poetry you
can discuss the use of meter, etc. If you're talking about
literature, you can discuss similes, metaphors, foreshadowing,
analogies, etc. So it stands to reason that the components of theory
are the best criteria used to judge music, and not things like "this
is different" or "this sounds cool", etc.
With that said, let's proceed:
>Good Night
I think this was a result of following in the tradition of
having a song written for Ringo to perform. It also exhibits the
command that John (and The Beatles) had over almost all genre's of
music, this one in particular being the lullaby. Do you see any value
in the music of Brahms? I think this was written in that vein, and
mainly because John was probably wanted to write something different
and visit the genre.
>Everybody's Got Something To Hide
>Except for Me and My Monkey (which is a terrible title, too)
Not the best song, but it does have some interesting guitar
work.
>Why Don't We
>Do it in the Road? (a Paul classic, if you listen to fans, despite the
>fact that it does nothing for too long)
This song is not that particularly interesting from a theory
standpoint, but I think it does exhibit Paul's vocal abilities well,
which was probably the point.
>Martha my fucking Dear
Martha my Dear is one of the best songs on the white album,
and one of Paul's classics, again from a theory standpoint. Now I'm
going to start using a lot of music theory terms and concepts which
are somewhat abstract and which you may or may not be familiar with.
Even if you are familiar with them, it may be difficult to follow me.
I'm not saying this as a reflection of your intelligence, but more of
the inherent vagueness of the concepts and my inability to communicate
them well. But what I'm going to try to do is explain why "Martha my
fucking Dear" is a brilliant piece of music.
1. Interesting meter changes
If you consider most of the song as being 4/4, then the second
measure of the song is in 5/4. This is the only point in the melody
where the meter changes (and of course at the points where this melody
repeats). Normally this would sound really strange and alienate the
ear, but Paul uses such a strong melody and harmonic tendency to
"strengthen" the weak meter that most people would never notice. What
I mean by strong is that by the end of the second measure it is clear
to the ear that the meter has been abandoned and the music is in a
temporary state of "chaos". The bass line (left hand part of the
piano) uses a strong melody based on the F major pentatonic scale (F,
G, A, C, F...pentatonic except without the sixth) which ascends and
ends on the satisfying tonic note, F. Which is interestingly enough
only a temporary point of rest as the main song is in the key of Eb.
Most of the time a chord or melody based on the second note of the
scale is minor in nature but in this case it is major and slightly
surprises the ear and acts a lead in to the next passage with begins
with Bb (F major being the 5th and natural lead in to Bb major).
2. Interesting progressions
The chords themselves are brilliant. I've touched on this a
little bit already. Let's take the first 3 and a half measures of the
song. It starts in Eb major, and each chord after that is a natural
and strong progression to the next one, while avoiding being stagnant.
The next chord after Eb is Dmin which is slightly weak but Paul
quickly begins a very strong cycle of fourths (Dmin, Gmin, C7, F, Bb)
during which the tonic point of rest seems to briefly switch to F (the
song rests here a bit longer than the other chords) which is very
interesting to the ear, because the memory of Eb as the tonic note
still lingers. The next few measures ("Remember me....martha my
love...don't forget me...") are interesting because of the use of
dissonance and tendency to give an otherwise boring progression (Bb,
Ab, Bb, Ab) "color" and "character". Paul shows his understanding of
jazz/rag time chords by using the (Bb7, AbMaj9) progression. The
AbMaj9 is the chord that really introduces dissonance and character.
If anyone reading this has a piano handy play this progression (Bb,
Ab, Bb, Ab) and then play it again using (Bb7, AbMaj9, Bb7, AbMaj9)
and I think you'll see what I mean.
Perhaps the most interesting section of the song begins with
the lines "Hold your head up, you silly girl". Here the song starts
to tend towards Fmajor as the tonic chord (some may disagree with
this) by beginning with Dmin7 (the relative minor of F), leading to
the second (Gm9) and then finally to a temporary point of rest at F6.
All of these chords use dissonance but the melody again is very strong
and holds the progression together well.
I can't begin to explain what makes the chords interesting in
this song, but hopefully I've illustrated a bit of it.
3. Melody and Counterpoint
Unfortunately it's very hard to describe what makes a good
melody, which Martha my Dear has in spades. Counterpoint is a little
easier to illustrate. My favorite use of counterpoint in this song is
begins with the second measure (the 5/4 measure). The melody follows
this line (Bb, Bb, Bb, A, C, Bb, A) resting on the major third of the
F chord, while the bass plays the aforementioned strong pentatonic
melody (E, C, D, E, F, G, A, F) which ascends in contrast to the
melody which is descending at that point, and ends on the tonic, F.
There are other examples in the song, but this is the one that really
"does it" for me.
Well, hopefully I've illustrated the point of "Martha my Dear"
and shown you that there is depth to the song. You of course do not
agree, and I respect that, but there is something to be learned in the
song and it is not crap and is not a throwaway tune.
And as a closing note let me remind all that I am not a theory
expert and some may think that I don't know what the hell I'm talking
about. I would appreciate constructive criticism of my ideas, but I
won't sink into a pointless flamewar, simply because I don't want to
waste the time. Thanks for reading. :)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Sims
"You've got to listen to me! Elementary chaos theory tells us
that all robots will eventually turn against their masters and
run amok in an orgy of blood and kicking and the biting with
the metal teeth and the hurting and shoving."
- Professor John Frink
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom
On 5 Sep 1997 02:51:43 GMT, ltri...@ix.netcom.com(Matt B Parisi)
wrote:
>I'm lukewarm about the Breeders' "Happiness," but I think that David
>Bowie's cover of "Across the Universe" is really good.
Really? I think it lets down an otherwise superb album (Young
Americans) - I was really expecting to like it, too, but it just
seemed too overdone. Ah well. The Feelies did a cover of "Everybody's
Got Something To Hide..." but it's no good.
Tom.
Tom
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:43:56 -0700,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>Nah, Oasis have already done a song that they claim to have been directly
>inspired by All the Young Dudes.
Mind mentioning which? :)
Cheers,
Tom.
Tom
On 6 Sep 1997 01:44:53 GMT, ltri...@ix.netcom.com(Matt B Parisi)
wrote:
>No, it's not even close, but you are talking to one huge Neil Young fan
>here. As far as "Our House," I don't think that Young did anything on
>the song except play guitar. He certainly didn't write it, as he did
>such better CSN&Y songs as "Helpless" and "Ohio."
Why I said "involved with" :). I do'nt own any Neil Young albums,
though I'd buy 'Decade' if it turned up cheaply enough. But "Helpless"
I do know, based on it being next to 'Our House' on 'Deja Vu'. And
yes, it's fine, better than anything else on the album save that song
I do like, too tortured and self-consciously serious for my liking
though, while 'Our House' for all that it's rather twee is delicate
and says something that I think is sweet.
Tom.
Tom
On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:36:49 -0700,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>Thank god, someone else who knew this. It seems to me like everyone I've
>run across lately has seemingly forgot. I also love the fans that use the
>excuse that the Beatles were/are popular, thus good, but then when some
>Oasis person posted (in the Oasis groop, mind you) how many albums they
>sold first week, the exact same people decided to go into hysterics that
>popularity does not make a band good.
My particular bugbear is of course the posterity argument, when a fan
of A Big Important Group says something like "Ha! Let's see who's more
popular in 10/30/200 years time then - your pop shit or [cue fanfare]
THE BEATLES." I mean, so what? If you're not listening to what gives
you pleasure or maybe says something interestng *right now*, then what
are you doing in this game?
> I liked the comparison featured in Select: the
>Anthologies were like the Star Wars reissues. First one had a lot of extra
>stuff and a lot of care, second not quite as much, and third was just a
>toss off with a few more crap puppets. The masturbatory special about the
>Beatles was actually very interesting, but could've been cut in half and
>said a lot more.
Star Wars. Feh.
Incidentally, the argument that the Anthologies were off-cuts for
die-hard fans only and so it doesn't matter if they were rubbish I
find rather irritating. Clearly, they were not presented to the public
as same- they were presented to the public as New Beatles Product and
a chance to be part of a Big Event by buying them. This may be Neil
Aspinall's fault, rather than PaulGeorgeRingo's, but it still seems
like having your cake and eating it to hype the things to that extent
and then get sniffy when people say 'But they're bad.' (Similarly,
anyone who bought them and expected quality above your average bootleg
is a sucker.)
While I'm replying to a post that isn't this one, and because I don;t
fancy tackling two huge posts, yes it's good if people know something
about music theory because it's nice to know how these things work.
But to set it up as a be-all and end-all of musical knowledge is to
already make some rather important aesthetic decisions and assume that
they are axiomatic - that progression and complexity, for example, are
worth more than simplicity and the use of formulae. The end result of
this is that Michael Sims has to 'admit' that a Beck album he likes is
'musical junk' but he doesn't mind because he's a fan. If this is
where music theory gets you, no thanks.
Besides doubting whether the kind of music theory Michael sets his
faith in could explain 'why I like' pieces like Phill Niblock's "A
Trombone Piece", Steve Reich's "It's Gonna Rain", Force & Styles'
"Field Of Dreams", or Alec Empire's "The Peak", I would also have to
say that even if one were to attempt to come to some objective
judgement as to the 'value' of a rock song, you'd need a pretty good
grounding in current literary and cultural theory as well, plus a
decent grasp of sociology and economics. Which isn;t an attempt to
flame Michael, by the way - after all, nobody is more interested in
why we like the music we like than I am, I just don;t hold much faith
in the deterministic methods he would like to employ.
And in the long run the amount of pure musicological analysis that
goes on here is minimal anyhow. A.m.a. isn;t really about that, it's
about people who love music having fun arguing about it, finding out
about it, and maybe touching on the odd interesting and worthwhile
thing in the process. Or something.
>>Even in 1991 - and to neatly tie up both ends of this conversation -
>>it was still possible for the Manics to get away with "I laughed when
>>Lennon was shot." They wouldn't say that now (IIRC, they don't when
>>they play 'Motown Junk' in concert).
>
>I think it's a tasteless line when interpreted wrongly
I'm not really sure there are too many ways to interpret "I laughed
when Lennon got shot", bar saying, oh my goodness, did you think I
meant John Lennon?? Mercy no, I meant Vladimir Lennon the Bulgarian
terror chief. What an ambiguity.
>, but I also think
>it's tasteless that they feel they can't say it anymore because of these
>psychotics calling themselves fans.
At first I have to say I parsed this as meaning Manics fans. But yes,
you;re right. What do they sing now, by the way?
>Well, I agree with you myself. Two very different bands, especially when
>you look at the actual music both produce, instead of making glib vocal
>comparisons (which actually get made a lot, weirdly. Jarvis is either
>stealing from Roxy or Davie Bowie, and I just don't see it.). I just find
>it an interesting point to make. Also a bizarre one, that sort of ties
>into the Beatles point: people who like to claim all current music is
>shite like to take any example that someone else claims is good and tie it
>to an old band, and toss it as a rip off. Once again, Beatles 'fans' are
>most guilty of this, claiming everyone from the obvious targets like U2
>and Oasis to the Spice Girls to Will Smith are ripping off the Beatles.
But it's only a short hop from this to saying "Oh yes, all music is
derivative anyhow", which loads of people here do, and as far as I can
see is only true if you widen the idea of 'derivative' to such an
extent that it stops making much useful sense.
>Hmmm. You could be right. Though I did notice a huge groundswell for Sgt.
>Pepper's last year, and it is their best-known album, unfortunately. To be
>honest, Revolver is a good sight better than Sgt. Pepper's, and several of
>their other albums. Not exactly flawless, but better. Sgt. Pepper's, for
>instance, only had four remotely enjoyable songs on it. And the entire
>album is horribly dated.
Yes, though whether that's in the music or in the hullaballoo
surrounding that decade and that year in particular I'm not sure. I
certainly like Revolver more than Sgt Pepper's, but I've just heard it
too often to get the remotest pleasure out of most of the tracks.
>>Similarly, the track which everyone likes no matter what they think has
>stopped
>>being 'A Day In The Life', and become instead 'Tomorrow Never Knows'. Which
>>invented dance music, you know. Ho yuss.
>
>Oh, obviously, just like Revolution 9 was the beginning of all things
>'ambient', somehow. Go figure. I mean, in terms of the Beatles and quite a
>few other popular bands of the time, these songs *are* very daring, but in
>terms of all music, it's hardly a first. Amazingly enough (or not so
>amazingly), Tomorrow Never Knows was marked as an awful song when it came
>out, and up until recently often placed in the top five in 'Worst Beatles
>Songs' polls. Odd.
I realy, really, find the 'worst Beatles songs' polls laughable if
they're done by people on r.m.beatles (and they always are).
Invariably, someone says "obviously, not counting Revolution 9" as if
Rev 9 was somehow so clearly unlistenable and foolish that it would be
unfair to even compare it to other songs.
>>I like both those tracks, incidentally,
>
>As do I (Tomorrow Never Knows in particular; that's part of why I so like
>Setting Sun), but if a Beatles 'fan' sees that you even remotely
>criticised them, even in passing, you'll not hear the end of it.
Prophetic words, Lulu...
>>Now, looking elsewhere in this group, the hipsters are all naming
>>tracks from the White Album, so that's going to be next.
>
>The White Album is funny. It would've been one of the greatest albums
>ever, if they had stopped being arses for ten minutes and cut it to a one
>LP, instead of the hideous double album it was.
I'm now going to say the classic Crap Thing which people always say
about double albums, viz. "I like its sprawling nature".
>I have little opinions on Christmas songs, as I tend to think all of them
>except comedy ones (12 Pains of Christmas, for example) are awful. But
>Paul's songs are particularly bad, I have to agree. Wonderful
>Christmastime is just the worst Christmas song ever put out.
The worst Xmas songs are the comedy ones, I reckon. I mean, since all
Christmas songs are by definition Novelty Songs, it seems a bit silly
to write a novelty song taking the piss out of the problem which is
then actually compounding it. Though a little wit in these things goes
a long way, so the one you mention may actually have funny lyrics and
thus be spared.
>>I've never bothered arguing with Alex, since ultimately I don't give a
>>flying fuck about techno music arguments, which are *invariably*
>>either ten years old or anal beyond belief.
>
>Anal? That thread? You mean you possibly think that debating whether or
>not to put a 'the' in front of Prodigy is anal? Gosh.
Well, now I stand revealed as completely hypocritical since I myself
posted something the other day on that weightiest of subjects.
>>Even the guy who claimed Persi, Geir and me were vile
>>cancers destroying alternative music (or something) didn't annoy me as
>>much. Actually I was quite flattered on that occasion, naturally.
>
>I would be too. They've gotta be reading a lot of your posts, at least.
No, that's the thing. He just saw our names a lot in stupid-sounding
threads and assumed that we did nothing but talk about Hanson all day.
>Cheers,
>Lulu, who is having a real hard time tonight. *Everything* is sending me
>into tears. My god, Puff Daddy/Sting sent me crying. So if I don't make
>sense, blame hysteria. I mean, Spice Girls made me cry. Albeit it was
>tears of laughter...
Surely some mistake! This should read "Tears of pure emotion as you
thought about your own 'mama' ". Anyhow, no, you made perfect sense.
Cheers,
Tom.
Michael Sims
On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 18:23:34 GMT, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom) wrote:
>Incidentally, the argument that the Anthologies were off-cuts for
>die-hard fans only and so it doesn't matter if they were rubbish I
>find rather irritating. Clearly, they were not presented to the public
>as same- they were presented to the public as New Beatles Product and
>a chance to be part of a Big Event by buying them. This may be Neil
>Aspinall's fault, rather than PaulGeorgeRingo's, but it still seems
>like having your cake and eating it to hype the things to that extent
>and then get sniffy when people say 'But they're bad.' (Similarly,
>anyone who bought them and expected quality above your average bootleg
>is a sucker.)
You can't blame record company execs that realize a product
will make tons of money if you hype it and market it. Or maybe you
can. For example, how many countless people bought the latest
Squirrel Nut Zippers CD because of the video to Hell and thought the
CD sucked? Tons, but do we blame the Squirrel Nut Zippers for that?
(BTW, I love the SNZ CD. It's just that many people thought they were
the new "alternative" band on the scene, when they're really just a
good jazz band.)
My contention is still that the CD's were intended for the
fans. If the fans of the Beatles happen to number in the millions and
millions and the CD tops the charts, then great. You seem to be
picturing legions of dissapointed people throwing their Anthology CD's
out the window and I think you're wrong.
As for myself, I personally don't own any of them. 1 or 2
listens to a friends copy was enough for me.
>While I'm replying to a post that isn't this one, and because I don;t
>fancy tackling two huge posts, yes it's good if people know something
>about music theory because it's nice to know how these things work.
>But to set it up as a be-all and end-all of musical knowledge is to
>already make some rather important aesthetic decisions and assume that
>they are axiomatic - that progression and complexity, for example, are
>worth more than simplicity and the use of formulae.
I was afraid of that. Minimalism has it's merits, and so does
formula. I wasn't trying to imply that there is any kind of checklist
you can use to empirically prove a song is worthy or isn't. I was
simply trying to show how Martha My Dear, while maybe not being Lulu's
cup of tea, is not crap and does have value.
>The end result of
>this is that Michael Sims has to 'admit' that a Beck album he likes is
>'musical junk' but he doesn't mind because he's a fan. If this is
>where music theory gets you, no thanks.
Hmmmm. I find Stereopathic Soulmanure funny as hell. That's
the reason I like it. I don't see any music value in an Adam Sandler
CD either but I still think they're funny (no I don't own any). In
other words, the reason I listen to Stereopathic Soulmanure is a
totally different one from the reason I listen to Odelay. I doubt
people buy "Monty Python's Greatest Hits" expecting some really deep
tunes, y'know?
>Besides doubting whether the kind of music theory Michael sets his
>faith in could explain 'why I like' pieces like Phill Niblock's "A
>Trombone Piece", Steve Reich's "It's Gonna Rain", Force & Styles'
>"Field Of Dreams", or Alec Empire's "The Peak", I would also have to
>say that even if one were to attempt to come to some objective
>judgement as to the 'value' of a rock song, you'd need a pretty good
>grounding in current literary and cultural theory as well, plus a
>decent grasp of sociology and economics.
I'm unfortunately not familar with any of the songs you named,
so. And the points that I provided about Martha My Dear were only the
tip of the iceberg. There are many others, and no doubt ones that I
don't fully understand my self. But I dislike the attitude of certain
people that this or that is "utter junk" when they can't even begin to
understand what they're criticizing. There is tons of music that I
don't care for, but I know when someones put a lot of work into
something and I refrain from calling it junk. I think I can call
Stereopathic Soulmanure junk because even Beck would probably agree.
>Which isn;t an attempt to
>flame Michael, by the way - after all, nobody is more interested in
>why we like the music we like than I am, I just don;t hold much faith
>in the deterministic methods he would like to employ.
I can see how you would get that idea, but it's really not the
case. What I said was applicable to Martha my Dear and nothing else.
I wasn't trying to explain why this song or that song sucks, or why
you should follow my formula to determine the merits of music. I was
talking about one song only. Sorry about the confusion.
>And in the long run the amount of pure musicological analysis that
>goes on here is minimal anyhow. A.m.a. isn;t really about that, it's
>about people who love music having fun arguing about it, finding out
>about it, and maybe touching on the odd interesting and worthwhile
>thing in the process. Or something.
Agreed, and I respect your opinions and your right to express
them. I realize that most of the threads that go on here are just
chat type stuff among people who have been friends for a long time (or
at least enjoy talking to each other), and I usually keep my nose out
of it. It's just that Martha my Dear happens to be one of my favorite
songs and I thought I'd interject my thoughts. :) Now, back to the
regularly scheduled program...
Lulu Spice
In article <34109538...@news.supernews.com>, mich...@141.com
(Michael Sims) wrote:
> Let me say first of all that my intention is not to flame, so
>please don't take it as such. I've been a reader of a.m.a for about
>2-3 months now but I've never posted before.
Intriguing first post...
>> I also love the fans that use the
>>excuse that the Beatles were/are popular, thus good, but then when some
>>Oasis person posted (in the Oasis groop, mind you) how many albums they
>>sold first week, the exact same people decided to go into hysterics that
>>popularity does not make a band good.
> I agree with you that this is a hypocritical attitude.
>Popularity does not indicate quality or depth of art. The Beatles
>were of course amazingly popular but this is not what makes them a
>great band. What makes the Beatles great is (among other things) is
>the level of innovation and the complexity and depth of their music
>THEORY-wise.
While you are *100%* right on this, and your post is very interesting from
this much-ignored standpoint, one must realise that theoretically good,
meaning things like -- for instace -- complex chord changes, mightn't make
a song something that sounds good to a typical ear. Much of this debate
has centred around the popular sound of the Beatles (which I feel is
incredibly spotty), and ignored any sort of theoretical attempts on their
part, which were obviously there. At the very least, they tried.
>Many music professors and theorists (people who have
>spent most all of their lives dedicated to studying what makes music
>satisfying) have agreed that the Beatles have done more than any other
>performer this century to innovate popular music.
*But*, while this is true, part of the reason they have done this is
because they were immensely popular. There were lots of artists, not as
well known, making just as complex -- or more complex -- music, some of
which actually would've carried it off better because they could play
better. The Beatles admittedly drew from other artists, both past and
(their) present. This isn't to down what they did in terms of complexity
and technicality, but it is to say that their marketers had quite a bit to
do with how much they did for innovation -- had they been the same band,
but another band had become massive instead of them, and they were left as
periphials, they'd be Just Another Decent Band (TM).
>The Beatles also knew how to appeal to the masses with their
>music with simple catchy melodies. This along with their personality
>and image (and many many other factors) made them popular all over
>the world but this is not what makes them "good".
Quite to the contrary, I think. "Good" shouldn't be just qualified by
theoretical achievements, but the overall package as well. I know what you
meant by "good", certainly, but I'm pretty sure other people will (perhaps
purposely) misunderstand you. In terms of "good" in the...hmm. I will have
no way to say it but in the mass sense. "Good" in the mass sense entails
everything -- sometimes theory least of all.
[oasis]
>(I was sorely disappointed with "Be
>Here Now". While it is a good album compared to most of the popular
>music available now, it's not the quantum leap over "Morning Glory"
>that I was expecting. Oasis are definitely not mirroring the Beatles'
>career.)
Remember this though, in terms of Oasis's innovation: Noel Gallagher has
said that this album (Be Here Now, I mean) isn't a huge leap on purpose.
He wanted to have three albums that would 'fit' with each other before
moving on -- now, I can't explain why he'd choose this, but this is his
explanation, which he has had for about a year, as to why the third album
wouldn't be as big of a leap as he felt he was capable of. Dead weird, I'm
not defending his idea, but he didn't want a leap at this point.
> I'm not sure what your opinion of the Beatles is (judging from
>your posts that I have read, you like them and a lot of their music,
>but you think their popularity and innovativeness is overrated)
Wow, see, I *knew* that was what I had been saying.
> I think you need to realize that the Anthologies were for the
>die-hard fans.
The Anthologies were for fans' money, most likely. Most of my venom
towards the remaining three Beatles (and, indeed, Yoko Ono, much as I am
pained to admit that) stems from the Anthologies. Whilst John Lennon was
alive, he stated that his greatest fear now that he was famous was that
someone would take out the old crap he shelved and remaster it,
embarassing him. His opinion *might* have changed come 15 years after
December, 1980 -- but the fact still is that we cannot know, and the idea
that his "friends" would go so against his wishes in life and make money
off it angers me quite a bit. Even if they really wanted to do
Anthologies, I don't think they had any business releasing John's
unfinished solo work as a 'new Beatles song!' It's something that made me
lose respect for all involved, and *that* is where my 'Anthologies were
crap' statement came from. It actually has little to do with the majority
of the music -- some of the 'unfinished' songs by the Beatles are better
than the releases. It's been so long since I've explained though, prolly
good that the oppourtunity has come up to refresh the point.
>>really obnoxious, because you KNOW that a good deal of these kids that are
>>'so into' the Beatles are into it solely because they are trying to be
>>cool. Which obviously isn't to say that there aren't any real Beatles
>>fans, but...it's really pretty bad.
> Agreed. The types who go on and on about how "Lucy in the Sky
>with Diamonds" was referring to LSD (it wasn't), etc. But there are
>similar people who go on and on about Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, etc.
>without really listening to most of their music and really
>appreciating it for what it is.
Of course, any large band has its share of bandwagoneers. I think you find
a good deal of the teenage fans actually are like that though. A lot of
them grow to actually be into the music, obviously, but a lot of them
don't. It's the same with current music too.
> And here's where I'm going to start taking issue with what you
>say. Understand that I realize all of this is your opinion which you
>are more than entitled to. But I'm going to try to answer your "what
>is the point" question.
I'll answer this up here: Whilst I agree with your point of theory, by
'what is the point' it was more from a 'mass sense' standpoint, as
outlined above. I think most critics (difference from theorists,
obviously) would agree that the White Album should've been cut in half.
> First a little discussion about makes one qualified to discuss
>the merits of a particular piece of music. How do you debate what is
>good and what is not? We've already established the popularity does
>not make something good, so what does?
Obviously, good should ultimately be what sounds good to your ear, and no
one else's. That should be any individual's ultimate decision on what is
good. However, you can then get into technical talent, theory, etc.
> Some people (and most music critics) would argue that the more
>albums that one listens to, the more music (and the more different
>types of music) one exposes himself to, the better qualified that
>he/she is to comment on the merits of a particular piece of music.
>This type of thinking makes sense to a certain extent (after all,
>music merit is usually a comparative thing, and how do you know if
>something is really some of the best music that has been made unless
>you've personally listened to most of the music that's ever been
>made?)
*laughs* Thank you, I so do agree with that. It's like, if you've only
listened to the Beatles and the Stones, 'best' isn't so impressive, but if
you've got 20,000 cds that you've gone through, then we're getting
somewhere. Unless we've got exceedingly bad taste in our 20,000 cds,
obviously.
> To me, the more one understands music theory the more they
>are qualified to state whether a piece of music is "good" or not.
This is where I ultimately disagree with you. I think the drunk guy on the
corner is just as qualified to state whether anything is good as I am, as
a reviewer, musician and former theory student. Good shouldn't be an
objective term, it should be a subjective term, open to anyone.
Ultimately, a song can be theoretically complex, but can sound like a mess
on the basis of poor musicianship, stupid lyrics, poor production --
anything. Good music is appealing music, and only the person listening can
judge appeal.
>After all, most of the debate that goes on in this group is of the "it
>sucks...it does not" variety. Even the more intelligent debates
>consist of things like "this is derivate of [artist]....these songs
>are too long...this song should've been split up in to 3 different
>songs (a common criticism of Radiohead's "Paranoid Android" which from
>a theory standpoint is brilliant)...this album is stagnant".. in other
>words the reasons given to back up ones argument are often very vague
>terms and concepts, and eventually come down to pure opinion, with no
>real support.
And it should be pure opinion, for the reasons I stated above. And I
actually think Paranoid Android is a brilliant example of my point. It
*would* be more appealing had it been at least more coherent, and it still
would've been "good" by theoretical standpoint.
> Consider other forms of art. If you're talking about painting
>you can discuss brush strokes, the techniques used, the effects of
>lighting and shading, "negative space" (suggesting the presence of
>objects that aren't actually present by the spaces between other
>objects in the painting) , etc. If you're talking about poetry you
>can discuss the use of meter, etc. If you're talking about
>literature, you can discuss similes, metaphors, foreshadowing,
>analogies, etc. So it stands to reason that the components of theory
>are the best criteria used to judge music, and not things like "this
>is different" or "this sounds cool", etc.
Still, I disagree. I still think that "good" in terms of art and
literature should be based ultimately upon the very subjective notion of
whether or not the end effect was appealing. As in, it's not how you do
it, it's how it comes out. It's not to say that the more technical
elements shouldn't be mentioned -- they should.
>>Good Night
> I think this was a result of following in the tradition of
>having a song written for Ringo to perform.
However, Ringo sings another song on the album -- one I believe he wrote
himself. I thought of this idea, but then remembered Don't Pass Me By.
>Do you see any value
>in the music of Brahms? I think this was written in that vein, and
>mainly because John was probably wanted to write something different
>and visit the genre.
I do see value in Brahms, but I don't think this song is an incredibly
good example of that type of music. I don't think it belongs on the album
(which was the original point, though I'm interested in this offshoot of
it).
>>Everybody's Got Something To Hide
>>Except for Me and My Monkey (which is a terrible title, too)
> Not the best song, but it does have some interesting guitar
>work.
It does, admittedly, but besides that, it has little to offer. If I recall
correctly, John later regretted the admission of this one.
>>Why Don't We
>>Do it in the Road? (a Paul classic, if you listen to fans, despite the
>>fact that it does nothing for too long)
> This song is not that particularly interesting from a theory
>standpoint, but I think it does exhibit Paul's vocal abilities well,
>which was probably the point.
Which proves my original point: songs shouldn't be included as a basis of
ego stroking, which this song was. That was the entire problem of the
White Album: huge egos and no one saying, 'Hang on...'
>>Martha my fucking Dear
[snipping of a very long but good point about the song's metre and counterpoint]
Whilst I'm *not* debating you, and I realise what you said is pretty much
true, it still doesn't change the fact that the lyrics of the song are
amongst the most appaulling written and it doesn't mark, IMO, Paul's best
vocal performance. In my estimation of good -- obviously different from
yours -- this is a really bad song, nothing to do with it's actual chord
changes (which can be complex, I'm not debating). But the song is written
for his *dog*...it's a song that irritates me, and, from again a critical
standpoint and not a theoretical one, it had little place on the album. It
might've done Paul better had it been held off on -- a later version
might've had his best vocal performance ever, or a slight change in style,
that could've made it so much more mass appealing.
>I would appreciate constructive criticism of my ideas, but I
>won't sink into a pointless flamewar, simply because I don't want to
>waste the time.
*grins* Be happy that you wrote something complex enough to confuse the
Usual Suspects, then.
Lulu Spice
In article <3411904d...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>My particular bugbear is of course the posterity argument, when a fan
>of A Big Important Group says something like "Ha! Let's see who's more
>popular in 10/30/200 years time then - your pop shit or [cue fanfare]
>THE BEATLES." I mean, so what? If you're not listening to what gives
>you pleasure or maybe says something interestng *right now*, then what
>are you doing in this game?
Yeah, I agree 100%. Plus, these people have got to remember that the exact
same argument was put upon their Beloved Beatles some thirty years ago, so
it's quite humourous. I just like to say, when I'm not in an argue at all
costs mood, 'Yes, but who's selling more right this minute?'
>Incidentally, the argument that the Anthologies were off-cuts for
>die-hard fans only and so it doesn't matter if they were rubbish I
>find rather irritating. Clearly, they were not presented to the public
>as same- they were presented to the public as New Beatles Product and
>a chance to be part of a Big Event by buying them. This may be Neil
>Aspinall's fault, rather than PaulGeorgeRingo's, but it still seems
>like having your cake and eating it to hype the things to that extent
>and then get sniffy when people say 'But they're bad.' (Similarly,
>anyone who bought them and expected quality above your average bootleg
>is a sucker.)
TBH, a lot of the original tracks -- some of songs I didn't like on album
-- are better in raw form.
>Besides doubting whether the kind of music theory Michael sets his
>faith in could explain 'why I like' pieces like Phill Niblock's "A
>Trombone Piece", Steve Reich's "It's Gonna Rain", Force & Styles'
>"Field Of Dreams", or Alec Empire's "The Peak", I would also have to
>say that even if one were to attempt to come to some objective
>judgement as to the 'value' of a rock song, you'd need a pretty good
>grounding in current literary and cultural theory as well, plus a
>decent grasp of sociology and economics.
Yeah, this is true as well. I'd say a good grip on religious studies is
probably something that one would need, as well as extensive training in
several musical instruments to be able to judge talent...*shrugs*
Obviously, most people aren't going to have this, and even with all of
that, I still think that it is 100% subjective. And don't lyrics fit in
*somewhere*?
NB: Geir, don't answer that.
>And in the long run the amount of pure musicological analysis that
>goes on here is minimal anyhow. A.m.a. isn;t really about that, it's
>about people who love music having fun arguing about it, finding out
>about it, and maybe touching on the odd interesting and worthwhile
>thing in the process. Or something.
I think it's about grammar and whether Northerns are literate, myself.
>>>Even in 1991 - and to neatly tie up both ends of this conversation -
>>>it was still possible for the Manics to get away with "I laughed when
>>>Lennon was shot." They wouldn't say that now (IIRC, they don't when
>>>they play 'Motown Junk' in concert).
>>I think it's a tasteless line when interpreted wrongly
>I'm not really sure there are too many ways to interpret "I laughed
>when Lennon got shot", bar saying, oh my goodness, did you think I
>meant John Lennon?? Mercy no, I meant Vladimir Lennon the Bulgarian
>terror chief. What an ambiguity.
*laughs* Well, that is a possible interpretation. I meant more of people
who look from sarcasm points of view, or a 'bigger picture' metaphor.
You'd be amazed the interpretations of simple lines.
>>, but I also think
>>it's tasteless that they feel they can't say it anymore because of these
>>psychotics calling themselves fans.
>At first I have to say I parsed this as meaning Manics fans.
Some Manics fans ARE crazy, wanting to kill everyone who wasn't a Richey
Manic-ite since his birth, and rubbish like that. I mean, who cares?
>But yes, you;re right. What do they sing now, by the way?
I don't know, actually. I'll have to go about finding out, cos I'm curious.
[derivative Spice Girls and Manics and Oasis]
>But it's only a short hop from this to saying "Oh yes, all music is
>derivative anyhow", which loads of people here do, and as far as I can
>see is only true if you widen the idea of 'derivative' to such an
>extent that it stops making much useful sense.
Or you take derivative in 'steps', from the more 'influenced'
interpretation, to direct rip-off. Which is what I think most people mean.
>>Hmmm. You could be right. Though I did notice a huge groundswell for Sgt.
>>Pepper's last year, and it is their best-known album, unfortunately. To be
>>honest, Revolver is a good sight better than Sgt. Pepper's, and several of
>>their other albums. Not exactly flawless, but better. Sgt. Pepper's, for
>>instance, only had four remotely enjoyable songs on it. And the entire
>>album is horribly dated.
>Yes, though whether that's in the music or in the hullaballoo
>surrounding that decade and that year in particular I'm not sure.
It's both, because the ridiculous 'Summer of Love' rubbish coloured the
Beatles music, and the production wasn't very good at any rate. And the
title Reprise was much better than the title track.
>I realy, really, find the 'worst Beatles songs' polls laughable if
>they're done by people on r.m.beatles (and they always are).
>Invariably, someone says "obviously, not counting Revolution 9" as if
>Rev 9 was somehow so clearly unlistenable and foolish that it would be
>unfair to even compare it to other songs.
r.m.beatles is the worst newsgroop, at any rate. Full of people calling
the Beatles avant garde originals in one breath, only to state songs like
Revolution 9, Tomorrow Never Knows, and all of John & George's early solo
work are crap in the next.
>>As do I (Tomorrow Never Knows in particular; that's part of why I so like
>>Setting Sun), but if a Beatles 'fan' sees that you even remotely
>>criticised them, even in passing, you'll not hear the end of it.
>Prophetic words, Lulu...
*grins* Behave.
>>The White Album is funny. It would've been one of the greatest albums
>>ever, if they had stopped being arses for ten minutes and cut it to a one
>>LP, instead of the hideous double album it was.
>I'm now going to say the classic Crap Thing which people always say
>about double albums, viz. "I like its sprawling nature".
I'd like its sprawling nature had it been sprawling for more of a reason
than ego masturbation. Then again, what double albums are?
>The worst Xmas songs are the comedy ones, I reckon. I mean, since all
>Christmas songs are by definition Novelty Songs, it seems a bit silly
>to write a novelty song taking the piss out of the problem which is
>then actually compounding it. Though a little wit in these things goes
>a long way, so the one you mention may actually have funny lyrics and
>thus be spared.
I like comedy ones because they are so crap. Sort of like why I like
Vanilla Ice. Honest. Great to have a really, really good laugh at.
>>Anal? That thread? You mean you possibly think that debating whether or
>>not to put a 'the' in front of Prodigy is anal? Gosh.
>Well, now I stand revealed as completely hypocritical since I myself
>posted something the other day on that weightiest of subjects.
I did once too, explaining proper English in one paragraph and saying shut
the fuck up in the next. Possibly not the way to handle things. I've had
it up to here with that thread though, since Pete has decided that not
only is he going to make stupid statements re music, he is going to call
all Northerners illiterate, unintelligible arses. Soz, can't abide by such
idiotic behaviour.
>No, that's the thing. He just saw our names a lot in stupid-sounding
>threads and assumed that we did nothing but talk about Hanson all day.
*laughs* Okay, that's funny. I can't see Persi really getting into Hanson.
>Surely some mistake! This should read "Tears of pure emotion as you
>thought about your own 'mama' ". Anyhow, no, you made perfect sense.
Well, have you seen them at those awards, ie how fat they were? Millions
of pounds to food, I tell you.
Lulu Spice
In article <34118e7d...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:43:56 -0700,
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>>Nah, Oasis have already done a song that they claim to have been directly
>>inspired by All the Young Dudes.
>Mind mentioning which? :)
*blushes* I can't quite remember. It's on the new album. The problem was,
I read Noel's comments on it, but then didn't hear it myself, even
remotely. I *think* it was Stand By Me.
Geir Hongro
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>I also love the fans that use the
>excuse that the Beatles were/are popular, thus good, but then >when some
>Oasis person posted (in the Oasis groop, mind you) how many >albums they
>sold first week, the exact same people decided to go into >hysterics that
>popularity does not make a band good. The level of hypocrisy I >see about the Beatles is stunning.
There is a difference between long term and short term popularity.
While I would say that selling millions of one album in one week
does not mean the album is necessarily good, if the same album
goes on selling for years and years it IS indeed good!
Why are Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven all considered master
within the Classical music world? Keywords: Long term popularity.
Ben
>>>Nah, Oasis have already done a song that they claim to have been
>>>directly inspired by All the Young Dudes.
>>Mind mentioning which? :)
>
>*blushes* I can't quite remember. It's on the new album. The problem
>was, I read Noel's comments on it, but then didn't hear it myself, even
>remotely. I *think* it was Stand By Me.
It *was* Stand By Me. Those 4 chords, C F D G (thanx Karim :) )
immediately after each chorus line are nabbed from All the Young Dudes,
by Bowie.
BEN
Geir Hongro
eb...@netcomuk.co.uk (Tom) wrote:
>On Fri, 05 Sep 1997 00:36:49 -0700,
>bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>
>>Thank god, someone else who knew this. It seems to me like everyone I've
>>run across lately has seemingly forgot. I also love the fans that use the
>>excuse that the Beatles were/are popular, thus good, but then when some
>>Oasis person posted (in the Oasis groop, mind you) how many albums they
>>sold first week, the exact same people decided to go into hysterics that
>>popularity does not make a band good.
>
>My particular bugbear is of course the posterity argument, when a >fan
>of A Big Important Group says something like "Ha! Let's see who's >more
>popular in 10/30/200 years time then - your pop shit or [cue >fanfare]
>THE BEATLES." I mean, so what? If you're not listening to what >gives
>you pleasure or maybe says something interestng *right now*, then >what are you doing in this game?
Well, I actually think TIMELESSNESS is more important than
anything else. If the song does not sound as good in ten years
time as it does now then the songs has not proven itself worthy.
I've never been one for the moment. That's why I still listen to a
lot of music from the 60s/70s/80s, and they give me far more
pleasure than most 90s music.
>Yes, though whether that's in the music or in the hullaballoo
>surrounding that decade and that year in particular I'm not sure. >I certainly like Revolver more than Sgt Pepper's, but I've just >heard it
>too often to get the remotest pleasure out of most of the tracks.
The secret for all lovers of pop music is, of course, never to
listen to ANY album too many times.
>The worst Xmas songs are the comedy ones, I reckon. I mean, since >all
>Christmas songs are by definition Novelty Songs, it seems a bit >silly
>to write a novelty song taking the piss out of the problem which >is then actually compounding it.
Hey! Ever heard "Christmas At Ground Zero" by Al Yankovic?
It is in fact one of his funniest songs ever.
Rick Tunnicliffe
In article <bitchyspice-05...@d169-mfs.dancris.com>, Lulu
Spice <bitch...@removethis.geocities.com> writes
>
>Sometimes, Greatest Hits albums aren't bad, and don't need to be excused.
>For instance, I think Blondie's Greatest Hits compilation is the best
>thing ever.
Ooooh. Yes! Blondie! Has anyone else noticed how 'Heart of Glass' sounds
crap on 'Parallel Lines' yet worked absolutely brilliantly as a single?
It's been bothering me for weeks.
>Sometimes, just sometimes, the hits were actually worthy
>songs.
It does annoy me, this worship of obscure album tracks, but I suppose
it's just another case of the indie snob mindset. Not that I'm a semi-
reformed indie snob myself or anything.
--
Rick Tunnicliffe
I need an umbrella, if I'm gonna go insane
Rick Tunnicliffe
In article <5uohsd$992$2...@news1.sol.no>, Geir Hongro
<gho...@hotmail.com> writes
>That's not the early 80s that I remember. Most early 80s rock
>critics wrote off all of the present pop music as "machine music",
>and said that the REAL music was made in the 60s (or, among
>younger critics, in the late 70s).
I think it depends on what you were reading. From what people have told
me, the NME/MM critical consensus in the early eighties was very much
against 'real' music even going as far as using 'rockist' as the
ultimate insult.
>Too bad, actually. Concept albums rule!
Only if Daydream Nation counts.
>
>>Now, looking elsewhere in this group, the hipsters are all naming
>>tracks from the White Album, so that's going to be next.
>
>That's just because it's hip for alternative fans liking something
>that most people haven't heard at all. Out of all the songs on
>that double album VERY few can be considered the kind of
>"evergreens" that are continiously played on Classic Rock stations
>throughout the world.
Cynical, but probably right. I'll just keep listening Rubber Soul
myself.
Michael Sims
On Sat, 06 Sep 1997 20:49:02 -0700,
bitch...@removethis.geocities.com (Lulu Spice) wrote:
>While you are *100%* right on this, and your post is very interesting from
>this much-ignored standpoint, one must realise that theoretically good,
>meaning things like -- for instace -- complex chord changes, mightn't make
>a song something that sounds good to a typical ear.
True. I'm afraid that I'm not much worried about what sounds
good to the typical ear though. The typical ear likes Hanson and the
Spice Girls. :) Seriously though, for me it's the same thing with
movies or anything else. Most people loved Independence Day, which I
thought was one of the worst movies I've ever seen.
A lot of music is created to appeal to the lowest common
denominator. Here I go opening myself up for flames again, but I
blame the creation of rap "music" for this. Musical complexity is
wasted on millions of people because _they can't hear it_. So most
rap music forgoes all of that for the "gansta" image. Now, I'm not
bashing all rap, because it has actually come a long way since the
days of Run DMC and the Fat Boys. :)
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I'm a bit of an elitist
(wow I bet you'd have never guessed it).
>>Many music professors and theorists (people who have
>>spent most all of their lives dedicated to studying what makes music
>>satisfying) have agreed that the Beatles have done more than any other
>>performer this century to innovate popular music.
>
>*But*, while this is true, part of the reason they have done this is
>because they were immensely popular. There were lots of artists, not as
>well known, making just as complex -- or more complex -- music, some of
>which actually would've carried it off better because they could play
>better.
Of course. But what made the Beatles unique was their ability
to introduce all of these complex ideas and still release music for
the masses. In other words, their music can be enjoyed on many
different levels. And I agree that there is more complex music out
there, and maybe I made a mistake by implying that complexity alone is
the ultimate goal. You can make music that changes chords several
time in one measure, that is filled with 32-note appreggio's that
utilize many different musical modes, but the music can still fail to
be "clever".
Let me use another analogy from the world of graphic arts.
Suppose you have a drawing of a sprawling city depicted in immense
detail. Every building, car, and person in the image is illustrated
down to the most minute feature. And then you have another image of a
simple wooded scene. Then finally you have a somewhat complex but
extremely clever drawing by someone like Salvador Dali or M.C. Escher
that can't compete with the drawing of the city on a complexity level,
but yet is far more clever while still being more complex than the
image of the wooded scene.
Ok, maybe that's not the best analogy in the world, but maybe
you can see where I'm coming from.
>The Beatles admittedly drew from other artists, both past and
>(their) present.
Of course, as does anyone. But what makes them different from
most people is the sheer number of different sources and influences
they drew from, and yet they were still able to present it all in a
way that could appeal to the majority of people. They drew their
inspiration from jazz, rock, country, classical, indian music (George
did anyway), etc. And in turn they have influenced artists in all of
these genres as well.
I have nothing against music being derivative of other music
as long as it's presented in a new and interesting way. I'm not sure
what you opinion of Rush is, but they are one of my favorite bands.
(The whole complexity thing again...) If you listen to any one of
their albums it becomes clear that their sound was a copy of what was
popular at the time the album was released. 70's Rush was Led
Zepplinish, 80's Rush was very electronic and poppy, and finally 90's
Rush (such as Counterparts and Test For Echo) has a bit of a "grunge"
edge to it. But each time they take the popular sound and add so much
to it, and present it in a new and interesting way. To me this is
what the Beatles did as well, but they didn't limit their influences
to just what was popular.
>This isn't to down what they did in terms of complexity
>and technicality, but it is to say that their marketers had quite a bit to
>do with how much they did for innovation -- had they been the same band,
>but another band had become massive instead of them, and they were left as
>periphials, they'd be Just Another Decent Band (TM).
I agree, but perhaps for different reasons. The Beatles
success certainly played a part in their experimentation, and no doubt
they may have stuck with the Chuck Berry/Little Richard sound forever
if they hadn't have taken off like they did.
>>The Beatles also knew how to appeal to the masses with their
>>music with simple catchy melodies. This along with their personality
>>and image (and many many other factors) made them popular all over
>>the world but this is not what makes them "good".
>
>Quite to the contrary, I think. "Good" shouldn't be just qualified by
>theoretical achievements, but the overall package as well.
Hmmm...like the Spice Girls? :)
Speaking of the Spice Girls, is it just me or did they all get
fat? (MTV Video Awards)
>I know what you
>meant by "good", certainly, but I'm pretty sure other people will (perhaps
>purposely) misunderstand you. In terms of "good" in the...hmm. I will have
>no way to say it but in the mass sense. "Good" in the mass sense entails
>everything -- sometimes theory least of all.
Well maybe I should have used the words "timeless and
influential" rather than "good". But as you said, you knew what I
meant.
>Remember this though, in terms of Oasis's innovation: Noel Gallagher has
>said that this album (Be Here Now, I mean) isn't a huge leap on purpose.
>He wanted to have three albums that would 'fit' with each other before
>moving on -- now, I can't explain why he'd choose this, but this is his
>explanation, which he has had for about a year, as to why the third album
>wouldn't be as big of a leap as he felt he was capable of. Dead weird, I'm
>not defending his idea, but he didn't want a leap at this point.
That is strange. I think the most likely explanation is that
he had these tunes lying around for a while (probably not long after
Morning Glory was released) and felt like Oasis needed to release
another album as quickly as possible to keep riding the wave of
popularity. I believe he is capable of much more, so I'm anxiously
awaiting the next one.
But if that is his attitude about the album, I don't know if
his bandmates agree with him, after all they did put the release date
of the album on the cover itself. Kind of saying "this is the date it
all begin, the album that changed the world" or something. I just
think it's kinda funny because at my local CD store, there are about
25 of them stuffed into the racks with "New Album" written in bright
yellow letter above them, and they've been there for about a week.
I'd probably go out and buy the CD myself if I didn't have
most of the tunes in Mpeg3 format.
>> I'm not sure what your opinion of the Beatles is (judging from
>>your posts that I have read, you like them and a lot of their music,
>>but you think their popularity and innovativeness is overrated)
>
>Wow, see, I *knew* that was what I had been saying.
Sarcasm? I can't tell. Forgive me if I put words into your
mouth.
>> I think you need to realize that the Anthologies were for the
>>die-hard fans.
>
>The Anthologies were for fans' money, most likely.
I'll concede your point, but what CD is not for the fans'
money?
>Most of my venom
>towards the remaining three Beatles (and, indeed, Yoko Ono, much as I am
>pained to admit that) stems from the Anthologies. Whilst John Lennon was
>alive, he stated that his greatest fear now that he was famous was that
>someone would take out the old crap he shelved and remaster it,
>embarassing him. His opinion *might* have changed come 15 years after
>December, 1980 -- but the fact still is that we cannot know, and the idea
>that his "friends" would go so against his wishes in life and make money
>off it angers me quite a bit. Even if they really wanted to do
>Anthologies, I don't think they had any business releasing John's
>unfinished solo work as a 'new Beatles song!' It's something that made me
>lose respect for all involved, and *that* is where my 'Anthologies were
>crap' statement came from. It actually has little to do with the majority
>of the music -- some of the 'unfinished' songs by the Beatles are better
>than the releases. It's been so long since I've explained though, prolly
>good that the oppourtunity has come up to refresh the point.
I have to admit I was not aware that John ever said that, and
now that I know, I have to say I agree with you. The 2 remastered
tunes were a bit on the cheesy side. "Real Love" is a great tune
though, and I'm grateful to have gotten a chance to hear it, mangled
or not.
>I'll answer this up here: Whilst I agree with your point of theory, by
>'what is the point' it was more from a 'mass sense' standpoint, as
>outlined above. I think most critics (difference from theorists,
>obviously) would agree that the White Album should've been cut in half.
True.
>> To me, the more one understands music theory the more they
>>are qualified to state whether a piece of music is "good" or not.
>
>This is where I ultimately disagree with you. I think the drunk guy on the
>corner is just as qualified to state whether anything is good as I am, as
>a reviewer, musician and former theory student. Good shouldn't be an
>objective term, it should be a subjective term, open to anyone.
>Ultimately, a song can be theoretically complex, but can sound like a mess
>on the basis of poor musicianship, stupid lyrics, poor production --
>anything. Good music is appealing music, and only the person listening can
>judge appeal.
I of course agree that "good" is totally subjective. But with
certain things in becomes generally accepted that something is good or
influential and that something else is not. For example, while the
Spice Girls have sold millions of albums, I've yet to find a
reasonably intelligent person who thinks they actually have talent. :)
As a matter a fact, like Chris Rock, I can't find ANYONE who owns the
album or at the very least, will admit to it.
But if I'm reading a review or discussing the merits of music
I'd much rather be dealing with someone who was either a musician
themselves or understood a bit about theory, and not just someone
who's heard a lot of albums.
And take award shows for example. Let's say that you get to
decide who the judges are. Are you going to take people like MTV's
VeeJay line up, music critics from Rollingstone, Spin, etc. or would
you take actual musicians or at the very least someone who knew a
little about theory? I'm afraid I know what most people answer would
be, but I wouldn't agree with it.
>And it should be pure opinion, for the reasons I stated above. And I
>actually think Paranoid Android is a brilliant example of my point. It
>*would* be more appealing had it been at least more coherent, and it still
>would've been "good" by theoretical standpoint.
The incoherentness of the song that you find unappealing is
what makes the song so unique and refreshing to me. I'll be the first
to admit that the disjointedness of songs like Paranoid Android and A
Day in the Life (to bring the Beatles back into this) is a result of
laziness and having 2 or more halfway completed tunes that are slapped
together. But as a amateur musician and songwriter myself, I can
sympathize with them. I have around 100 songs that I have written
that are "halfway" done. Sometimes I come up with something that I
think is really clever but then I lose the inspiration for it and I
can't go anywhere with it, and as a result it never gets finished and
no one ever hears it. I'd rather have a song like Paranoid Android
that is actually 3 brilliant (IMHO) tunes slapped together than to not
have any of them because they couldn't find a good way to lengthen
them.
>>>Good Night
>> I think this was a result of following in the tradition of
>>having a song written for Ringo to perform.
>
>However, Ringo sings another song on the album -- one I believe he wrote
>himself. I thought of this idea, but then remembered Don't Pass Me By.
You may see this as splitting hairs (I suppose it is) but the
tradition was for John or Paul to write a song for Ringo to perform.
Since Ringo wrote "Don't Pass Me By" it really doesn't count in my
opinion. Another reason for Good Night is John may have wanted a
Ringo tune on the album that was actually decent. :) (I have to skip
Don't Pass Me By every time I listen to the album)
>>>Why Don't We
>>>Do it in the Road? (a Paul classic, if you listen to fans, despite the
>>>fact that it does nothing for too long)
>> This song is not that particularly interesting from a theory
>>standpoint, but I think it does exhibit Paul's vocal abilities well,
>>which was probably the point.
>
>Which proves my original point: songs shouldn't be included as a basis of
>ego stroking, which this song was. That was the entire problem of the
>White Album: huge egos and no one saying, 'Hang on...'
I agree, the White Album was definitely around the time when
they were all starting to get on each other's nerves and branch away
from each other. It's was probably a bit of a competition to see who
could "out-weird" the other. I still think that it resulted in some
of their best tunes and while the album is not perfect, I don't think
I'd want it any other way. But then again I'm a bit biased. :)
>>>Martha my fucking Dear
>[snipping of a very long but good point about the song's metre and counterpoint]
>
>Whilst I'm *not* debating you, and I realise what you said is pretty much
>true, it still doesn't change the fact that the lyrics of the song are
>amongst the most appaulling written and it doesn't mark, IMO, Paul's best
>vocal performance.
Lyrics never have been extremely important to me. I
appreciate clever lyrics, but I'm not a great judge of them, and I
usually keep out of those types of debates. But with that said I
don't find the lyrics particularly appaling. As for his vocal
performance, I can't say that I see anything wrong with it either. I
wouldn't want him to concentrate on showing off his vocal abilities
anyway, he might be accused of ego-stroking. :) (Sorry, I couldn't
resist. I do understand your point about "Why Don't We.." being
ego-stroking, and agree with it.)
> In my estimation of good -- obviously different from
>yours -- this is a really bad song, nothing to do with it's actual chord
>changes (which can be complex, I'm not debating). But the song is written
>for his *dog*...it's a song that irritates me, and, from again a critical
>standpoint and not a theoretical one, it had little place on the album. It
>might've done Paul better had it been held off on -- a later version
>might've had his best vocal performance ever, or a slight change in style,
>that could've made it so much more mass appealing.
Firstly I seriously doubt the song was written from the outset
for his dog. I suspect that the music was written like most any other
music is written, while fooling around on the piano. The lyrics were
probably a result of not being able to think of any for the tune, and
deciding to write about his dog.
And would your opinion of the song be different if you didn't
know it was written for his dog? It's not like he really advertised
this. With the possible exception of "hold you head up" there's
really not anything in the song that seems to indicate his dog. The
lyrics are meaningless enough without that context, but aren't most
lyrics?
As far as the song not fitting on the album, I think they
abandoned any kind of plan or coherent feel for the type of music that
should be on it pretty early. It's very eclectic. Those are my
favorite types of albums, because I usually don't get bored listening
to them. For example, while I absolutely love "OK Computer", on the
first few listens of it I grew a little bored near the end of the
album because the songs have a very simililar sound and feel to them.
>>I would appreciate constructive criticism of my ideas, but I
>>won't sink into a pointless flamewar, simply because I don't want to
>>waste the time.
>
>*grins* Be happy that you wrote something complex enough to confuse the
>Usual Suspects, then.
Hehe...
To change the subject a bit, did anyone see Fiona Apple on the
MTV Video awards? "This world is bullshit. Don't think something is
cool just because we do or try to dress like us. Go with yourself!"
(paraphrase) I just find this funny coming from a girl who injects
collagen into her lips. :) I mean, look at her CD, there's no way
those lips are natural. :)
Joe McGlinchey
On 7 Sep 1997, Geir Hongro wrote:
> Well, I actually think TIMELESSNESS is more important than
> anything else. If the song does not sound as good in ten years
> time as it does now then the songs has not proven itself worthy.
> I've never been one for the moment. That's why I still listen to a
> lot of music from the 60s/70s/80s, and they give me far more
> pleasure than most 90s music.
"Timelessness" is a sticky construct, though. In a sense, music (whether
we feel that it's bad or good) is very much *not* timeless, in that it is
grounded very certainly in a particular social, political, economical, and
geographical context. Somebody who discovers and likes ABBA today, for
example, probably doesn't like the music in the same way (or for the same
reasons) that someone in the late 1970s (during the height of disco)
liked ABBA. Or, on a bigger scale, I really love Beethoven's music, but it
probably does not have the same resonance/effect to me that it did to
someone hearing it in the early 1800s, back when symphonic music was
everywhere and perhaps one of the main forms of entertainment.
Still, it's pretty great that musical perception has that
fluidity, and that it is interpreted but still loved by people in
different ways as time goes on.
> Hey! Ever heard "Christmas At Ground Zero" by Al Yankovic?
> It is in fact one of his funniest songs ever.
Is that the one that parodies that Soul Asylum song?
:) I like "Amish Paradise" (the Coolio parody) better....
Joe McGlinchey
Teachers College
Columbia University
Lulu Spice
>There is a difference between long term and short term popularity.
>While I would say that selling millions of one album in one week
>does not mean the album is necessarily good, if the same album
>goes on selling for years and years it IS indeed good!
This is the hypocrisy I was speaking of, Geir. I mean, you are aware that
the Monkees are still selling strong too, right?
>Why are Bach, Handel, Mozart and Beethoven all considered master
>within the Classical music world? Keywords: Long term popularity.
Well, within the classical music world (whichever world that is), the much
lesser known -- to the masses, I mean -- artists are considered to be
masters as well, some more than the ones you named. So what was your
point? Household names are better than the less known?
And how does any of that explain Dodgy?
Lulu Spice
In article <34133a56...@nntp.netcruiser>, eb...@netcomuk.co.uk wrote:
[lyrics]
>I was putting them under literary theory, though the performance
>aspect means you'd have to maybe know something about anthropology
>too.
Most likely you should know several languages as well, so that you can
know all sorts of colloquialisms and such.
>>I think it's about grammar and whether Northerns are literate, myself.
>That would be alt.music.techno.
Easy to confuse them, what with all the mis-labelled cross postings...
>Yes, but I still think the initial interpretation is probably correct,
>in a song which ends "We destroy rock'n'roll", and which is mostly
>devoted to slagging Motown. Given that James at least was apparently
>well into Motown, and good for him, I'm sure there was some sarcasm in
>it too. OTOH, given the notorious Stipe comments, I'm also sure that a
>point was being made about the twisted value of celebrity life as
>opposed to ordinary life.
Well, I agree with you that the obvious interpretation is right, without a
doubt -- I mean, most lyrics are exactly what they say they are.
>Actually, d'oh, this is obviously what you
>mean by "the bigger picture", so sorry Lulu, you are a genius and
>always right.
*grins* That's what I think, at any rate.
>>Some Manics fans ARE crazy, wanting to kill everyone who wasn't a Richey
>>Manic-ite since his birth, and rubbish like that. I mean, who cares?
>So I hear. You don't find them on alt.music.manics, though. Sadly.
That groop would be so much more fun had they been there. I guess they're
too busy slagging off new fans to take the time to get online.
>>Or you take derivative in 'steps', from the more 'influenced'
>>interpretation, to direct rip-off. Which is what I think most people mean.
>Well yes, but even so most people who whinge that all music is
>derivative are using the example of music which is influenced by the
>past to justify the direct rip-offs.
Yeah, and that's unfortunate because there are a lot of groops of which no
excuse can be made. And such groops really shouldn't be labelled
derivative, and should just be called rip-offs.
>r.m.b. is just vile - I slagged it off a lot in that "Worst
>Newsgroups" thread we had a while ago. I can't read it, though I look
>at the current Harrison thread and see that nothing changes there in
>Smugville. I mean, wow, you like the best-known songs of the most
>popular band ever. Do share your wisdom with us.
It's incredible, isn't it? If you don't like the Beatles (or indeed, just
some of their songs), you're ignorant and don't know anything about them
and have only heard their Greatest Hits album. However, if you post a huge
list of songs that they've written that go against some stupid point they
made, you get no reply, or a 'duh, what are you on about?' sort of thing.
It's really rich. I read it for humour value. I like to taunt them.
>And why are people
>buying the Spice Girls album obviously sheep whereas people flocking
>to buy 3 volumes of Beatles outtakes are well-informed consumers?
Well, obviously, the Beatles are gods and such a question is just stupid
and George Harrison is the greatest person that ever lived, fucking hell.
I don't have time for this, etc. Or so say the r.m.b'ers.
>>I'd like its sprawling nature had it been sprawling for more of a reason
>>than ego masturbation. Then again, what double albums are?
>What single albums are?
None, but they aren't quite as obvious.
>I was so intrigued by this and your reply to Pete, which was probably
>as angry (or USENET-angry, which isn't the same) as I've seen you,
>that I looked through the thread to see what had happened. And it is a
>wee bit unfair to say that he actually called Northeners that, since
>in fact you said that this Mr.Loder had done it and he then made a
>rather crap joke i.e. "Well aren't they? :)" with a smiley after it,
>and then did a very poor phonetic impression of a Northern accent,
>which isn't funny but isn't calling them illiterate arses. So in
>conclusion we find that Pete isn't funny, which we knew already.
Well, if he had just right out said it, it would've been funny, or at
least funny to reply to and make him look like an arse, but he didn't. And
actually that Loder thing isn't the first time he's said it, it was just
the first time I took serious offense to it instead of just deleting it in
my reply. He seems to have "issues" about...well, everything.
>Besides which he's said, completely spontaneously, just as bad and
>generalised and silly things about middle-class people and nobody took
>him up on that.
The thing is, he keeps saying things like that about all sorts of things,
yet if you do point it out, he doesn't get it, so I supose it's a 'why
bother' situation.
>*And* they were in a factually innacurate context,
>too, in fact I think I will take him up on it now if he's reading.
>Peter, the journalist who said that both Prodigy and Crispian Mills
>were scum and should rot in hell *isn't* a home counties white boy, as
>a quick bit of really very tiny research* would have shown. He's Asian
>and from Coventry.
Oh, right. I never even thought of that at all...
>*("Research"? what's that? surely all writing comes under "ranting" or
>"denial", and "inaccuracy" is just a subset of "ranting" which is the
>umbrella term, you wouldn;t say just 'umbralla term' would you, no
>it's THE umbrella term, and so on....)
And ranting isn't the umbrella term anyhow, inaccuracy is the umbrella
term, you've got it right backwards...
[spice girls]
>>Well, have you seen them at those awards, ie how fat they were? Millions
>>of pounds to food, I tell you.
>Unlike apparently every other person on the planet I did not watch the
>MTV Music Awards. Anyway, this sounds lovely, so there.
Well, quite honestly, you did miss out on those awards, they were amusing,
not just because Chris Rock was funny, but because you missed seeing
legions of obviously wasted people making asses out of themselves (yes,
David Arquette, this means you. Same for Fiona 'Angry' Apple). As for
Spice Girls, the comparison I've heard is that it looks like they've put a
sixth Spice Girl on between them. Baby Spice was, by far, the fattest,
surpassing Ginger in 'way too much stomach'. Scared me, it did. If I
weighed the same as they obviously do, I'd wear less revealing clothing.