The Music Thread

JustKneller

JustKneller

Habitué
Messages
972
m7600 said:
I don't agree with everything that he says but I do agree with most of it:
Click to expand...

That was my thought exactly.

I think the big thing I disagree on is what he says about the live performance. Then again, I usually listen to bands that don't utilize an extravagant amount of production, so a proper live show is quite doable. And, I should phrase this carefully, live music is more "real" to me than a studio album. This has nothing to do with authenticity, but due to it being music that is performed in the present moment. I mean, I don't fault him for preferring studio albums to a live show, but I also wouldn't put everyone who prefers a live show in a rockist category.
 
Antimatter

Antimatter

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,806
I didn't know that term existed in English. I can recall the early 00s or even 90s in my country in Eastern Europe, and it's always been the case that some music, musicians, or even music fans, are "true" or "not true", e.g. a true Metal fan should be X, Y and Z. I never agreed with that. Essentially, that's gatekeeping.

I'd say the part about online criticism of everything is fair for all spheres, not only music. It's difficult nowadays to go to Reddit or Twitter and NOT find threads upon threads criticizing almost everything.

My own view is that I listen to music I personally like and enjoy, and it doesn't bother me much if others enjoy it or not. I also don't care about which music is popular nowadays and why, I prefer to listen to only what I like to listen.

I'm a big fan of live performances. My most watched videos on YT are recordings of live performances of Radiohead, Muse, and Nightwish throughout the years. I've been to live gigs as well, and those are among the strongest memories and emotions of my whole life.
 
m7600

m7600

Habitué
Messages
1,201
Antimatter said:
I've been to live gigs as well, and those are among the strongest memories and emotions of my whole life.
Click to expand...
Same here. But he does have a point, I think. We tend to think of live shows as raw and spontaneous, but there's a lot of planning and rehearsing involved. There's also other people that make it possible, from the person that does the lighting, to the sound technicians, to the ones that design the flyers and posters. For a band that plays at stadiums, like Metallica for example, there must be dozens if not hundreds of people ensuring that everything works correctly for the band. But for some reason we think that the live show is somehow more spontaneous or authentic than a studio session.
 
JustKneller

JustKneller

Habitué
Messages
972
m7600 said:
But for some reason we think that the live show is somehow more spontaneous or authentic than a studio session.
Click to expand...

I don't think a live show is more spontaneous, but depending on the venue, it's less "doctored" and more "natural" than a studio album. I mean, I've seen Alice Cooper live and I certainly recognize his shows were a production, but I've also seen performers on small stages (or no stage) with barely enough room for instruments and a PA. No light shows, no sound mixers, just musicians and instruments. Would I say that this is more "authentic" than an Alice Cooper show? That's debatable. But it definitely felt more "real".
 
Antimatter

Antimatter

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,806
I haven't done that. E.g. I enjoyed The Killers, even though I knew their vocalist had problems singing the songs. I enjoyed the studio recordings of the songs.

www.ctvnews.ca

Killers' frontman Brandon Flowers took voice lessons for new album

He's obviously a professional singer, but The Killers frontman Brandon Flowers still thought it was a good idea to take voice lessons before hitting the studio to record the band's new album.
www.ctvnews.ca www.ctvnews.ca

I'd say a breathtaking live gig is an advantage though. Something that can make me respect the musicians even more. But I won't discard an artist just based on live/non-live performances.
 
JustKneller

JustKneller

Habitué
Messages
972
m7600 said:
Maybe "authentic" isn't the best word to use in this discussion, but I'd ask, echoing Finn, if the live show is the measuring stick by which we deem the worthiness of musicians.
Click to expand...



I love these guys. As off-beat as it is to do mariachi renditions of hard rock songs, their arrangements are pretty flawless in my book. And, their shows are probably the best live performances I've seen and the crowd has such great energy. The crowd in this video is probably on the tame side of things for one of their shows. I also have their studio albums. To be honest, they're not great. I mean, they sound good technically and they play well, but without the collective effervescence of the crowd's energy playing off the band's energy, it's just ok. I can't go to one of their shows and not bachata, but I could listen to one of their albums while doing dishes and it would just be background sound.

Conversely, you have the Smashing Pumpkins. That was the band that got me through high school. I think their studio albums are pretty amazing. But, live? Let's just say Billy Corgan's singing is a little rough, for starters. Even with a production team, a show can be really hit or miss and probably more miss.

Now, what's authentic? You can poke holes in Metalachi as some of the folks in the band who "act spanish" aren't actually Latino. However, the performance is putting your money where your mouth is and they deliver. On the other hand, Billy Corgan is a fantastic composer, just not the greatest performer. Is he any less of an artist for it? Probably not. But, as I've been typing this, I've been listening to Here I Go Again/Bidi Bidi Bom Bom in the video above on repeat and wishing I was at a Metalachi show.

BUT, and this is a big "but", I'm also not the kind of person who's all over Reddit and instagram and whatever going on about how second wave Smashing Pumpkins is a "flop". I do my own thing and everyone else can do their. I also think there's a big dfference between saying that the live show matters to me (and I might value a band more by that criteria) and that if a band can't do a live show, they should pack it in. And, I think that's a big thing. There's so much second rate trash on the internet made by people who (perhaps ironically) have nothing authentic to offer themselves, so instead they latch on to something else and find a way to sensationalize something about it for likes. Those who can't do, teach instagram. ;)
 
m7600

m7600

Habitué
Messages
1,201
Sure, I totally get that. Having been a concert-goer since adolescence, and having been in a band as well, I understand the appeal and the importance of the live show. All I'm saying is that sometimes, the place where the creative envelope is pushed the most isn't the live show, it's the studio.

Think of Metallica's black album. Arguably, what distinguishes this album in particular is its ultra-polished production. Whether you love, hate or remain indifferent towards Metallica is beside the point. And we can argue if the black album sucks or not. But what seems less arguable, to my mind at least, is that practically no one before them produced a metal album with that level of polish. To me that's just a cold, hard fact. It doesn't matter if they can play those songs equally well at a concert. That's not the point. What matters is that in an example like this one, the creative envelope was pushed at the studio.

Edit: I meant to say that no one produced a metal album as polished as Metallica's black album.
 
Last edited:
JustKneller

JustKneller

Habitué
Messages
972
m7600 said:
All I'm saying is that sometimes, the place where the creative envelope is pushed the most isn't the live show, it's the studio.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't argue with that. I believe it was Queens of the Stone Age (specifically Josh Homme) who once said something to the effect of how he didn't like touring or playing live shows. Instead he prefers being in the studio as that is where he really felt creative. (That being said, they are really good live, too. 😄)

Actually, Aphex Twin is another one. Though, electronic music is another animal. But still, I would argue that when he's in his studio (which I believe is the decommissioned vault of an old bank), that's where creativity happens and really his shows are just a replay of those original ideas.
 
shmity72

shmity72

Habitué
Messages
483
m7600 said:
Sure, I totally get that. Having been a concert-goer since adolescence, and having been in a band as well, I understand the appeal and the importance of the live show. All I'm saying is that sometimes, the place where the creative envelope is pushed the most isn't the live show, it's the studio.

Think of Metallica's black album. Arguably, what distinguishes this album in particular is its ultra-polished production. Whether you love, hate or remain indifferent towards Metallica is beside the point. And we can argue if the black album sucks or not. But what seems less arguable, to my mind at least, is that practically no one before them produced a metal album with that level of polish. To me that's just a cold, hard fact. It doesn't matter if they can play those songs equally well at a concert. That's not the point. What matters is that in an example like this one, the creative envelope was pushed at the studio.

Edit: I meant to say that no one produced a metal album as polished as Metallica's black album.
Click to expand...
The black album made me soo very sad. before cliff died their music was divine. then it became great. great album enjoyed it at the time on cassette re: i looked it up cliff died in 86 after master of puppets not justice for all.
 
Last edited:
Antimatter

Antimatter

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
1,806
Over the last few years, a lot of things related to that country have become clearer to the West. Back in the 90s and 00s, t.A.T.u. seemed genuine and their music was fun (kinda?). Now, because of the war, and everything around it, from human rights to culture, it's like a watershed. Unfortunately, the band members and all the people behind it turned out to be hypocrites and just moral dumbasses. RIP.
 
m7600

m7600

Habitué
Messages
1,201
Antimatter said:
Over the last few years, a lot of things related to that country have become clearer to the West. Back in the 90s and 00s, t.A.T.u. seemed genuine and their music was fun (kinda?). Now, because of the war, and everything around it, from human rights to culture, it's like a watershed. Unfortunately, the band members and all the people behind it turned out to be hypocrites and just moral dumbasses. RIP.
Click to expand...

I think that the situation in Russia in regards to LGBT rights has gotten worse over the years. TATu was obviously a fabricated band, in the same sense that the Backstreet Boys were a fabricated band, and just about every other major pop band. But I don't think that someone in Russia today could invent a band like TATu. It's just inconceivable. I mean, Pussy Riot were thrown in jail just because they went up against the establishment. There's a really good documentary about them, I'll see if I can post the link later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom