Bands that are better 'in theory' than in reality

Really? Captain Beefheart?

Um, yep...I give my copy of Trout Mask a spin every now and again...I really like some of it (Frownland esp.) but I've just never been able to totally dig it (not that I dislike it, but like the thread says I like the IDEA of Beefheart more than Beefheart usually...and I do like lots of Skin Graft/US Mapley type stuff too so it's not really the skronk that throws me)....

I have never heard The Faint....they are like a new punk/gothy type thing, right?

beefheart, I could see that, I love him, but lately when I play those records, not getting as much out of them as I used to

it was only time before someone said this. so, care to explain your reasoning?

it was only time before someone said this. so, care to explain your reasoning?

"Yeah, IN THEORY I like listening to the musical recordings of ever made by human beings in the history of all time"

well, at the time anyway.

that was a cover, right? I have a hard time believing George Harrison would write about how it's gonna take a lot of money to do something, because money is a transitory, relatively valueless commodity. Om...

i'm not a big Beatles fan or anything...but C'MON!

(Although I like him on that one apocalypse track at the end of Mr. Lif's album.)

I can't say I agree with Dog Latin though.

I feel weird posting that since (a) a certain Medicine-man reads this board, plus (b) obviously you know what you mean by "warm" and like Medicine better, which is fair and happy hallelujah. The only thing that kept me from every really loving the hell out of any whole Medicine album (and I got close with Shot Forth Self Living) was that there were always points where things lost their way a little bit, and wound up descending into an uncomfortable murk that I think was meant to be dubby but never quite got me, personally, feeling it. Also I liked it better when Brad sang (high female vox took the thin-treble quotient to almost uncomfortable levels!) and he didn't do it all so often.

Now see, if somebody explained a concert to me thusly, I would be all "WELL SHIT YEAH MANG", but his show wasn't quite so much AWESOME NOISE DUDE! as excruciatingly tedious. The bit where he played electric upright bass was kinda cool though.

and i'm glad i get to be the first to mention the streets, dizee, and all that grime stuff.

...and probably the last. Just sayin'.

You think so? I always found Medicine to be much more inviting and less distant than MBV, which is what I suppose I mean when I say 'warmer'.

we're not listing off bands that suck, metfigga. we're talking about stuff we feel like we should like but don't.

They are an acquired taste, but silly as they are I love them.

For me, alot of noise stuff is rather "eh..." compared to how I want it to sound. Stuff like Merzbow especially. But sometimes bands just have to be taken on their own terms in order to enjoy them at all.

I never had that problem with Beefheart though,

Hey, at least Stevie wrote his song! George should've known in advance his song was crap.

Second the Monks, as that album's a snoozer after a track or two.

I always liked the Velvet Underground in theory, but most of their albums are dull.

Don't bother me while I'm out back cremating a significant portion of my vynal collection.

Um, yeah. Is that so difficult to fathom?

I would say Laibach. I do actually love some of their albums, but overall they're more interesting in theory than in practice.

Diamanda Galas- she's interesting but rubs me the wrong way.

Melt Banana- very intriguing and fun, for about the first 30 seconds.

Joy Division- some great ideas and concepts but they bogged down in what I consider a sloppy execution.

Neurosis- I own many of their albums, but am rarely compelled to listen to them. I think the aesthetic interesting, but somehow it doesn't entertain me. You can add Isis and most Swans to that, though I occasionally enjoy both.

Tori Amos- her music is often convoluted and the lyrics oddly compelling in an obtuse sorta way, but she's always struck me as pretentious and a little dull.

I'll be here all day if I don't stop.

Maybe I'd agree with that if they didn't have so many goddamn great songs.

I appreciate what MBV does, but I do enjoy the theory more than what was actually accomplished by the band.

Non to thread!

You were talking about one of the other albums apart from "Black Monk Time", yeah? or even that one from the "Nice Legs" hitmakers instead, yeah? Please reassure me...

You'll have to explain this one - what do you mean by 'sloppy execution'?

Second Mogwai.

The idea of a group of travelling bohemians who never play a song the same way twice; of musos with solid folk and blues roots constantly playing extended improvisations with, yeah, free jazz influences and prepared pianos and West African drumming and detailed explorations of feedback; all in the service of an idealistic communal philosophy - this sounds great to me in theory. You'd think it could be like the Allman Brothers or Band of Gypsys. Unfortunately, AFAICT, the execution is so clunky it only pulls together maybe once per record I've heard and the rest is near-unlistenable.

Also, after trying to listen to Disraeli Gears, I'm starting to suspect Cream (thought I like them far more than the Dead). You wouldn't guess it from the compilations though. Maybe Clapton in general. I also suspect the Jefferson Airplane. And I kind of agree about the Velvet Underground and MBV. Although I do generally like both bands, the ideas are more exciting than the records, which still have great moments.

Second Band of Susans.

i think in theory i should love all of those bands but they all fall into bands that i just don't 'get' or otherwise can't really get into.

also, i'll second these previously mentioned picks: dj shadow, my bloody valentine, joy division, boards of canada

I don't agree with anything I just wrote, I'm just saying I can see an argument such as this.

**Today, bands that want to cover similar terrain of tension and angst usually sound much bigger**

I won't ask if you ever saw them live, cos you're probably 23 or something, but have you heard any good quality live recordings of theirs e.g Les Bains Douches? They made a HUGE sound - check out the brutal Shadowplay on LBD.

Add (some) Sonic Youth to the list. As in "Gosh, i haven't heard this Sonic Youth record in ages, but I remember it being totally clinic" but then when I play it it's just sort of okay.

'Seems a bit off' is a choice phrase for this thread.

'Black Monk Time' on the other hand delivers all the way down the line.

Choice of The Kinks is pretty baffling!

Not live, he wasn't! e.g Procession on 'Still' , Disorder on LBD...

**You don't ever even hear a buzzing or muted string or a note out of time (definitely from "Transmission" onwards anyway).**

I'm talking about live performance. Barney was freqeuently all over the place. (and frequently fantastic).

Cage had many ideas: so which do ppl think sound exciting? surely not all of them?

x-post: As far as those kind of bands go, it means having to go to gigs bcz a lot of improvisation is involved, and that doesn't always translate well to records.

That being said, I agree about the Velvet Underground and the Grateful Dead (God, I so wanted to like them before I heard them) and Captain Beefheart, and add the MC5.

My problem with GWAR is that they just don't sound like they should given their ferocious appearance. I should confess that I haven't listened to one of their albums since probably about 1990 (circa Scumdogs of the Universe) but I remember feeling so let down that they didn't sound nastier, ruder, angrier, louder, less polished, etc. They just don't sound aggressive and heinous enough. They just sounded like bad metal. Maybe they've changed since, but after that record, GWAR became a "see live only" band and not a "seek out all their albums" band.

Total Est. Time: 1 hour, 27 minutes Total Est. Distance: 87.27 miles

I could see that for "TMR" (it's kind of long and not ideally sequenced), but definitely not for "Safe as Milk". I couldn't ever see myself getting tired of listening to that album, or "Shiny Beast (Bat Chain Puller)".

It's their best record. There are many others, however.

I'm listening to a bunch of Pram right now, and they fit this bill without question.

No, but their idiotic garb might suggest low intelligence in some form.

Meantime, as for THIS thread:

Birthday Party
Big Star

I'm tempted to say MBV, and would have, if not for the fact that a handful of their songs I found truly thrilling. But all of 'em predate Loveless. (Nothing can top that '88 "You Made Me Realise" EP on Mercury.)

The thing I find most interesting about 23 Skidoo is how Crash Worship later ripped off both their sound (replacing the "funk" part of the equation with "extra hollering and weird growling noises") and their whole aesthetic (i.e. actual 23 Skidoo album cover art/concepts were lifted and used by CW: martial arts poses, hand symbols, etc.).

Big Star...I can't even decide whether I enjoy them or not, just like PiL's first album...

Oh and Black Flag for me. Love the idea of them, the actual listening experience is kinda meh...

I agree with Big Star, but only if we're talking about Sister Lovers. The first two albums are great. I have never been able to appreciate the third.

And I like all of those bands.

Truest words on this thread. Elsewhere, I can share things with the Beefheart, JD and Pixies sub-hatas.

Alex is wrong about GWAR though. Live only, yes, but what a show...

really excellent idea for a sound, but a lot of the songs start off sounding great and then don't really go anywhere. They'd be great if they messed around with song structure and different noises more, had other people sing, or at least if Ade Blackburn didn't sing in the same style all the time.

Nu jazz

And any band of mine would of course be brilliant in theory, but...um...oh well

-- Vestigial Appendages, Esq. (doctorduc...), April 22nd, 2005.

escape from noise is pretty listenable...

For the most part Cheap Trick. Although they have some really great moments that would make a very good 60 minute compilation, even their best albums are littered with filler and mediocrity. Yet, I am compelled to think of them as being better than they usually deliver, because of their sense of melody, aesthetics, and esp. their sense of humor.

animal collective.

The Wilburys. I mean, they were great. But not as great as one might expect from such a league of stars.

marissa marchant

Experimental Audio Research; never actually liked any of their music at all.

Animal Collective
Bowie
Deerhoof

I have an amazingly high number of listens recorded on my last.fm for these groups/artists. I'm drawn to their music, yet don't actually enjoy listening to it.

I'll bet there're a hundred more..

The guys that said GWAR a couple years ago were totally on.

And Manowar is the inverse, they are better in reality than they are in theory. They come across as ridiculous, but their stuff's pretty good.

lightning bolt

-- 6335, Thursday, 24 June 2004 04:50 (3 years ago) Bookmark Link

I came here to post just this. Also, Comets On Fire.

DJ Spooky thirded. Also Third Eye Foundation.

every band ever

Bloc Party

Animal Collective would be great if their records weren't hideously produced.

Naked City. On paper they were going to become one of my teenage self's favourite bands but they're only half great, most of their covers are terrible, they're too slick and you can tell they're reading the sheet music esp. on the slower tracks. Needed more drama, more Spillane style atmosphere and some Mike Patton crooning.

Television. Great sound of guitar and voice but especially the album "Marquee Moon" somehow seems dull to me. Too repetitive, not enough variation, too long.

Yea I think that album is very stale, very boring. But I read about them and they sound great in print.

i burned out on marquee moon a few years back but listening to those eno demos and especially the live stuff kinda revived it for me. also, people pay too much attention to the guitars and not enough to the bass/drums - that's one killer rhythm section!

I was wrong about most of the ones I listed except Zappa. Although I'm not sure the theory's so great there.

Naked City OTM. Teenage me really tried with them too. "Too slick" sums it up, pretty much.

Funkadelic... sometimes.

It's funny how many of the groups listed here are this way for me, and how hard it is to admit. Yes, Naked City is definitely one of them. Fuck it - Lightning Bolt, too!

The entire genre of ambient drum'n'bass. How come nobody got this right?

OTM.

A few others: Jeru the Damaja, Suicidal Tendencies, Queen, Bob Dylan (not trolling, not saying he isn't good, just never been able to get into him at all), Red Hot Chili Peppers - wait scratch that I don't like them in theory either.

A few groups getting a lot of hype here recently that I really want to like more than I do: Watain, Deathspell Omega, Jesu, and Battles.

TV On the Radio (I still think they might live up to that theory, though...they're getting closer)

this thread is another great read.

i live in Los Angeles and three bands that are worshiped here but don't like are the Red Hot Chili Peppers, No Doubt and fucking Sublime.

don't even like those bands in theory so back to the ilm universe, will have to go with Animal Collective. i have tried and tried and tried, i just don't get it.

What do you dislike about AC? Is it the melodies or the way they present those melodies?

Negativland OTM x 1000

I really liked Feels, and kinda liked Sung Tongs, but the rest of their discography falls under this category for me. Just didn't live up to my expectations. I also tried to get into Black Dice, and failed.

Yeah - another vote for Negativland OTM

i agree w/ blueski, "every band ever"

but i agree with Bee OK too -- sublime is especially worthless...

and john cage is a good example of this too. his concepts were incredible but i almost feel like his music suffered from his open mindedness

ratatat.

Animal Collective would be great if their records weren't hideously produced.

-- Scik Mouthy, Wednesday, 15 August 2007 10:22 (Yesterday) Link

This one confuses me as all of their albums seem to have radically different production style.

I can see saying Animal Collective though. I love their use of technology, the tribalism, the mystery, the fact that for the longest time you couldn't make out what they were saying, the unconventional melodies, their approach of the halfway point between noise and music. But I wish they didn't have to be so cutesy or cloying about it sometimes. I think they occasionally suffer from that indie rock "childhood wondermint" fixation that I hate to much.

I like Naked City all right, though it's nowhere near my favourite Zorn project. I'm not sure they'd be better if they were more brutal or 'rougher.' I think the aesthetic is more one of cartoonish mania (rather than brutal chaos or something) and the 'slickness' (to the extent that I can see it) works with this. The production is a little dated though, if that's all you guys are referring to.

I really disagree about Cage but I generally like him more for his relatively 'conventionally' written pieces than for the most extreme conceptual chance music. (In some of those cases, I'm not really sure the concepts are as interesting as some people make them out to be.)

Manic Street Preachers

x-post

The slickness about Naked City that gets me is on tracks like Inside Straight which is all one eyebrow cocked sleepy arsehole lounge and completely at odds with all the intensity of the cartoon stuff like "Thrash Jazz Assassin", "Kaoru", "Punk China Doll" with the F-Zero X guitar and Taz in Tazmania vocals. I like Grand Guignol much more than the others I've heard.

The contrast is what makes it work for me! Like a WB character whistling and sauntering just before getting pounced or having an anvil fall on his or her head.

The contrast works within tracks where it rampages through styles at pace, but esp on the first album there are whole tracks of this languid politeness that are awful. What made me think of Mike Patton upthread was that tracks like Sweet Charity from California are an invigorated take on a sound similar to some of the terrible Naked City tracks where it feels really by-numbers.

sundar -- could you recommend some good 'conventional' cage? thanks

Stars

Band of Susans may be the ultimate example of this for me. By all rights, I should like them: 80s noise/drone guitar rock with a post-minimal pedigree (Chatham proteges no less), pop hooks in the classic Amerindie style. Somehow, nothing seems to come together right on the records, though: The cheesy 80s production with giant gated drums might work if this were spare new wave/postpunk but it seems to work so strongly against what they were going for. The rhythm section is plodding and uninspired, just a constant predictable backbeat. I find Poss's voice completely unappealing. The guitars drone but never quite seem to deliver much in terms of rich textures or innovative sounds. They never seem to really nail a pop hook like REM or Husker Du or, say, the Mary Chain or MBV could. ("Hard Light" comes closest.)

sund4r -- could you recommend some good 'conventional' cage? thanks

I never answered this! I don't know if this person is still reading this board but:
In a Landscape
Dream
Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano

are a good place to start.

their general positivity, jazz samples, and low-key style

OK, so this artist, right. He's like a mix of Run-D.M.C. and Johnny Cash....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://cdn.channel.aol.com/red_galleries/kid-rock-400a052307.jpg

Ha, I actually mentioned Band of Susans earlier on this thread.

Peel Sessions is the best recorded thing that's out there for them IIRC.

I never answered this! I don't know if this person is still reading this board but:
In a Landscape
Dream
Sonatas and Interludes for Prepared Piano

are a good place to start.

Also, The Seasons.

Stereolab

Unwound

For the most part Cheap Trick. Although they have some really great moments that would make a very good 60 minute compilation, even their best albums are littered with filler and mediocrity. Yet, I am compelled to think of them as being better than they usually deliver, because of their sense of melody, aesthetics, and esp. their sense of humor.

― Richard Wood Johnson, Monday, August 13, 2007 11:23 AM (7 years ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

pretty much what i was going to say

Every post-rock band out there. They have this sort of higher art, classical music pretensions but usually lack the academical education and talent to perform it. I do like post-rock but the promise seldom delivers.

In the same vein, Prog rockers tend to think their music is way smarter than it actually is.

I agree on Stereolab. I love them but whenever I describe them or mention their influences they sound like an easily accesible, fun, pop oriented band but in reality they're too 'clean' and calculated to be fun.

At least it seems I always oversell them to my friends.

Maybe I should just describe them as nerd pop and move on.

Kanye.

The BBC disc is a little more "rock" than the studio records (and hits all sorts of high points besides) so may be an easier entry point for those who like things a little less squeaky clean.

the notion of bands or artists or whatever as discrete theoretical forms separate from praxis is faintly ridiculous imo and leads to rubbishy listening (and probably rubbishy music-making too)

i.e. what our boy Kant said:

An aggregation of rules, even of practical rules, is called a theory, as long as these rules are thought of as principles possessing a certain generality and, consequently, as being abstracted from a multitude of conditions that nonetheless necessarily influence their application. Conversely, not every undertaking is a practice; rather, only such ends as are thought of as being brought about in consequence of certain generally conceived principles of procedure are designated practices.

^^^^
my take on imagebombing a thread btw

Oneohtrix Point Never

Couldn't wait to hear The 1975 after reading about em here on ILM, then I heard em and it was like yeah no.

I would agree with that Kant statement in general, but not in this context.

If theory should be removed from music then music reviews are meaningless. Music videos should be killed as well since they ruin/enhance the experience with a preconceived visual representation of the song.

??? music reviews are reviews of a recording or a concert, there's a million ways of doing them, when you stop writing about the recording or the concert you're writing fanfic. videos?????

unless you think "i was excited to hear what this 5'4 white British 36 year-old male was gonna sound like but he just doesn't sound 5'4 enough" is some kind of meaningful discourse

nv otm

yeah 'In theory' is doing a lot of shit shoveling here but at least it's less self-back-pat-y than the usual "biggest musical disappointment" or "overrated" threads

what bands did Wittgenstein think were overrated?

wittgenstein on black messiah: '15 years for this? get to work, son'

Do not ask for the rating, ask instead for the loopz.

Nothing wrong with the premise of this thread as far as I can tell, it's simply about the gulf between how a band is described and how they actually sound to you upon hearing. "in theory" is not really appropriate. E.g. if Stereolab are described as sounding like krautrock crossed with lounge, 1960s pop, and experimental pop with Marxist-inflected lyrics then that is a proposition that may well lead to disappointment in practice (although personally I love them until Dots and Loops).

Buddy Bolden.

Lol

Yeah I think this thread premise is interesting if it's not just about "overrated" acts or "things I expected to like but didn't" and more about the way certain types of music are easy to write about in a way that sounds exciting / interesting / compelling, to such an extent that there ends up being a surplus of excitement in the writing-about-the-thing relative to the actual experience of the thing itself.

It's useful to do this with acts you don't think of as overrated in order to get at this phenomenon more specifically: e.g. I love Disco Inferno but don't actually listen to D.I. Go Pop (their most experimental release) that much, and think it's more interesting to think about than listen to ultimately.

The reverse situation is music which you find really exciting / interesting / novel when listening to it but then struggle to articulate why: music which is resistant to proper translation into criticism.

I think about this a lot with dance music: the way that some music is just more critic-friendly not in the sense (or not only in the sense) of appealing to the biases of critics, but also in that the music more readily can be captured in fulsome descriptive passages and signposts different critical/contextual angles that writers can take.

c.f. writing about deep tech tracks which I find really challenging!

The World's Greatest Rock 'n' Roll Band is fallible. In theory, the Rolling Stones may be perfect. But onstage in Oakland last night, they were not. On the second stop of their 50 and Counting Tour, the Stones played 23 songs, most them hits, like "Gimme Shelter" and "Brown Sugar." They brought out Tom Waits to duet on an old Willie Dixon tune with Mick Jagger, and let former member Mick Taylor show off his superior guitar skills on "Midnight Rambler."

In many ways it was excellent. The Stones supplied another night of reliable classics, Jagger moved like Jagger, and the crowd got a couple of semi-surprises. But the show also made it clear that the Rolling Stones' most valuable product right now is the idea of the Rolling Stones -- and that's what fans paid stratospheric sums to consume last night. The idea of the Stones is certainly more important and special than the band members' actual performances, which were loose bordering on sloppy, sometimes irretrievable, and often swamped over by Oracle's boomy acoustics.

a bogus "theory" no one actually endorses (i.e. The Rolling Stones Are Perfect) is not useful

The Stones' best albums are so much better in practice than in theory.

There are so many bands now that are better 'in theory' because a lot of people seem to put effort into maintaining an impeccable list of influences that can be quoted in reviews etc rather than working on their craft or playing to their own strengths.

The Stones' best albums are so much better in practice than in theory.

so true

lol nakh you've gotten a lotta mileage out of this construction.

But it's so much better in theory than in practice... discuss.

beach house

Pere Ubu. I've tried and tried, but apart from half a dozen songs, it's just too much work

Way upthread, and somebody prob already said this, but there's more to Beefheart than Trout Mask Replica. He did try different things, and had a good range, I think. Also prob been said, but, although what Alex Ross wrote about Radiohead made them seem very appealing, when I actually listen---wellll, I can see what Ross means, so it's not like some of those Rolling Stone reviews (Ariana Grande as upstart virtuoso?). But seein' ain't always believin'.

Magma for me. love the whole idea of it and the look and the feel and the album covers and the craziness but i have a really hard time with the music. maybe Gong too. always want to like them more than i do and i love the demented acid fairy thing.

also jandek. every ten years i am groggy and up at 3 am and i hear jandek and it makes perfect sense and it even made perfect sense when i saw him here a couple years ago - though apparently he wasn't happy with the show - and i love the monomania and the aesthetic but i rarely want to hear one of his 400 albums. love the theory though!

i might even feel that way about zeuhl and RIO and anti-rock and no wave in general. i get what they were trying to do and go against the grain and i admire that but i never had to rebel against the stuff they felt the need to rebel against. i loved all the 70's stuff that those people thought was so boring. i want to say i love henry cow but i kinda don't. i love weird 70's music a bunch but there is disco and pop from the 70's that was just as weird in its own way and that i would much rather listen to. i guess i just prefer prog and jazz and regular rock that explored the outer limits. and punk. and Can. and P-Funk.

(tons of exceptions of course. i love VGG and Branca and 8 Eyed Spy and loads of herky and/or jerky art music from the 70's and early 80's... as well as tons of modern classical/avant/electronic stuff...)

i've come to the realization that there are people who just REALLY like the theory. you know? they are more interested in the ideas of a Henry Cow or whoever and they get a lot of pleasure out of those ideas. and that's cool. it really is. i'm just a pleasure hound. though i don't shy away from difficulty. i'm the only opera fan i know...

Klaus Schulze.

Wire. In theory they should be my favourite band ever - calculated, austere post-punk that went on to influence some of the better aspects of Britpop. But yeah, other than Map Ref and Outdoor Miner, there's not a lot I love.

Better in practice than theory needs a thread. I'd talk about Grateful Dead!

gonna second mbv, sorry

and unwound

but strongly disagree on (pre-90s) tangerine dream!

Nick Cave is my other one.

Don't even like him in 'theory'.

I like things like Nick Cave (Tom Waits, Scott Walker), anything macabre, gothic and picaresque in this sense; but something about his music just doesn't sit well. It always sounds overblown and superficially grandiose.

The Communards
Trotsky Icepick

Come is kind of this band for me. also h/t way the hell back to whoever said the Byrds w/ Gram Parsons.

Latter day Scott Walker... not that I hate it, just rather listen to 'Til the Band Comes In!

Better in practice than theory needs a thread. I'd talk about Grateful Dead!
Right On! Also Wussy and many others.
I like things like Nick Cave (Tom Waits, Scott Walker), anything macabre, gothic and picaresque in this sense; but something about his music just doesn't sit well. It always sounds overblown and superficially grandiose. Vocally, all three of these put me off (for the most part, though I liked some of their early stuff). Their songwriting and especially arrangements can be much better, but voices tip the scales rong way. And I say that as a Nico loyalist.

also h/t way the hell back to whoever said the Byrds w/ Gram Parsons The original Sweethearts of the Rodeo had most of his vocals mixed way down; they were restored to the foreground on the excellent Australian label Raven's GP collection, Warm Evenings, Pale Mornings, Bottled Blues---a really good introduction to his various projects---also the Byrds box, but the version of Sweethearts on Spotify drives me up the wall on headphones. Not his fault, it's the whole mix. But try that show, from the Piper Club in Rome, I think, anyway it's Byrds incl. Parsons in 1968; he does a show-stopping "Farther Along," and Douglas Dillard has no prob fitting his banjo into any of their songs, whatever the style. It's posted here and there, sometimes on YouTube.

xp, thanks for the live show recs. I am, however, deeply suspicious of altered mixes.

calculated, austere post-punk that went on to influence some of the better aspects of Britpop

ha this sounds horrible to me!

i might even feel that way about zeuhl and RIO and anti-rock and no wave in general. i get what they were trying to do and go against the grain and i admire that but i never had to rebel against the stuff they felt the need to rebel against. i loved all the 70's stuff that those people thought was so boring. i want to say i love henry cow but i kinda don't. i love weird 70's music a bunch but there is disco and pop from the 70's that was just as weird in its own way and that i would much rather listen to. i guess i just prefer prog and jazz and regular rock that explored the outer limits. and punk. and Can. and P-Funk.

otm, largely the way i feel about punk tbh. TONS of exceptions obv. i just never really identified with a lot of punk i guess. the 70s was a super weird decade on its own terms and i never really felt drawn to the "back to basics, fuck the excess" attitude of punk that wanted to trim all the bullshit. i love all that bullshit.

I don't think Rock In Opposition was a rebellion against other music at all, I think it was mainly a rebellion against the music industry that didn't support them, a bunch of mutually supporting cult bands. RIO was just the concerts they put on but it became almost a subgenre through whatever stylistic similarities those bands had.
I wasn't really that into most of Henry Cow's albums but I think Art Zoyd belong among the top tier of prog bands.

Why are Disco Inferno more interesting to think about? I think they sound great.

I also think that the really good bands aren't rebelling for the most part, they're just making the music they love. I mean, a lot of these bands say they were defined by what they hate, but what would they be doing if they'd never heard the things they hated? Probably something much the same as what they were doing.
I hate the idea of letting the things you dislike define you so much, it's like your enemies own you if you are trying to be the opposite of them.

i think a lot of bands form and agree about what they don't want to sound like right off the bat. that seems natural. which is why there can be a lot of turnover in bands. cuz the drummer really liked oasis.

the bands i mentioned took a stand artistically. is really what i was getting at, i guess. they were not the norm. and usually i like that.

and the post-1976 art rockers took cues from punk too. and the punks were very much about not being the norm. initially. and they also took cues from non-commercial outjazz. which is a deliberate decision to not make a lot of money.

i don't even know what i'm talking about. i love the first three Wire albums anyway!

Crass are kinda my favorite art rock band.

i am usually all for the DIY little guy who goes against the grain! (there just seems to be a very deliberate not fun quality to zeuhl and that kinda thing...)

probably a lot of people would not find crass all that much fun...

i finally figured out that Come were my favorite 90's indie rock band because every one of their songs is a homage to "I Want You(She's So Heavy)" by the beatles. which makes me love every Come song! since someone mentioned Come...

i've come to the realization that there are people who just REALLY like the theory. you know? they are more interested in the ideas of a Henry Cow

I think it's one thing to make the claim that Henry Cow maybe fits this bill for you but another to claim that those who like Henry Cow do so for reasons that are at least questionable enough to merit comment.

Gang of Four. I love the idea of them, Marxist-Leninist funk merchants etc, but don't enjoy the music at all

I thought Magma and zeuhl were all about daft fun? Certainly sounds like that a lot of the time.

i just meant that sometimes people are interested in music for extra-musical reasons. i have no doubt that there are plenty of people who just enjoy their music a lot and don't it that much. they just like how it sounds. but a lot of the people i know who really dig that stuff are musicians or musically-inclined and i think part of the appeal of the music is where the group was going with their music. with their sound. with their ideas. i feel the same way about a lot of other musicians and groups. for me, it's hard to get past the point of: i don't really want to be listening to this. i admire what they are doing, but it's not something i want to hear much. whereas i feel like i can listen to dr. buzzard's savannah band every single day of the week and i also listening deeply to it and asking myself questions about the music the band's intent and their ideas. and i have a lot more fun doing that...

(again, there is math i enjoy a ton. could listen to bach for eternity...)

x-post

"don't THINK ABOUT it that much..."

gang of four is a good example of what i'm talking about. i love the production and the bass and the drums. have no interest in their politics or what the hell they're singing about or anything about them really. the records just sound really cool to me. i never think about them beyond that.

as simply as possible: magma had a very DEFINITE viewpoint and idea about how music should be made and how it should sound. and IN THEORY i think their ideas are cool. but IN PRACTICE i can't take that much of it.

ornette! he's kinda my supreme example. so many ideas. so well thought out. but i don't need a lot of him in my life. his sound is not something i always enjoy. dancing in my head drives me up a wall! he does anyway. the rest of the music is fine. i love everyone he played with. i do find ornette records i like a lot as i get older. i really like Love Call and Crisis.

also: sun ra. the best in theory thing in the cosmos. i don't own a single sun ra record. yeah, you heard me...

i do own 15 jackie and roy albums...

i finally figured out that Come were my favorite 90's indie rock band because every one of their songs is a homage to "I Want You(She's So Heavy)" by the beatles. which makes me love every Come song! since someone mentioned Come...

― scott seward, Monday, January 5, 2015 12:53 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

But really aren't they only doing this on that one song though? The rest of their songs might be similar in spirit but that one on 11:11 was directly an homage.

I love Come - they actually know how to work two guitars together, and the tones themselves are probably the best of any band at that time.

Of course theres Thalia's vocals etc...I could go on

Which Magma albums are you listening to Scott?

Oh let's not start with all that trying to persuade people to change their minds business. Sort of agree about Ornette, also Messiaen.

Lol, Tom D. otm. Everytime I try that, I end up changing my own mind!

you know it's probably Thalia's vocals, because I have the same issue with Royal Trux, who on paper are someone I would love.

i don't like royal trux in theory OR in practice.

every Come song had that sorta downward into oblivion vibe that reminds me of i want you she's so heavy.

i really do like EVERY come song. and i never listen to chris or thalia solo i don't listen to uzi or live skull with thalia or codeine but i could listen to come every day of the week. it' a thing with me. they had the perfect formula for my brain.

"Which Magma albums are you listening to Scott?"

none of them. but i have heard some. i just wanna listen to amon duul 2 all the time.

Backing upthread a bit: what is the theory behind Unwound? They've always struck me as a 90s noiserock group that just happens to be really good, not a band with some overarching concept or mythos or what have you.

Psychic TV

i always feel bad when people say they can't get into wire.

the 2nd and 3rd wire records should be in every medicine chest!

lol, I would say ditto for Magma. Wire was my pick for this thread, there are certainly tunes of theirs I really like, I just like reading about them more than actually listening to them

do you know their read and burn / send era

This would be Xiu Xiu for me--I want to see more abrasive (formal and thematic) queerness in indie rock and I love most of their influences, but apart from most of Fabulous Muscles and their cover of "Ceremony," I enjoy the idea of the band more than their actual music.

stroooong disagree with sun ra c'mon son

the migos

Not to try to change anybody's mind, but can't resist mentioning that Sun Ra played a wiiiide range of jazz, plus 50s rock etc. backing weirdos on the singles collection, the Batman album he did with The Blues Project, the blues-rock guitars he plugged into the Arkestra at times, Disco 3000 is its own thing---but there's lots of Raness on YouTune o course, albums aside. Agree about Ornette's Crisis, which I hardly even see mentioned (great w Lebanese blond hash, I'm told).

oh i know all about sun ra. despite the fact that i had never listened to full albums by him - other than that late 80's major label kinda trad thing he did - until last year! i heard stuff here and there for decades. and funnily enough that singles collection is one of my fave things in his orbit. though i sold it shortly after i bought it back in the 90's or whenever. the batman album is fun. one of the best related things i've heard is the joe williams album where ra did all the arrangements. came out in the 50's i think. from earlier recordings when joe was still in chicago. i was really enjoying a live 70's show on youtube last year. and i really like john gilmore. my POINT was that in THEORY i should LOVE sun ra and own a zillion sun ra records like sooooooooooo many of my indie/undie/noise/freakout/collector friends who worship him. but i don't. i have enjoyed what i have heard but i don't really feel the need to hear a lot of it that often. i admire the wide range. i love the record covers and titles and everything about the idea of astral cosmic freedom music that dates back to the 50's. i really like the Atlantis record a bunch. when i'm in the right mood it sounds cool to me like a good 50's exotica album does. i love jazz and would kill for it, but not every big jazz fan listens to sun ra. a LOT of very cool and smart jazz fans that i know don't listen to him at all. it's not a judgement of the people that do. i listen to so much free/spiritual/freedom/experimental jazz from all time periods and no doubt i will find the perfect sun ra album for me some day. i almost feel like it's the way i feel about ornette. i like when the people around ornette play. but ornette doesn't thrill me. i do like sun ra's bonkers electric organ stuff...don't get me wrong, he could be the king of bonkers. i'll probably be the biggest fan on earth in 10 years. sometimes i'm slow.

i like this too!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcYwaFMLUR4

basically i just wish there were 20 more john gilmore solo albums! but there aren't. or marshall allen records. or pat patrick records.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gt6RDpUO4M

Heartily support the Come love here, and they were even better live

(They were also the last great chain smoking band)

Hate to say it, but the Boredoms are for me the quintessential exemplar of the thread topic.

Though I should say: their music does in fact do what "in theory" it's supposed to do (and beyond). It's just that I do not enjoy them nearly as much as I theoretically should.

(My nomination itself was better in theory than in practice ).

sun ra hater(s) try his languidity album. very coherent, listener-friendly intro.

and yes, sorry, but boredoms is spot on. i need to give them another shot but i've spent some time in the salt mines and, yeah, great on paper...

More and more, I avoid anything drone-centric---massively drone-centric, that is, not counting the Velvet Underground, or your favorite acid folk guitarist. Details, incl fingers squeaking on the strings, can keep me from the void of doze, if recorded right, so no prob there, ditto Miles for the most part. But so much of ye olde New Music, as followed by admiring, aspiring indie art rockers.
I and we all will be taking a dirt nap soon enough; I'd rather not snooze way too much of the discretionary. Also, as a reviewer, "The last thing I want is music that puts me in a trance," to quote Gary Giddens, but mainly it's personal, because geezer.

Giddins, that is.

And there's a wrong-end-of-the-telescope sense of some theoreticals: for instance, my favorite Sonic Youth tracks, which are so far and few between, seem to be among their least typical, most fave being "The Hits of Sunshine (For Allen Ginsberg)." But somehow their post-break-up works seem to be luring me back to the canon.

nooooooooo, not boredoms you guys!!! vision creation newsun!!! one of the greatest albums ever made. by anyone. so much to love and so much joy and beauty! i beg of you....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdPCt5ZEf40

listen to scott, he speaks the truth.

that is a really sad gary giddins quote. trances can be invigorating for mind and body!

vision creation newsun never really grabbed me. its true that in theory its the kind of thing I like

I loved two of their other albums but never really got into Vision Creation Newsun.

Should get more Boredoms soon.

early Boredoms perhaps (I dig 'em but don't necessarily want to listen to it - I'll take Ruins if we're talking noise-rock-with-gibberish), later Boredoms are definitely as-advertised

xpost drones, bad music puts me to sleep too. It's very sad; once upon a time, bad music could be gloriously bad. "That one gets *stars* for lousiness," Lester Bangs assured his inquiring nephew. "Oh yeah? Let's play it!" No more (though suggested exceptions are welcome).

Game Theory

not a group, but in THEORY i should probably like SOME u.k. dance music post-pump up the volume. which sounds really sad as i type that. i've tried. lord, how i've tried. i did enjoy some stuff on the faux-italo label Loading Bay. does underworld count? i loved second toughest. probably not though. how you can build an entire genre around one of my fave break beats and not make me want to listen to it...i dunno. again, maybe when i'm older...

(also, the u.k. has LOTS of theories when it comes to dance music and electronic music....and i set my sights on germany instead. or japan. or finland. or detroit.)

pete bellotte still my u.k. dance hero after all these years...

(and hardly anybody loved 80's synth-pop and new wave 12 inch dance music mixes as much as me. i've been a big supporter of the region my entire life!)

I feel you on this point

in some cases its the nature of the faddish beast. i can play a new u.k. house track and it actually sounds like its getting old as its playing.

lol

Oooh I was gonna chime in and say post-"Super AE" Boredoms but yeah, them, and there's been very little Kraut-inspired music in the last 20 years that's lived up to my fantasy version of modern Kraut-inspired music. Wish I felt the same way about Vision Creation Newsun as you Scott. Three drummer Boredoms was one of the most disappointing "right up my alley" shows of my life. Oneida on record is another one, those records should be magic for me but they aren't, but I love them live so much that I'll always come back.

I saw the one of the 3 drummer shows and I liked it a lot but I haven't heard the album of it yet. They don't have nearly as big a discography as I remembered, but there's probably a zillion related bands. Are they still together? On hiatus?

You may dig Rovo. Dunno what it is about VCN you don't like but Rovo are a lot cleaner and let the grooves speak for themselves more. No vocals either if that's (not) your thing.

a lot of those kinda UK jangly 81-85ish bands like orange juice, lloyd cole & the commotions, aztec camera etc

those are not interesting but scottish postpunk is redeemed by the fire engines were excellent

Oooh I was gonna chime in and say post-"Super AE" Boredoms but yeah, them, and there's been very little Kraut-inspired music in the last 20 years that's lived up to my fantasy version of modern Kraut-inspired music. Wish I felt the same way about Vision Creation Newsun as you Scott.

― fgti, Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:51 (54 minutes ago)

this stuff was some of my favourite rock music when i was a teenager, i havent played any of it for years

i shall go back to it sometime and i suspect i might prefer the heavier, more orthodox (like accelerated amon duul / flower travelling band) super ae to the more cosmic/wacky vision creation which i marginally preferred at the time

I like Boredoms vocals quite a bit. Some of the vocals in Pop Tatari are hilarious.

That's still my favourite over Super AE and Vision Creation Newsun

How we enter into a band's "world", how we are ushered in to their soundscape and spectacle, and how we stay there, has so much to do with our ability to appreciate the way in which their "practice" incarnates whatever "theory" cues up our listening. This sounds horribly circular I'm realizing, but for lack of a better word I find that the music I am most moved by (and likely to find successful in embodying its "theory") carries not only sound but mystique . That ability to convey mystique is contingent not just on the sound, but so much else --
Including our context and our own internal factors. It's fragile, in other words, sometimes alarmingly so. For example, seeing a band live for the first time after much anticipation and previous listening can erode mystique as often as enhance it -- and I'm only talking about shows that are in all describable respects good, even great ones.

Xxxxxp's

Scott I'm moved by your poignant entreaties

all bands are subject to a prior mystique, the mystique of bands

chocolate synthesizer is probably my favorite boredoms, such a bracing record, or maybe super roots 5 but they're fantastic in all incarnations. i haven't listened to them in ages either. all of these bands are great in practice and this thread is lame yall just trippin.

I love Chocolate Synthesizer and Super Roots 1-6 and all noisy Boredoms

not 7? aw

lol, I would say ditto for Magma. Wire was my pick for this thread, there are certainly tunes of theirs I really like, I just like reading about them more than actually listening to them

― Abstinence Hawk (frogbs), Monday, January 5, 2015 10:35 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

do you know their read and burn / send era

― nakhchivan, Monday, January 5, 2015 10:48 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

important post, frogbs take note

Most stuff mentioned is on the music aficianado side.

Critics since the 80s about finding ways to appreciate the super popular (not just any popular, a certain kind of popular), resorting to academicky theorizing. Academics sometimes in on the act. Let's go back to where that started: Madonna was better in Theory.

This whole thing is not really a concern for me. I can't think of any music I'm not particularly interested in where I think, "Yeah, but it should work in theory." I mean, obviously, there's some PART of that theory that I might admire that's not working.

Mocedades. Promised so much, delivered so little.

Ha, thought that name rang a bell! (I Cheated)

Also, Schmetterlinge!

Lol (xpost) no cheating

I didn't get into The Jam at first when I heard a greatest hits collection, I think Snap. Interestingly they clicked when I heard the full albums.

Game Theory were a bit off when I heard them, but I kept listening thru college. Then I lost my tapes and the albums were out of print for a few decades and they really got under my skin. I obsessively tracked down FLACs of everything last year, just before the official reissues started rolling out, ha ha. Hearing the first album and early EPs for the first time, they sound off.

Beach Boys and post-Barrett Pink Floyd used to be big ones for me but I sorta came around. 00s Dylan albums come to mind.

Every Who album after A Quick One.

Theory of a Deadman

Every Who album after A Quick One.

― Fastnbulbous, Thursday, January 8, 2015 9:49 AM (17 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Actually I think the labored "theories" behind the albums paled in comparison to the music, which was generally excellent.

ctrl+s "British Sea Power"

Ah ok, they've been mentioned already. I love everything about them except for just about everything I've heard

ctrl+f, I mean

sometimes i kinda wish i had saved all the promo e-mails and one sheets that tried to connect ten different genres and sub-genres and groups to one shitty indie rock band. such delusions.

I think the first British Sea Power album was amazing. The other two I've heard were okay but something seemed missing.

This is Dead Can Dance for me. I own almost all of their stuff but I can't seem to get through more than a few songs at a time. Individual tracks see great but whole albums are tiresome for me.

Critics since the 80s about finding ways to appreciate the super popular (not just any popular, a certain kind of popular), resorting to academicky theorizing. Academics sometimes in on the act. Let's go back to where that started: Madonna was better in Theory.

P. sure any theory behind Madonna is even worse than her music.

i have that book of madonna theory. have never read it though.

not this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Madonna-Me-Women-Writers-Queen/dp/1593764294

can't remember the title right now...

Beach Boys and post-Barrett Pink Floyd used to be big ones for me but I sorta came around. 00s Dylan albums come to mind.

I feel the same way about '00s Dylan, and I'd also add '00s Leonard Cohen and '00s Nick Lowe. I like the idea of rockstars 'aging gracefully' and staying relevant 40-50 years into their careers, but for me none of these guys embody that ideal, and their critical acclaims just heightens my disappointment. I'd much rather listen to '00s Scott Walker or Marianne Faithfull or Tom Zé.

(sorry, this is just how I feel)

*acclaim

New York Dolls

No

their albums are actually better than they needed to be! i mean, they could have been as bad as Kiss albums or something. actually, Kiss still rule this thread.

The Clash