Rockness

[Mee]

Hamish you seem to think Im afflicted by the same narrow mindedness towards music as you! I like guitars, I just don't like to hear them being tortured. I've plenty of rock and heavy metal in my music collection, Led Zep and Hendrix are never too far away from the car stereo although they were both a bit before my time  (HeilanDee take note!!!)

But I'll take you on - name the one SOAD track you think best sums them up and I'll download it and report back -

[Hamish]

Hamish you seem to think Im afflicted by the same narrow mindedness towards music as you! I like guitars, I just don't like to hear them being tortured. I've plenty of rock and heavy metal in my music collection, Led Zep and Hendrix are never too far away from the car stereo although they were both a bit before my time  (HeilanDee take note!!!)

But I'll take you on - name the one SOAD track you think best sums them up and I'll download it and report back -

I'd say listen to 'Hypnotize' of the same named album but I can't see you admitting it's good even if you thought it was! You've got quite a lot invested in this argument at this stage!

[Mee]

Did you drop out of charm school as well as music school?  :015:

[Mee]

The best thing I can say about that track is that it's derivative. Theres nothing exciting or original there, just a run of the mill guitar track with a vocalist who thinks he should be singing opera, or at least Queen covers, when he should really be stacking shelves. Its just like the other tracks of theirs I've heard, thought you might pull a good one out of the bag seeing as it was a challenge but if thats the best they can do, I'm at a loss to understand the attraction.

[Hamish]

Show me a song that in some way is not derivative! But now that you've (allegedly) listened to SOAD and dismissed them then I can only conclude that your taste in music is, at best, very generic, at worst, non-existant (evidence of which is your self-confessed liking for Runrig  :015:). So my involvement in this discussion ends here!

[Mee]

Even though I despise runrig I would rather listen to them than SOAD, don't know why you don't just listen to the Chilli Peppers, Hamish, at least they can play their instruments and their singer can sing! SOAD aren't just a little bit derivative, they sound like every other Ameican RAWK band who don't have a single oruiginal idea to work with. I can't imagine 200 people turning up to see them live, never mind 20 000. :017:

[Johnboy]

The Peppers were in great form at the T in the Park gig, Mee.... too bad you didn't make it down there...(oops!) it's not like there was anything else on that weekend involving musicians..... :015: :015:

[Mee]

Apparently they weren't that good Johnboy, and I'll take the word of someone who was there rather than yourself who watched it on TV. I've seen them before anyway. Hard Fi are the only band I would have wanted to see as I've not seen them before, but theres no point in spending a few hundred quid to see one band! If I had gone I would have been in the Slam tent with Rosco17, enjoying the DJs.

[Johnboy]

In the slam tent with Rosco17..??..!!  The mind fair boggles.... :001: :001:

[Mee]

Doesn't take much to boggle some peoples minds does it?  :015:

[kaiser]

In regard to all of the comments since my last post...what themann4thejob said!  :001:

Mee, seriously, give SOAD a proper listen. They are quite heavy but don't just switch off as soon as you hear the guitars. They are 'multi-layered' I think you could say. There's a lot of depth to their music and they have a very profound message in most of their songs too. Live they are something else. For instance, your average 'heavy metal' band would cover 'Sultans Of Swing' live! I admit that most rock bands are fairly mindless but SOAD (and Tool too) are not most rock bands.

What is so good about 'multi layered' guitars...it's not new , big or clever and plenty of bands have used them to thicken up a thin studio sound ( at the expense of space in the mix , usually which pinches a lot of the bass.)  ...of course they will be something else live - they dont have 8 guitar players on the stage...or do they add some guitars in through the sound desk.... I seem to recall the Bay Area's finest hashed up some albums with a very greedy mid-range guitar sandwich.

[Heilandee]

Eh always found the multi layering of a variety of tissue papers to provide depth and soul to kazoo solo's,many of the  street artists of the seventies used this technique to great effect and proved popular as electronics slowly took a stranglehold on the music scene,much to the disgust of the great tradditional kazoo players such as Billy "Blow" Mcpherson and Sammy "the Siren" Gillespie. Gone are the days of such musical maestros,never to return i fear  :009:

[Johnboy]

Kazoo players, street artists....  happy days... another great era down the swannie....

We are now so starved of entertainment that 25,000 will actually turn out to watch some boring old fart play his records..... :sleep01: :sleep01:

[kaiser]

...I can hear the purists spinning in their graves...

( 45 rpm )

[918loyal]

Kazoo players, street artists....  happy days... another great era down the swannie....

We are now so starved of entertainment that 25,000 will actually turn out to watch some boring old fart play his records..... :sleep01: :sleep01:

to be honest i would say you are the boring old fart!

[Johnboy]

Jeeeez.... One glance at your fecking website had me cringing with boredom.... :009: :009:

[Hamish]

In regard to all of the comments since my last post...what themann4thejob said!  :001:

Mee, seriously, give SOAD a proper listen. They are quite heavy but don't just switch off as soon as you hear the guitars. They are 'multi-layered' I think you could say. There's a lot of depth to their music and they have a very profound message in most of their songs too. Live they are something else. For instance, your average 'heavy metal' band would cover 'Sultans Of Swing' live! I admit that most rock bands are fairly mindless but SOAD (and Tool too) are not most rock bands.

What is so good about 'multi layered' guitars...it's not new , big or clever and plenty of bands have used them to thicken up a thin studio sound ( at the expense of space in the mix , usually which pinches a lot of the bass.)  ...of course they will be something else live - they dont have 8 guitar players on the stage...or do they add some guitars in through the sound desk.... I seem to recall the Bay Area's finest hashed up some albums with a very greedy mid-range guitar sandwich.

Erm, I didn't mean they have multi-layered guitars! They actually don't do that (especially live, with a very 'honest' sound). I meant the music they play is multi-layered with a lot of different styles included (listen to a record and you'll see). There is a definate folk influence in a lot of the melodies for instance. A lot of sings have a very interesting jux ta position of styles and tempos that makes them interesting. I know that's not entirely original either but what bands are original these days? SOAD are quite different to most rock bands though. All popular music has a direct lineage to Hank Williams Snr anyway!  :001:

[kaiser]

So who are SOAD (  :015: ) trying to be then, Green Day without the radio friendly sound or Alice in Chains played at 78 rpm...is that the proper vocalist or some geezer off the street ? A very ordinary 'act' by any standards...just another average white band, if you'll excuse the name dropping.

You can make as much of a case for their 'music' having grand far reaching roots and influences with wonderful juxtapositions of styles and tempos etc, profound lyrics which can remove the need for a singer to hit any notes at all, but in the end when you polish a turd it's still brown and stinky.

The American 'rawk' scene must be in a bad state if that is whats on offer.

[Mee]

SOAD are quite different to most rock bands though.

Aye they somehow make you feel you're hearing them through a thick layer of mud! Is that what you were meaning by "multi layered"?  :001: The more sedimentary strata between mee and them the better  :015:

[Hamish]

So who are SOAD (  :015: ) trying to be then, Green Day without the radio friendly sound or Alice in Chains played at 78 rpm...is that the proper vocalist or some geezer off the street ? A very ordinary 'act' by any standards...just another average white band, if you'll excuse the name dropping.

You can make as much of a case for their 'music' having grand far reaching roots and influences with wonderful juxtapositions of styles and tempos etc, profound lyrics which can remove the need for a singer to hit any notes at all, but in the end when you polish a turd it's still brown and stinky.

The American 'rawk' scene must be in a bad state if that is whats on offer.

There's no point in arguing with dance monkeys who have little knowledge of music  :001: A singer (and they have 2 singers!) who doesn't hit any notes?  :015: After seeing them live I can say with some authority that I've never seen a band that were so pitch perfect (and without the need for electronic effects to force this!). But I like the fact that not everyone like's SOAD (or, indeed, most of the music I listen to). Truth is, that is the definition of it being alternative and a bit 'on the edge'. Bands that are super-polular are, by definition, bland. They haven't the luxury of offending anyone and need to produce bland music (which, ironically, I find offensive) that appeals to the lowest common denominator of music listener. Coldplay spring to mind...

[Mee]

Coldplay are $hite as well, yet another lot of poor Radiohead copyists.

Theres feck all "on the edge" about SOAD though, its bland rawk with no redeeming features, interesting to note you like them because not a lot of other people do, do you think it adds to your street cred? Maybe it does in America but it doesn't wash with me. Its quite funny you dismiss "polular" music just because its popular too. What's that got to do with the actual music? Do you wait to see if anyone else likes it before you decide whether to like it or not? People with elitist attitudes like yours miss out on so much music because you don't listen to it properly, you go with the herd or against the herd rather than judge music on its own merits. I feel sorry for you now  :015:

[Hamish]

Coldplay are $hite as well, yet another lot of poor Radiohead copyists.

Theres feck all "on the edge" about SOAD though, its bland rawk with no redeeming features, interesting to note you like them because not a lot of other people do, do you think it adds to your street cred? Maybe it does in America but it doesn't wash with me. Its quite funny you dismiss "polular" music just because its popular too. What's that got to do with the actual music? Do you wait to see if anyone else likes it before you decide whether to like it or not? People with elitist attitudes like yours miss out on so much music because you don't listen to it properly, you go with the herd or against the herd rather than judge music on its own merits. I feel sorry for you now  :015:

Mee,

You have THE most illoigcal style of arguing! You make amzing jumps of faith extrapolating a comment someone's said into something way out there! Pseudo-intellectuals are very frustarting people to communicate with!  :001: Firstly, I never said I like bands BECAUSE not a lot of other people do. I like bands only because of the music they play. My music collection attests to the fact that I listen to music for it's own merits. There is no trend or anti-trend to it. And I didn't dismiss popular music, I simply provided you with my theory why SUPER-popular blands, almost by definition, have to produce bland music. Please try and understand what I've written before spouting more nonsense!

[Mee]

You're the expert on spouting nonsense, I suppose it must be all the nonsense you listen to.

[kaiser]

So who are SOAD (  :015: ) trying to be then, Green Day without the radio friendly sound or Alice in Chains played at 78 rpm...is that the proper vocalist or some geezer off the street ? A very ordinary 'act' by any standards...just another average white band, if you'll excuse the name dropping.

You can make as much of a case for their 'music' having grand far reaching roots and influences with wonderful juxtapositions of styles and tempos etc, profound lyrics which can remove the need for a singer to hit any notes at all, but in the end when you polish a turd it's still brown and stinky.

The American 'rawk' scene must be in a bad state if that is whats on offer.

There's no point in arguing with dance monkeys who have little knowledge of music  :001: A singer (and they have 2 singers!) who doesn't hit any notes?  :015: After seeing them live I can say with some authority that I've never seen a band that were so pitch perfect (and without the need for electronic effects to force this!). But I like the fact that not everyone like's SOAD (or, indeed, most of the music I listen to). Truth is, that is the definition of it being alternative and a bit 'on the edge'. Bands that are super-polular are, by definition, bland. They haven't the luxury of offending anyone and need to produce bland music (which, ironically, I find offensive) that appeals to the lowest common denominator of music listener. Coldplay spring to mind...

I'd agree with the first point, but I do hope you have enough sense to read my posts and see that I'm not a dance monkey ( whatever that is?? ) , although I wouldn't be so full of myself to say i had a great knowledge of music , the stuff I do know comes from listening to some styles I'm maybe not keen on and being open to new sounds - and then making decisions on that basis . If truth be told I would rate Tool higher than SOAD - they seem to have more ideas, more fluency in their music...then it get lets down with the vocals...as does (IMNVHO) a lot of that style of music.

I wouldn't agree about the alternative descriptor 100% as the musical spectrum is so eclectic these days that to be truly alternative you would have to do gigs underwater or something very far 'out there' . As for ' on the edge' - theres a sharper edge on a Sgian Dubh these days.

Are the Rolling Stones bland?

[Hamish]

So who are SOAD (  :015: ) trying to be then, Green Day without the radio friendly sound or Alice in Chains played at 78 rpm...is that the proper vocalist or some geezer off the street ? A very ordinary 'act' by any standards...just another average white band, if you'll excuse the name dropping.

You can make as much of a case for their 'music' having grand far reaching roots and influences with wonderful juxtapositions of styles and tempos etc, profound lyrics which can remove the need for a singer to hit any notes at all, but in the end when you polish a turd it's still brown and stinky.

The American 'rawk' scene must be in a bad state if that is whats on offer.

There's no point in arguing with dance monkeys who have little knowledge of music  :001: A singer (and they have 2 singers!) who doesn't hit any notes?  :015: After seeing them live I can say with some authority that I've never seen a band that were so pitch perfect (and without the need for electronic effects to force this!). But I like the fact that not everyone like's SOAD (or, indeed, most of the music I listen to). Truth is, that is the definition of it being alternative and a bit 'on the edge'. Bands that are super-polular are, by definition, bland. They haven't the luxury of offending anyone and need to produce bland music (which, ironically, I find offensive) that appeals to the lowest common denominator of music listener. Coldplay spring to mind...

I'd agree with the first point, but I do hope you have enough sense to read my posts and see that I'm not a dance monkey ( whatever that is?? ) , although I wouldn't be so full of myself to say i had a great knowledge of music , the stuff I do know comes from listening to some styles I'm maybe not keen on and being open to new sounds - and then making decisions on that basis . If truth be told I would rate Tool higher than SOAD - they seem to have more ideas, more fluency in their music...then it get lets down with the vocals...as does (IMNVHO) a lot of that style of music.

I wouldn't agree about the alternative descriptor 100% as the musical spectrum is so eclectic these days that to be truly alternative you would have to do gigs underwater or something very far 'out there' . As for ' on the edge' - theres a sharper edge on a Sgian Dubh these days.

Are the Rolling Stones bland?

Yes, I would say that, these days at least, the Rolling Stones are bland. Also, you can't really compare Tool and SOAD as they have very different styles.