[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chud /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kid-B

lol

 

[limpidglitch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chud /img/forum/go_quote.gif Define accessibility then, because is it not to be argued that in this electronic day and age, even the most obscure of music is "accessible?" Hear a song you like? Bam, download it. Like a particular band? Bam, Pandora will recommend 10 more bands of similar sound. You're a fan of XYZ and you have them on your MySpace page? Bam, check out their friends because odds are they are friends with similar sounding bands. Etc etc etc.

I meant accessible more in a way that something like Xiu Xiu isn't—musically.

I think that T-bone fellow hit the nail quite effectively. Active listening isn't what the majority of people use their music for, they want a beat, a melody and a chorus they can hum along to (yes I know, hoity-toity, a pinch of salt please). Anything they actually have to 'work' with to 'get', gets dismissed, as Pangaea pointed out in relation to Kid A. I also believe that there is such a thing as musical maturity, which I think is what adrift was talking about, "I used to go through that faze of having to listen to certain albums a dozen times to really appreciate it. I believe I've personally outgrown that now."
Through many years of listening to various music you gradually get better at 'getting' music more easily, and as a result your tastes in music evolve towards increased complexity.
Hence mainstream music is in general what a seasoned music listener would consider as 'music for the adolescent'.

 

[bcpk]

I would refute the assertion that Radiohead can be classed as mainstream from the definition that mainstream is listened to at university frat parties. If you put on Radiohead at a party, you're told to turn it off because it's depressing. "Put on The Killers!", they say. I think I like Radiohead for the fact that the majority of their songs aren't catchy. Their stuff doesn't really work played with one earphone in while walking with a group of friends. I still feel that Radiohead are relatively unknown to the general public despite their album sales and enormous fanbase ... and this doesn't displease me.

 

[bdh]

Quote:

Nirvana... NIN...

Quote:

I'm curious what the next big thing is going to be.

Nirvana and NIN - Grunge and Industrial - While I agree they were pivital in introducing those genre's into the 'mainstream' which subsequently influenced hundreds of bands, I wouldn't consider those genre's as major new forms of music.

I'm wondering if and when there will be something more revolutionary that will come along as happened during the mid-to-late-sixties with Classic Rock and Heavy Metal, and with Punk Rock and New Wave and Rap in the late seventies and early eighties. To me everything since then has been very evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There's hardly an album I've heard in the past 20 years that would have seemed out of place if I'd heard it in the 80's.

Now I'm not saying there's not great music now and that I don't love a lot of it. My point is that I'm just wondering when and if some new and revolutionary form of music will emerge as the 'next great thing'. It's hard to image what form it could take that hasn't already been done before, but I'm sure it's possible.

 

[DavidMahler]

To be fair................and I adore Radiohead.....I feel bands like Radiohead, Pink Floyd and others that are very studio conscious get a big bump on head-fi because a lot of listeners are as equally interested in the sonic pleasure of a recording as they are in the writing and performance itself.

Kid A is a very good album, as is OK Computer, as is many other Sonically gorgeous albums, but they get raved by head-fiers because of what i call an "audiophile bump". Sometimes I feel people end up listening to how gorgeous their equipment can sound and not the music.

 

[mr.khali]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nirvana and NIN - Grunge and Industrial - While I agree they were pivital in introducing those genre's into the 'mainstream' which subsequently influenced hundreds of bands, I wouldn't consider those genre's as major new forms of music. I'm wondering if and when there will be something more revolutionary that will come along as happened during the mid-to-late-sixties with Classic Rock and Heavy Metal, and with Punk Rock and New Wave and Rap in the late seventies and early eighties. To me everything since then has been very evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There's hardly an album I've heard in the past 20 years that would have seemed out of place if I'd heard it in the 80's. Now I'm not saying there's not great music now and that I don't love a lot of it. My point is that I'm just wondering when and if some new and revolutionary form of music will emerge as the 'next great thing'. It's hard to image what form it could take that hasn't already been done before, but I'm sure it's possible.

I have been wondering the very same thing. It is definitely possible and I think the time is near. Someone somewhere is going to be able to take advantage of this new information age where pretty much everything is available at a click and create something fresh. All genres seem to be stuck and waiting for a catalyst.

 

[VicAjax]

Quote:

Originally Posted by chud /img/forum/go_quote.gif Kid-B

WHAT?! no way... it's going to be Teen A.

 

[Laokid18]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bcpk /img/forum/go_quote.gif I would refute the assertion that Radiohead can be classed as mainstream from the definition that mainstream is listened to at university frat parties. If you put on Radiohead at a party, you're told to turn it off because it's depressing. "Put on The Killers!", they say. I think I like Radiohead for the fact that the majority of their songs aren't catchy. Their stuff doesn't really work played with one earphone in while walking with a group of friends. I still feel that Radiohead are relatively unknown to the general public despite their album sales and enormous fanbase ... and this doesn't displease me.

I feel the exact same way!

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdh /img/forum/go_quote.gif Nirvana and NIN - Grunge and Industrial - While I agree they were pivital in introducing those genre's into the 'mainstream' which subsequently influenced hundreds of bands, I wouldn't consider those genre's as major new forms of music. I'm wondering if and when there will be something more revolutionary that will come along as happened during the mid-to-late-sixties with Classic Rock and Heavy Metal, and with Punk Rock and New Wave and Rap in the late seventies and early eighties. To me everything since then has been very evolutionary rather than revolutionary. There's hardly an album I've heard in the past 20 years that would have seemed out of place if I'd heard it in the 80's. Now I'm not saying there's not great music now and that I don't love a lot of it. My point is that I'm just wondering when and if some new and revolutionary form of music will emerge as the 'next great thing'. It's hard to image what form it could take that hasn't already been done before, but I'm sure it's possible.

Just to be picky here, I'll give you Grunge... which was essentially hooky punk mixed with a dose of hard rock, but Industrial really was something quite revolutionary. NIN, Ministry, and heck before them, even Skinny Puppy, just packaged industrial into something the mainstream could tolerate. Bands like Suicide, Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, and Einstürzende Neubauten were doing something completely off the charts and was never really excepted by the mainstream... actually, it was pretty much anti-mainstream. Course, that was 30 years ago and after rap, I'd say that maybe techno was probably the last revolutionary type music. I don't know. Maybe the stuff that Curtis Roads is doing "Granular Synthesis" will be the next big thing... though it tends to share a lot with some raw industrial.

 

[Dublo7]

I don't really know if it's possible to articulate why Kid A is such a special album to me.
Kid A is the album I put on when I need to wind down from a difficult day - I grab a glass of nice red wine, light a cigarette, put my headphones on, and I let the music take me away.
I used to have a lot of difficulty appreciating Kid A - The Bends used to be my Radiohead album of choice. It wasn't until some horrible life events reared their ugly head, that Kid A just clicked for me.

To say that Kid A has helped save my sanity would be the grossest of understatements.

 

[joincoolkidclub]

I appreciate Kid A because it opened the door to Amnesiac- the only Radiohead album that means anything to me (although Hail to the Thief and the former both have their moments).

 

[bdh]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif Just to be picky here, I'll give you Grunge... which was essentially hooky punk mixed with a dose of hard rock, but Industrial really was something quite revolutionary. NIN, Ministry, and heck before them, even Skinny Puppy, just packaged industrial into something the mainstream could tolerate. Bands like Suicide, Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, and Einstürzende Neubauten were doing something completely off the charts and was never really excepted by the mainstream... actually, it was pretty much anti-mainstream. Course, that was 30 years ago and after rap, I'd say that maybe techno was probably the last revolutionary type music. I don't know. Maybe the stuff that Curtis Roads is doing "Granular Synthesis" will be the next big thing... though it tends to share a lot with some raw industrial.

I've always considered Industrial as a sub-genre of punk. The Cabaret Voltaire, Einstürzende Neubauten, Wire, Coil, Swans, etc. albums were almost always just lumped with all the other punk records. I thought (in my opinion) early Industrial came out of influences of Joy Division, Bauhaus, Crass, Wire, etc., but wanting to form their own sound like the dozens of other sub-genres of punk. And then Ministry and NIN added a more polished and almost Metal influence to the genre - sort of like the Crossover and Thrash bands were doing to traditional Hardcore Punk.

 

[HipHopScribe]

Quote:

Originally Posted by adrift /img/forum/go_quote.gif I never really understood the fascination with Radiohead myself. I always thought their early stuff was sort of wimpy sounding post-nirvana alternative which I don't really care for that much. It wasn't till Kid A and all the hype surrounding it that I actually bought one of their albums. It's a nice album. I like how complicated it sounds, how expansive. I went back and got OK Computer which sort of leads up to Kid A's sound. I appreciate both albums for what they are, but if I were honest, I'd say that both albums... as varied, complicated, deep, etc. as they are... are... well... boring. Really. Its like all of the right ingredients are there. All the talent. Depth. Time. But it never really goes anywhere. I find I actually get frustrated listening to their albums because I want to like them, but there's just no "click"... no connection... just a bit of boredom.

That's pretty much exactly how I feel about Radiohead.

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bdh /img/forum/go_quote.gif I've always considered Industrial as a sub-genre of punk. The Cabaret Voltaire, Einstürzende Neubauten, Wire, Coil, Swans, etc. albums were almost always just lumped with all the other punk records. I thought (in my opinion) early Industrial came out of influences of Joy Division, Bauhaus, Crass, Wire, etc., but wanting to form their own sound like the dozens of other sub-genres of punk. And then Ministry and NIN added a more polished and almost Metal influence to the genre - sort of like the Crossover and Thrash bands were doing to traditional Hardcore Punk.

I'm not in complete disagreement here, but bands like Cabaret Voltaire, NON, Suicide, etc. either predate or were created at the same time as a lot 1st generation punk. Throbbing Gristle came out of Genesis P-Orridge's early/mid 70s performance art group COUM Transmission, and bands on the Industrial Records record label were all contemporaries to early punk.

I'm not sure I'd consider Wire or Swans industrial. They're both mostly post-punk... Swans maybe no-wave. Post-punk and punk bands like Joy Division, Bauhaus, Crass, Wire, etc. all seem to have popped up after Industrial showed up on the scene, or at the very least... simultaneously. I agree with you pretty much completely about Ministry and NIN.

I don't think that Industrial is a split from punk proper though. Its very much a different sound and genre even if it sometimes shares similar anti-whatever themes (anti-mainstream, anti-commercialism, etc.) and attitude. I'm assuming there was also probably a bit of crossover with some bands and fans between punk and industrial because of these commonalities. Anyways.... you put the Germs, Ramones, even Crass next to bands like Cabaret Voltaire, Nurse with Wound, or Einstürzende Neubauten and they're worlds away from each other. Course cross-overs like Blixa Bargeld going off to join the Bad Seeds or Crisis evolving into the sometimes post-industrial Death in June puts a few holes into my theory...

 

[Pangaea]

I think one of the best things I ever read about Kid A was in Rolling Stone. It was something along the lines that they went into it trying to be Kraftwerk, and failed but instead created something completely onto themselves.

I think that is a mark of a good band. You are always going to aspire towards a sound, but it is your own creativity that takes you somewhere else. Lesser bands can't get past the imitation.