The Explain Why You Like This Album ('cause i don't understand) Thread

[Urban Hat€monger ?]

Originally Posted by boo boo

And my problem with The Stooges isn't that they were not technically gifted musicians, it's because they weren't gifted and yet went way way way beyond their limits as a band, doing extended jams and long guitar solos that come off as just atonal racket.

Even when Sonic Youth and King Crimson did long and noisy pieces, there was still structure behind it, with The Stooges everything just seems completely random and spur of the moment.

I'm convinced you shit yourself the moment you hear anything remotely spontaneous or abrasive.

[Engine]

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

No I still think it's a good album, and not one that should be so easily flung into the generic rap metal pile. It's just been played out by every inbred chromosome anomaly that made way too many connections between RATM, Limp Bizkit, and who they thought there daddy might be this week.

I agree - it's far better than the crap it inspired. At the time I was eager for new, good heavy music and I definitely rocked that tape a little bit.
I also laughed at it because the vocals are so damn silly. Zack sounds a lot more like a 9-year-old who doesn't want to clean his room than a political revolutionary when he screams "Fuck you I won't do what ya told me!" over and over.

[jackhammer]

I am quite partial to 'atonal racket' myself and I love prog! I couldn't care less whether a band can really play or not. Atttitude, honesty and enthusiasm is a big draw for me. Most Thrash, Punk or Hardcore bands are not technically gifted so does that mean they shouldn't make music? Who sets limits on bands anyhow?

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Urban Hatemonger

I'm convinced you shit yourself the moment you hear anything remotely spontaneous or abrasive.

Please don't generalize me like that, you know you hate it when people do that to you.

Hendrix, The Who, James Brown, Sonic Youth, King Crimson, Ornette Coleman, Hawkwind, Roxy Music, Frank Zappa. Those artists were quite abrasive. I love improvisitation, but that's something you can only do if you have the talent and a basic understanding of musical stucture. Even Sonic Youth had that.

Listening to The Stooges is like a train wreck, and I'm tired of train wrecks, the media is full of them.

I was listening to Hawkwind last night, that was a band who had the raw power that The Stooges had, but they had the talent and melodicism to channel that energy.

I wouldn't even say The Stooges were less energetic that say ELP, I mean Emerson live was like a man possessed, he would stab the keys on his Hammond with a knife, turn it over, hump it, rape the f*ck out of it.

Why is it "rock n roll" when a punk band does it, and when Emerson does it it's just "pretentious wankery"? It's the same goddamn thing, with the exception that Emerson was actually talented.

And I guess talent just gets in the way of rock n roll, who needs it?

I like energetic performers, but they still have to be able to perform, and it's not just about having energy. Nobody would have cared about The Who's energy if they couldn't play, nobody would have cared about James Brown's energy if he couldn't sing or dance. GG Allin had energy, doesn't make him anything more than a talentless hack.

Now Iggy wrote some great songs so I wouldn't call him completely talentless, but I don't like his vocals and The Stooges were hardly even bar band material as far as their talent goes. They had tremendous influence, some of it was positive, but I think the impact of punk rock in general is mostly negative, it really lowered the standard.

The Stooges had energy, but that's all their music was. And while they clearly had fun making the music, that really doesn't matter to me if it sounds like crap.

The MC5 were far superior anyway.

[Terrible Lizard]

Originally Posted by boo boo

Please don't generalize me like that, you know you hate it when people do that to you.

Hendrix, The Who, James Brown, Sonic Youth, King Crimson, Ornette Coleman, Hawkwind, Roxy Music, Frank Zappa. Those artists were quite abrasive. I love improvisitation, but that's something you can only do if you have the talent and a basic understanding of musical stucture.




And I guess talent just gets in the way of rock n roll, who needs it?

I like energetic performers, but they still have to be able to perform, and it's not just about having energy. Nobody would have cared about The Who's energy if they couldn't play, nobody would have cared about James Brown's energy if he couldn't sing or dance. GG Allin had energy, doesn't make him anything more than a talentless hack.

1. If Roxy Music is abrasive then I'm Ethan's biological father-lizard.
2. James Brown's attitude got him farther than his basic talent ever could.
3. Of course "talent" gets in the way, just look at those "talented" assplugs Elton John and Billy Joel.
4. I kinda, sorta like GG Allin. He has a "so bad it's kinda good" feel to his stuff.
5. The Residents

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by terrible lizard

1. If roxy music is abrasive then i'm ethan's biological father-lizard.
2. James brown's attitude got him farther than his basic talent ever could.
3. Of course "talent" gets in the way, just look at those "talented" assplugs elton john and billy joel.
4. I kinda, sorta like gg allin. He has a "so bad it's kinda good" feel to his stuff.
5. The residents

wtf?

[boo boo]

Originally Posted by Terrible Lizard

1. If Roxy Music is abrasive then I'm Ethan's biological father-lizard.
2. James Brown's attitude got him farther than his basic talent ever could.
3. Of course "talent" gets in the way, just look at those "talented" assplugs Elton John and Billy Joel.
4. I kinda, sorta like GG Allin. He has a "so bad it's kinda good" feel to his stuff.
5. The Residents

1. Are they not considered a big influence on punk? They have some pretty gritty songs which sounded quite punk for the early 70s.
2. That may be so, I'm not saying energy isn't necessary, I'm saying you have to have something to apply that energy to. Brown had the energy but he also had the music. Without that he would have just been a screaming black guy who likes to beat up women.
3. I'd say Elton John and Billy Joel were way way better than The Stooges, I'm not really a fan of either though.
4. I don't know why people go through the trouble of actually buying GG Allin's records, would be a lot cheaper to just bang on an out of tune guitar and sing out bad teen angst poetry lyrics in a voice that sounds like Tom Waits throwing up his lung.
5. Look. The Residents were talented composers, they weren't technical musicians, but they didn't do anything they were incapable of doing. Not to mention, Snakefinger f*cking rules.

I'm not saying you have to be technical to be "talented", just look at how freaking high The Replacements are on my lastfm for crying out loud. Like I said before, everybody has a skill level, The Clash understood their limitations and put out some amazing music. I love a lot of punk music, but it tends to be the more disciplined and melodic punk bands like The Buzzc*cks and Ramones rather than the outright ear assaults made by the likes of The Sex Pistols and The Damned.

The Stooges were basically an inebriated garage rock band trying badly to sound like The Doors. Which I guess is their appeal.

[Terrible Lizard]

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

wtf?

They sent improvised slams to dozens of records companies, no "talent", no structure.
Half Japanese was too 50/50 to use.

[SATCHMO]

Originally Posted by Terrible Lizard

They sent improvised slams to dozens of records companies, no "talent", no structure.
Half Japanese was too 50/50 to use.

You're so on my short list.

[Terrible Lizard]

Originally Posted by SATCHMO

You're so on my short list.

It's not supposed to be a bad thing. I only refer to talent and structure in the context of the lopsided rooster**** logic Boo Boo has presented.
The Residents are one of my favorite groups, and I really like Half Japanese.