I don't like Gram Parsons

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
And yet I like quite a few of the current crop of alt-country, including the much maligned Mr. Adams.

So my question to you, ILM readers, is this: have you ever enjoyed the followers of a genre/trend more than the originators? An obvious example would be the Strokes over the Velvets. Radiohead vs. Can/Floyd. Belle and Sebastian vs. Nick Drake. Every folk rocker vs. Neil Young.

In hip-hop the young seem to devour the old at a pretty awesome rate. In rock, the young never seem to measure up. Is this just because rock criticism is still bogged down by hippie burn outs?

bnw, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Excellent question. Me too I much prefer Ryan Adams to Gram Parsons. But usually the new generation does not match the forefathers. More examples would be Oasis or Blur vs. The Beatles or Black Rebel Motorcycle Club vs. Jesus & Mary Chain. Especially when the new generation "apes" classic bands as BRMC and The Strokes do they fight a lost battle. The original is always better than a new carbon copy.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I enjoy the Strokes more than the Velvets, I enjoy Radiohead more than Pink Floyd, and I like prime B&S and Nick Drake about equally. But crucially I don't see any of those bands as lacking an individual identity or simply aping their predecessors. Is a feeling that a band or artist *has* their own identity crucial to enjoying rock, would you say

Tom, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Belle & Sebastian vs. Nick Drake? I think that's wrong. There's much more Donovan in B&S. I do not see the Nick Drake comparisons at all. Because they're both quiet and the singing is styles are both vaguely translucent. But Nick Drake's guitar playing, voice like a bar of soap left in a smoke house, coherent message-conveyed-by- lyrics approach - structured and disciplined and entirely coherent. Anti-Belle & Sebastian.

As for the question: I love both Gram Parsons and Ryan Adams (a slight minor quibble, I would say now that it should be Bruce Springsteen vs Ryan Adams).

powertonevolume, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I enjoy the Strokes more than the Velvets
Do you know that this is blaspemy Tom? But you are right as a dance combo The Strokes are probably more successful. Nevertheless the Velvets sunglasses were much cooler than the designer clothes of The Strokes. Even the bloody UK cover reminds me a lot of the 1969 Live with Lou Reed cover. Where is the originality of that band? Anyway I thought there was a consensus on ILM that The Strokes were rubbish. Suddenly you join into the hype. Which has almost faded into nothingness. Almost a year later. That is really pathetic.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I find that I generally enjoy the followers more than the originators; part of this is the depends on the aggressiveness of the cannibalisation process: at the moment I am finding the more appropriated the sound, the more I enjoy it. Eg Buckcherry, despite that I have always had (unfortunate) class prejudice issues with ACDC, and the Aisler's Set, whose swipes from 60s girls groups are overt. But I tend to find everything, and nothing, is recycled anyway, so I really have no problem with these kind of arbitary tags.

charles m, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Anyway I thought there was a consensus on ILM that The Strokes were rubbish. Suddenly you join into the hype. Which has almost faded into nothingness. Almost a year later. That is really pathetic.

Pathetic in what way? The hype hasn't faded into nothingness (get out of your indie ghetto and talk to some other people (-; ) but even if it had, why would that make now a stupid time for Tom to express his approval? Are you suggesting that Tom DOESN'T REALLY LIKE THE STROKES?? Actually I think he always has done, in the same way I do - as a good time fun pop band.

I don't know why I'm defending Tom. He's an arse.

N., Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

btw, I'm pretty sure this exact question was asked a couple of months ago or so. Can anyone remember what the thread was called?

N., Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I didn't like the hype around the Strokes for a couple of months and I let that colour my perception of the band. I was wrong - started liking them a bit after "Hard To Explain" came out, bought the album rather nervously and immediately enjoyed it. I'm sorry to break up the ILM consensus, not that there was one.

The reason FT's talking about them now is that all the hype and anti- hype about the Strokes was saying basically the same things and that wasn't what I was hearing on the record, so I thought I might as well write about that.

I'm always glad to see the return of Nick's "internet hardman" persona, too.

Tom, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't see any feckin connection between Gram Parsons and Ryan Adams, the more I think about it. Adams did "My Sweet Carolina" and just because Emmylou Harris was on it, everyone went nuts with all these Gram Parsons comparisons.

Ryan Adams is a fairly rocky mainstreamish country artist, Gram Parsons makes country music. I'm not even sure why Parsons is considered the father of alternative country anyway. Perhaps because of his "rock and roll lifestyle" (yawn).

Ronan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm always glad to see the return of Nick's "internet hardman" persona, too.

But I put in a smiley face and everything! Who will rid me of this troublesom persona?

N., Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I have a real problem with this linear originators/followers idea. It encourages lazy + narrow genre classifications which restrict your view of a band.

This Strokes = Updated Velvets thing is particularly daft. Sure the VU are in there, as are Television and The Smiths, but context is surely as, if not more important than the way they play their guitars. The question 'what can The Strokes do with their music in 2002' or 'where do guitar bands fit in any more' are crucial. Whether they're 'better' than a band who happened to have a similar *sound* 30 years ago doesn't matter.

Dr. C, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Of course you DO get followers whose sole reason for existence is to jump onto whatever bandwagon is CURRENTLY rolling. But they usually operate concurrently with whoever they're following. For example minor league baggies like Flowered Up, Northside and the Hollow Men following the Stone Roses and The Happy Mondays. Or the plethora of punk bands following the Pistols and The Clash.

Are any of these followers any good? Sometimes, yes - why not?

Dr.C, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Are you suggesting that Tom DOESN'T REALLY LIKE THE STROKES??
No of course not. I suppose Tom is honest but that is even more unbelievable. Apparently we live in different universes. I think I just shut up now and stay in my little indie corner. Anyway we can talk about this in ten years time. If I remember who the Strokes were then.

P.S. I'd say it would be pathetic to say today that Oasis were the best rockn'roll band of all times which has been said and written when DM came out. They have always been bollocks. I guess today Oasis would be ranked where they belong. Somewhere in the third division. The Strokes will share their fate.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah Alex but by the same token the VU were I'm sure dead exciting in 1967-1969 but their innovations and stances have been thoroughly absorbed so that listening to them in the here and now has never done much for me.

In ten years time I will like 80% different music from that which I do now. Hopefully.

Dr C is right too.

Tom, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

**P.S. I'd say it would be pathetic to say today that Oasis were the best rockn'roll band of all times**

It's only pathetic because the question 'what is the greatest rock and roll band of all time' is pathetic. Oasis is as valid an answer as any other if that's what you feel and can argue your corner. As is Limp Bizkit or The Adverts or The Standells or The Cult.

Speaking for myself I don't have fixed opinions about the majority of groups whose music I know. Anyone can change from fantastic to bollocks from one day to the next, from one song to the next, or within a song! I like that. I depends what else I've been listening to, what someone has said or a whole complex mix of parameters which assemble themselves as they will.

You're on great form today, by the way, Alex!

Dr. C, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I see your point Tom. Of course VU have been absorbed into mainstream. From that pov I can understand that you find The Strokes more enjoyable. They sound like a band of today whereas VU sound for you as late 60s (for me they they sound timeless). But I guess in the pantheon of rock you would rank VU higher than The Strokes, wouldn't you?

Another example where I prefer the later band: Teenage Fanclub vs. Big Star. I find that Big Star sound dated whereas TF sounded (and sound still) contemporary.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

But I guess in the pantheon of rock you would rank VU higher than The Strokes, wouldn't you?

Tom Ewing's PANTHEON OF ROCK. Whatever next?

N., Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

If you mean "pantheon of rock" as "who has been more important in terms of the historical development of rock music?" then yes I would, and that's the only way in which I can make sense of the idea. A history of rock music which remained completely free of value judgements is one I'd quite like to read, actually.

Tom, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Anyone can change from fantastic to bollocks from one day to the next, from one song to the next, or within a song!
That sounds fantastic Dr.C! But nevertheless even you must have some reference points when listening to music. Otherwise it would be difficult for you to find the pearls in the heap of rubbish which most of today's music undoubtedly is.
Btw thanks for the compliment Dr. C. And you are right the mono- causal approach is a little too simple. I am nevertheless curious in which Strokes song you heard The Smiths. Did you hear Marr's guitar or Morrissey's lyrics and/or voice?

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think most of todays music is a heap of rubbish. On the contrary the list of things I want is bloody huge.

Ronan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

the list of things I want is bloody huge.
It is called addiction Ronan. I know it. Me too I have a very big list of things which becomes smaller and smaller the more I check (listen to samples, mp3s etc.) the stuff. My experience is that there is much more rubbish than good stuff out there. Maybe I am a little too fastidious. It's probably in my character.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Here here Ronan!

Regarding your disdain at the Ryan/Gram juxtaposition, the best way of hearing exactly how much Ryan has been influence by Gram (in his singing style, not the style(s) on Gold but on the previous records) is to hunt out A Song For You (Parsons) by Whiskeytown, and, err, another Parsons song that Ryan duetted with Emmylou on. It's startling how similar he sounds.

The founder of modern country rock. Well, as a strict adherent to Dr C's multi-faceted outlook on the world of music, it would be impossible for me to conceive that Gram is solely responsible for the emergence of country rock. But it is incorrect I believe to dismiss his claim to the throne (a throne, note, that I don't believe exists) on the grounds that you perceive it is based on his RnR lifestyle. Arguably the first country rock album to come out was The Circle Will Be Unbroken by The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band (which pre-dates Sweetheart of The Rodeo) which saw a rock band unite with country musicians to create, essentially, purely country music for a rock audience. The Byrds took it one step further, under the influence of the non- contracted and visionary Parsons, bringing country influences into rock structures (per se) but bringing it up a level (this is why it is so important) by bringing it to a much larger audience (the Byrds were bigger the Dirt Band).

Parsons essentially took what he was rinsing through in the birds and tied the country in with rock structures. The songs are heavily country-tinged but its not the rhythms and structures that denote this but the instrumentation (pedal steel, mandolin) and that blond- boubon-soaked drawl of Gram's.

Whiskeytown essentially following in Gram's footsteps with Ryan (who has a similar irascible drawl) brought rock into country structures.

The influence is there.

This is very potted (and there may be mistakes but this is how I understand it 'went down').

powertonevolume, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Incidentally, Ronan you said that the Lift To Experience song on an Uncut CD blew you away (another thread). Did you buy that album? Hope so, I'd like to hear your views.

powertonevolume, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah it's a good CD. Quite like MBV but with interesting biblical lyrics. There's something about hearing a lunatic spout religious jargon before white noise guitar madness that's weirdly compelling. Probably one of my favourite albums of last year.

I'd have to hear the songs you mention, but one thing I noticed on the Timeless (Hank Williams tribute) CD was that Adams can sound like alot of people, if the fancy takes him, so when doing a cover it's slightly different I think.

Ronan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I noticed on the Timeless (Hank Williams tribute) CD was that Adams can sound like alot of people
That is definitely true. On the first song on Heartbreaker he sounds very much like Dylan, on a later song I can hear Jeffrey Lee Pierce. I suppose Adams knows rock history very well and picks the best for his own songs. The result is obviously eclectic but still refreshing and interesting.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

A history of rock music which remained completely free of value judgements is one I'd quite like to read, actually.

But how would the author choose which artists to mention and which to ignore? Do it on a sales basis? Or were you just joking?

N., Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Doesn't 'Safe At Home' by International Submarine Band (including Gram Parsons) have the best claim to be the first country rock album, if we're not counting, say, Buddy Holly's work. Which would make it the first knowing revival up to that point. If Ryan Adams is 26, then Michael Owen is 9 by the way. And the Strokes/Smiths comparison usually comes from old fucks like me who saw both, and recognise the same level of anticipation and release from the crowd (which is of course made up of teenagers and old fucks). Musically the Strokes surely sound like Postcard c. 1981, played in time. I like the Strokes, but then I don't read the NME, so I've never had to deal with having their 'genius' force fed to me. Gram is okay, sometimes great, but Gene Clark was the true lost talent. Is any song sadder than 'Why Not Your Baby'?

Snotty Moore, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

**But nevertheless even you must have some reference points when listening to music**. Otherwise it would be difficult for you to find the pearls in the heap of rubbish which most of today's music undoubtedly is**

I suppose I must have. I'm not sure what you mean by reference points. Do I constantly check to see where a piece of music fits into the pantheon of rock? No. Do I check to see where it fits into my own hierarchy? Impossible, because my own hierarchy is too chaotic. Do I check to see if the guitar player sounds like Johnny Marr, or the singer like Ian Curtis? No. My ultimate reference point (if we're talking about the same thing) is 'does this music make me want to enter its *world*'. This is badly expressed and possibly pompous, but I haven't time to agonize over this. I think I once started a thread on music which creates its own *world*, but it sort of petered out. If you can find it, it might explain what I mean.

**Otherwise it would be difficult for you to find the pearls in the heap of rubbish which most of today's music undoubtedly is**

I'm just limited by time and money. And the fact that there is another 40 years or more of music that I haven't fully explored yet. I don't think that most of today's music is rubbish.

**I am nevertheless curious in which Strokes song you heard The Smiths**

I think it was the rhythmic (but not lyrical) jauntiness of Last Night and/or Someday. Plus a certain vulnerability in general.

Dr. C, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

music which creates its own *world*
Only found a thread by pinefox on that other world which is more about the question if pop creates a world and if yes how. Guess that was not the thread you referred to.
I like your concept very much. Most of the music I cherish has created its own world. Often but not always this world thing has to do with the sound like e.g. the Cocteau Twins. But if I understood you well before those worlds can always become rotten from one day to the next. I did not quite get: your reference point = 'does this music make me want to enter its *world*'. Can music wish and desire? And even if it could I'd always like to enter a forbidden world.

alex in mainhattan, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

That wasn't the thread, but The Pinefox (characteristically) poses the question in a much more elegant and thought provoking way than I did.

Dr. C, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Back to Radiohead vs. Floyd -- I prefer Radiohead too, but don't get the comparison at all. I mean, "Creep" sounds nothing like The Wall. I like people trying to imitate something and then getting it wrong. Cf. Melanie C.

Sterling Clover, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I don't think the strokes have anyhting to do with the velvets (more with the smiths). In fact I don't believe that anyone has properly managed to do a rip-off of their finest moments (heard her call my name/sister ray).

What has been absorbed are their melancholia (which is fairly easy to rip off musically) so that's where I'll be your mirror, for instance, comes in.

Julio Desouza, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I'm not sure that comparison is right--Ryan Adams doesn't really sound much like Parson at all, even if they are both alt-country whatever. If anything, the Jayhawks were the next Gram Parson--poor Jayhawks, they were Charlie Sexton to Ryan Adam's Wallflowers.

Mickey Black Eyes, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Yeah, I realized what a lot of people are pointing out that often artists have a multitude of influences. Another example that struck me today is Clinic being compared to Television/V.U. I mean, its hard for me to take the side of anyone over the Velevets, but I'd take Clinic over Television. For me, a lot of originiators may deserve credit, but their sound is dated. I realized this while watching Blade Runner the other day and listening to the Vangelis score. Electronic music especially, doesn't seem to age well. Dare I put the might Kraftwerk in there? Perhaps, but their pop sensibilites and kitch factor seem to get them off the hook.

bnw, Wednesday, 13 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Electronic music especially, doesn't seem to age well.
So true. One of the reasons why I usually don't like it. Take Jean- Michel Jarre. In the late 70s/early 80s he was the electronic man. Now it sounds just awful. Only Mike Oldfield sounds even more dated.

alex in mainhattan, Thursday, 14 February 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.