Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[littlefallsmets]

The sad flip-side of this is that I think a lot of acts out there today think that an easy way to get radioplay once they have enough support to GET radio support is to throw that ironic cover out there and a lot of the time it works, though only well enough to turn them into a novelty act one-hit wonder that everyone hates when they release their "serious" single after that.

There was that horrible cover of "Smooth Criminal". That horrible cover of the already horrible "Boys of Summer". And so on.

[CortJstr]

Yeah, but what about that AWESOME cover of Istanbul (Not Constantinople)?

[lprkn]

This may be a bit unfair, somewhat of a nuclear option, but I'm pretty sure almost every cover Johnny Cash did during the American Recordings timeframe was at least artistically viable. Maybe it was because he seemed to take the songs on their own merits, rather than with a "wink wink nudge nudge, aren't I clever" attitude.

That being said, I think that this acoustic cover of Katy Perry's inescapable LUG (Lesbian Until Graduation) anthem is vastly superior to the original. It's by Corin Joel.

[jay-ell]

This may be a bit unfair, somewhat of a nuclear option, but I'm pretty sure almost every cover Johnny Cash did during the American Recordings timeframe was at least artistically viable. Maybe it was because he seemed to take the songs on their own merits, rather than with a "wink wink nudge nudge, aren't I clever" attitude.

That is because Johnny Cash took music of merit from a variety of genres and applied his pre-established musical brilliance in order to legitimize songs that people who usually don't like Johnny Cash might not enjoy.  And yes, he did it without irony, and his sincerity carried the collection. 

The first time I heard Cash sing "Your own, personal, Jesus," it was so beautiful I almost wept. 

And I do not consider myself a music geek, so, there you go. 

[KeithHernandez]

So wait, if they don't like Johnny Cash or the original song they will like the Johnny Cash version?  Is that what that says?  It is supposed to be this: 

That is because Johnny Cash took music of merit from a variety of genres and applied his pre-established musical brilliance in order to legitimize songs that people who usually like Johnny Cash might not enjoy.

?
I'm not trying to be a prick, just sleep deprived and confused.

Also, I See a Darkness is so much better by Bonnie 'Prince' Billy and that Hurt song is just ridiculous.  Other than that, it is pretty good stuff.

[lprkn]

I wouldn't say that his covers are always better, but I think they do tend to stand on their own better than your general "pop cover." Like, even if you had never heard the original tune.

I've meant to check out the original 'I See A Darkness' for a long time, but I've never got around to it. Not with ya on the 'Hurt' though, I definitely like Cash's version better. However, I never really had a huge affinity for NIN growing up. If I had, things might be different.

[theinevitable]

lfm-- this post, on this site made me think of you.
Except, this site is amazing in its complete refusal to hate on anything, ever.

[KeithHernandez]

Oh, I don't like NIN either, but Cash's version is just so over the top in a bad way.  Neither version of the song is "good" (to me, obviously), but if I had to choose I'd go NIN.

Someone here mention Bonnie 'Prince' Billy, and I looked into it.  Can be pretty amazing, especially the album with I see a Darkness, worth checking out for sure.

[theinevitable]

the berkeley housing website is like an insane maze. they do NOT want me to live in their dorms.

except, I am going to live in them. But I have no idea where I am living, how to find out, where I need to show up on move-in day...

Also I have a big headache for no reason.

Today I had a cool conversation with my mom about her experiences moving to the US in the 60s. Including stories about how my grandma is "the most racist person I have ever met," which were less fun.
 

[littlefallsmets]

Except, this site is amazing in its complete refusal to hate on anything, ever.

I dunno, though, man... it seems like its less that they fuck*ng love music and more that they fuck*ng love describing musical genres with all the career-defining obfuscation of an Egypitan hieroglyphidude.

"Yeah, I really like these guys, they've got sort of a post-fuzzcore sound in a kind of hazegazey shoe-fi way." Like... the deeper down the hole of obscure subgenre-identifiers you have to go to explain an album, the more and more self-conscious the music becomes of its own genre niche and the higher the odds are that it is absolute shit. It doesn't write in stone that you suck but it exponentially raises the chances of sucking the more conscious a performer is of their place inside or outside of a given genre, worse still as you go further down the subgenre hole.

You're not writing a thesis here, you're playing a song, for fuck's iggy. Overthink is the mindkiller.

Also: namecheck Bauhaus and I tune the fuck out. It's not a rule, it's a law.

Though it did allow me to discover that there's apparently a band out there called "fag cop" and... that's something.

[theinevitable]

I dunno, though, man... it seems like its less that they fuck*ng love music and more that they fuck*ng love describing musical genres with all the career-defining obfuscation of an Egypitan hieroglyphidude.

Yeah, it's almost like they know a lot about music. Kind of like egyptologists are about heiroglyphs.

they're assholes for knowing words, definitely.

I think you are making a huge leap from "they are describing this music very specifically" to "these bands are obviously horrible, because they can be described using specific language."

it exponentially raises the chances of sucking the more conscious a performer is of their place inside or outside of a given genre

I think that a lot of very important artists disprove this.

[littlefallsmets]

Performance geared mainly to fulfill the standards and definitions of a tightly-defined genre... or geared mainly to counter the standards and definitions of a tightly-defined genre... these are things that can only be pulled off by the masters and, even then, the masters usually fail. Smacks of pretense, smacks of artifice, smacks of form without function. Seedless apples.

Art about the ideology of art, the politics of art, embracing the act of being pidgeon-holed by trends... bleh. Bleh and feh.

Have your influnces, have your formulae, have all the legwork you like but when all you're doing is trying to be the epitome of a completely artifical thing like "neo-post-nu-core-core"... or the dereliction of all the things that come with it... you're jerking off, you're talking to yourself.

The obsession with genre placement is a distraction from art, at best, and the injection of the worst kind of crippling introspection more commonly and worse.

Nobody wants to be put into a box by someone else but everyone wants to be put into boxes of their own devising, even though its at least as horrible and probably more.

Even if it isn't the conscious decision of the creators, the more you're part of a specifing scene, the more you're limited by the legalese and limitation of said scene.

When the cultural scene becomes more important than the art, when the art is created to live within that scene instead of to express and entertain, all is lost.

All is lost and you're a bunch of fuck*ng doucheknobs doing ironic lo-fi-tronic-buzz-a-ma-phone concept EPs about chairs.

[Carlos del Vaca]

Or entertaining in anyway, ironic or otherwise.  I have been saying this for years.  Please stop it already.

[re acoustic covers of pop songs]

Disagree.  Occasionally, very good.

[AugustWest]

Writing about music is like tap dancing about architecture. 

I've seen this quote attributed to everybody from Louis Armstrong to Laurie Anderson.

I guess I tend to agree with LFM on this one.  Just because critics like something doesn't make it bad, but if something is created just to please the critics it tends to suck.  Giving much of shit about genre labels seems awfully contrived to me.

Yeah, it's almost like they know a lot about music. Kind of like egyptologists are about heiroglyphs.

they're assholes for knowing words, definitely.

I would say they know a lot about what people say or write about music, not necessarily about how to make music.

Musicians should make their own music and let the critics classify it as they may.  The greatest music transcends genres, doesn't it?

[KeithHernandez]

Musicians should make their own music and let the critics classify it as they may.  The greatest music transcends genres, doesn't it?

But that is exactly what is happening, and they are telling you what genres it is transcending, no?

LFM, you have some serious fuck*ng problems.  Did you listen to it?  A lot of stuff like that comes out of Detroit, it is the scene there.  They are just a band playing what they want, instead of talking about an album they're going to make for years while bitching about others work.  Then, music critics come in and make up funny words for it.  How is this the bands fault?  In closing, fuck you.