Sharing Less Well Known Music

[_________]

I like music. A lot. Here's some more modern "stuff" I'm interested in. I'll do three at a time or so... update every other day or so... Unless someone says stop. And someone has to tell me to stop or I'll just keep on going. Let's start with some "stuff" I referenced in another thread about instruments.


Jaco reinvented the electric bass...

Michael Hedges reinvented the acoustic guitar...

Michael Manring combained the two...

This one was more geared at genre-breaking musicians with emotional stories. Jaco met an unfortunate end after getting in a fight with the wrong bouncer. Hedges died in a car accident (he had always made it a point to tell his audience to drive safe). Manring played on almost all of Hedges albums and toured with Jaco. Arguably, he had it the worst.

[_________]

I was going to do jazz bands today, but... you know what? I'm not going to. In fact. I'll let the content decide itself. Here goes nothin'. Well turns out I decided to do a Jaga Jazzist feature...

[Svettypoo]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5-rGN0ou_4

[_________]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5-rGN0ou_4

Funny, but I don't consider these bands "underground."
Thanks for the contribution!

[_________]

Mike Patton Bands!

[von Rivers]

You wouldn't know good music if it hit you in the face. Literally.

[_________]

You wouldn't know good music if it hit you in the face. Literally.

I'm sure I wouldn't. I knew I meant to name this thread "Sharing Music That I Think Is Good."
I'm not counting Classical here as no modern band can compete.
Well, this one's for you: Two bands (though the second is more of a composer-philosopher than a band) I think are really talented and less well known. You know why I'm saying that, right? Oh yeah, listen to the whole thing before you judge.



Mind the Chopin. And now for for something completely different. Well, sort of. Anywho, save the best for last, even though it's only two... and not his best songs, but hey. It's all youtube had.

[von Rivers]

The first is mediocre, the rest are beyond shit. Tasteless, talentless, noisy shit.

[_________]

The first is mediocre, the rest are beyond shit. Tasteless, talentless, noisy shit.

Then I can only respectfully disagree with your opinion. If you could, though, I would appreciate if you would explain why you think they are shit and give a good example of a modern group or a musician that you believe to be otherwise.

[_________]

Oh, I would keep in mind that talent is separate from a distinction of "good." That said, by all means, show me someone else playing 1/5th notes and 1/7th notes (as opposed to the overused binary and tertiary divisions), stretching outside of your typical four chord major minor popular structure, breaking genre classification, liberal use of pointillism, making four hour records ("The Boy With A Perfectly Square Butthole Strikes Back" is just one song out of fifty three on the album), making an album based on philosophy (a Nietzsche reference as the title of the album, as I'm sure our favorite self-proclaimed Nietzsche guru noticed), playing in 13/16 rather than your typical 4/4 and 3/4, bands composed of multi-instrumentalists, bands using a shamisen outside of its typical Japanese environment, etc.

I'd love to know what qualifications as a music or art critic you have! You seem to know so much about it!

[von Rivers]

Oh, I would keep in mind that talent is separate from a distinction of "good." That said, by all means, show me someone else playing 1/5th notes and 1/7th notes (as opposed to the overused binary and tertiary divisions), stretching outside of your typical four chord major minor popular structure, breaking genre classification, liberal use of pointillism, making four hour records ("The Boy With A Perfectly Square Butthole Strikes Back" is just one song out of fifty three on the album), making an album based on philosophy (a Nietzsche reference as the title of the album, as I'm sure our favorite self-proclaimed Nietzsche guru noticed), playing in 13/16 rather than your typical 4/4 and 3/4, bands composed of multi-instrumentalists, bands using a shamisen outside of its typical Japanese environment, etc.

I'd love to know what qualifications as a music or art critic you have! You seem to know so much about it!

I do, indeed. And since there's no criteria I really need to obey, I'll just go ahead and say that I don't like they're fucking faces, and they sound like someone taking a dump. Is there something wrong with my criteria?

[_________]

Oh, I would keep in mind that talent is separate from a distinction of "good." That said, by all means, show me someone else playing 1/5th notes and 1/7th notes (as opposed to the overused binary and tertiary divisions), stretching outside of your typical four chord major minor popular structure, breaking genre classification, liberal use of pointillism, making four hour records ("The Boy With A Perfectly Square Butthole Strikes Back" is just one song out of fifty three on the album), making an album based on philosophy (a Nietzsche reference as the title of the album, as I'm sure our favorite self-proclaimed Nietzsche guru noticed), playing in 13/16 rather than your typical 4/4 and 3/4, bands composed of multi-instrumentalists, bands using a shamisen outside of its typical Japanese environment, etc.

I'd love to know what qualifications as a music or art critic you have! You seem to know so much about it!

I do, indeed. And since there's no criteria I really need to obey, I'll just go ahead and say that I don't like they're fucking faces, and they sound like someone taking a dump. Is there something wrong with my criteria?

I do not think there is anything wrong with your "criteria". An opinion on music cannot be wrong, per se. I feel it [your opinion] is aimed at redeeming yourself as regards "objectivity", (which the title of this thread and it's contents have nothing whatsoever to do with) but I cannot claim my opinion as any more valid than yours. I can even point out that, since our heated disagreement in that thread, you have been going to Iambiguous's threads as well as this one of mine, instigating tangent and potentially volatile discourse, blatantly alluding to said thread, and that you are doing so most obnoxiously; that does not make your "opinion" wrong.

By the by, I did hint above at some possible criteria for talent/skill: meter, progression, chord structure, note divisions, use of pointillism, multi-instrumentality, irregular instruments, multiple genres in one song or inability to classify as one distinct genre, strength and depth of message(s), epic length comparable to operas of old, etc... But we'll just let that slip. Also, the fact that you favored the virtuoso over complexity of composition says quite a bit: you're enamored with the performance rather than the piece itself.

[Flannel Jesus]

I also don't like the music.

That being said, I wouldn't say it's objectively bad, and I'd certainly not say that it's talentless. It's a talent that I don't particularly aesthetically appreciate, but talent nonetheless. I don't think it's reasonable to say anything more than "I don't like it."

The only band I'd say is objectively bad and talentless is Nickelback.

[_________]

Out of curiosity, you appreciate none of the music on this page? And if so, what music do you appreciate aesthetically? I'm not going to harangue you for your choices or anything, I'm just interested. As stated in the beginning of this thread, I like music. I'm always willing to see what other people are into.

[von Rivers]

I do not think there is anything wrong with your "criteria"....I cannot claim my opinion as any more valid than yours.

You performed this reductio, not me.



They're called, Old Crow Medicine Show.

[Flannel Jesus]

Of the first three bands, the second I kind of liked, but not enough to go out of my way and download an album or something. The others were mostly just...not good. For me.

I do kinda like jagga jazzist already, mildly.

Mike Patton was not enjoyable at all.

Of the last post with videos, I like Chopin. That's about it.

If someone says something like "I'm not counting Classical here as no modern band can compete," or any other such idolizing of historical musical fads, there's a pretty good chance I'm not going to agree with their taste in music.

You seem like a guy really into the technical aspects of music -- technical guitar skills, weird time signatures, weird scales. That interest tends to translate into musical "maximalism," if you will: making music as complex as possible, often just for the sake of complexity. I, on the other hand, tend to be an all-around minimalist. That's why I've come to accept that almost all of my music is going to be in 4/4 or 3/4 (although I do get some occasional math music in there, on the mild side: 7/4, 5/4, 11/4, palatable weirdness re:Sufjan Stevens, Hella, Tortoise, etc.). That 13/16 shit doesn't really interest me. The fast stuff doesn't really interest me. The over-layered stuff doesn't really interest me (not that I don't like layered music, as long as the layers are well integrated, re:Flying Lotus, Prefuse 73, again Sufjan Stevens etc.).

If you want to hear some stuff I like, check out my 8tracks playlists -- start wherever you like, except 11, 11 is my least favorite.
[edit]11 is fine

[_________]

You performed this reductio, not me.
They're called, Old Crow Medicine Show.

So how is that a reductio ad absurdum? They're not really my thing, but they play their instruments comfortably, capture the classic antebellum country saloon band quite well and, in my opinion, they sound a hell of a lot better than Garth Brooks. I've never heard of them before, so they fit the "Less Well Known" title. All in all, you actually contributed to the thread positively here.

Mike Patton was not enjoyable at all.

Yeah, he's not for everyone.

If someone says something like "I'm not counting Classical here as no modern band can compete," there's a pretty good chance I'm not going to agree with their taste in music.

That was, perhaps, a tad dogmatic. Still, the world of a symphony seems to me on another level than a five piece band.

You seem like a guy really into the technical aspects of music -- technical guitar skills, weird time signatures, weird scales. That interest tends to translate into musical "maximalism," if you will: making music as complex as possible, often just for the sake of complexity. I, on the other hand, tend to be an all-around minimalist.

I can see how I might come off that way. I am impressed with the technical aspects, but I'm more focused on the sound and feel. I agree though that complexity for complexities' sake doesn't tend to produce the best results. I have no problem with minimalism. Steve Reich fascinates me just about as much as any other composer to date, with the exception of Debussy (who I favor over Ravel and even Liszt).

That's why I've come to accept that almost all of my music is going to be in 4/4 or 3/4 (although I do get some occasional math music in there, on the mild side: 7/4, 5/4, 11/4, palatable weirdness re:Sufjan Stevens, Hella, Tortoise, etc.). That 13/16 shit doesn't really interest me. The fast stuff doesn't really interest me. The over-layered stuff doesn't really interest me (not that I don't like layered music, as long as the layers are well integrated, re:Flying Lotus, Prefuse 73, again Sufjan Stevens etc.).

I was going to post some Hella on here--I like "Biblical Violence Live", but I can't take them too long. I haven't heard of Sufjan Stevens, so I'll check that out. Tortoise I wouldn't consider math music, more "post rock". They're pretty good. I favor Mercury Program to them, though. Flying Lotus is cool. 13/16 works (in my opinion) well for pointillism in composition, but it's not jamable. Seven and five have a nice jam feel, seven being my preference for improv.

If you want to hear some stuff I like, check out my 8tracks playlists -- start wherever you like, except 11, 11 is my least favorite.

Will do, and thank you for replying.

[_________]

One's good so far.
So you probably know Animal Collective?
Two's vocals remind me of Felt Good To Burn by The Flaming Lips.
Onto three now... I'm ambiguous about this one.

[von Rivers]

capture the classic antebellum country saloon band quite well and, in my opinion, they sound a hell of a lot better than Garth Brooks.

"Antebellum country saloon band" ?!

"Garth Brooks" ?!


You might as well call a cat a dog and compare it to a lizard.

[_________]

capture the classic antebellum country saloon band quite well and, in my opinion, they sound a hell of a lot better than Garth Brooks.

"Antebellum country saloon band" ?!

"Garth Brooks" ?!


You might as well call a cat a dog and compare it to a lizard.

Should I have specified before WWII? You say the music I put up here sounds like shit. It could be inferred that you were saying these guys sound better. Which is like comparing a Pierson's Puppeteer to a goat. Do not take that as demeaning to either group, as my intention with that analogy is purely illustrative of the contrast.

[_________]

Next round.

[Flannel Jesus]

Maps and Atlas's Perch Patchwork was in my top 20 of 2010
According to last.fm, this is my fave Maps and Atlases song:

[_________]

Yeah, pigeon is a great track.

[_________]

Thanks to Flannel Jesus for inadvertently pointing Grizzly Bear out to me...

Flaming Lips are pretty well-known, but who cares?

Haven't listened to these guys in a while...

[_________]

We'll go ahead and throw this in too.

and this...