|
Register | Blogging | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
09-05-2008, 07:47 PM | #642 (permalink) | ||
Da Hiphopopotamus
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: cloud cuckoo land
Posts: 4,034
|
Ohh sorry the numbers threw me off.
__________________
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
09-05-2008, 10:38 PM | #644 (permalink) | |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
Quote:
Well I disagree with this one strongly, for one, the pinball thing isn't that relevant to the story of Tommy, it's not really referenced outside of the Pinball Wizard, it became more relevant in the movie, but I never cared for the movie anyway. The album is just a straightfoward story about a deaf, dumb and blind kid who becomes a religious cult figure. I don't get the criticism of it being incoherent, you want a confusing concept album try A Passion Play by Jethro Tull. I think concept albums are great, I certainly don't get the hate for the idea, people tell stories through songs, so telling one through the length of an album is a great idea IMO. It's almost like saying writers should only write short stories but never write actual novels. As long as concept albums are done right I think it's a very credible form of art. Tommy is a great album IMO, there are some lame really short tracks here and there that don't stand out on their own and only serve to tell part of the story, but other than that I think most of the songs hold up and it's actually my favorite Who album (though between it and Leeds it's close). I know you also hate The Wall but whatever. Those are two albums that always come to mind when people think of concept albums, but the 60s and 70s had a lot of great concept albums IMO. Ziggy Stardust, Lamb Lies Down on Broadway, Days of Future Past, Arthur, 2112, Aqualung, Lizard, Quadrophena, Relayer and everybodies favorite Tales From Topographic Oceans. I know you hate most of these albums too but, meh, I love it, I like musicals, it's the same thing, I'm all for bloated and pretentious concept albums as long as the music is good. If anyone, I would target Journey or Styx for doing concept albums, going after Floyd and The Who to me is just an obvious attempt at going after the sacred cows and it's really tiresome now because it's been done many times before, to the point that I don't even consider Tommy or The Wall sacred cows anymore because of how much popular opinion has changed over the years. Criticizing something and using only the most popular example (and one I'll almost certainly disagree with) isn't really enlightening to me, sorry. It all depends on who does concept albums, to me it's really a prog thing for the most part, prog bands already have rock opera like elements in their music, so they have a better idea of how they should work. Nowadays when people think of concept albums it's all these power metal bands (who unlike prog bands actually DO write songs about dragons and wizards) who pretty much just do what you said, I take that's what most of your post was referring to. And now everyone thinks they can do a concept album because it will automatically make them artistically credible or something. Prog bands still do concept albums, The Mars Volta and Porcupine Tree in particular, and they're great. Indie kids praise Zen Arcade (which I flat out don't like) as one of the best concept albums, but I never would have known it was a concept album until people said it was, having heard it and albums like Penis Envy I can certainly say I prefer the prog approach to the punk approach. Our opinions are so opposite. Anyway one thing I know you can agree with is that we should certainly ban f*cking metal bands (except Mastodon) and pop punk bands from doing them. Good Charlotte doing a concept album was the last straw for me. |
|
09-05-2008, 11:15 PM | #646 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
The Chronicles of Life and Death counts as a concept album right?
If not then American Idiot. Either way my point is clear. These are the people who should do concept albums. Not these guys. |
09-05-2008, 11:50 PM | #649 (permalink) |
Registered Jimmy Rustler
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,360
|
@boo boo+Urban Hatemonger:
I agree with you both 100% in that they are very hit or miss. With many factors including the bands credibility, subject matter, etc... Then as you mentioned there is always the concept albums like those of the power metal bands in which the subject matter is just so god damned cheesy it is hard to regard to some of it as music/art at all. I think a bands image (as boo boo pointed out with Greenday) has GREATLY to do with them getting away with making a good concept album. My question to both of you though is what of the electronic music in which this happens? There are TONS of psychedelic trance, house, etc, where there is a "concept" throughout the album. And often ridiculous topics such as Earth being invaded and such.
__________________
*Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew* *Always Checks Credentials Crew* *nba > nfl crew* *Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew* |
09-05-2008, 11:55 PM | #650 (permalink) |
Dr. Prunk
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Where the buffalo roam.
Posts: 12,137
|
I have my very own addition to make and apologies to Urban if he already had this one in mind.
Needless Band "Reunions": You know what I mean, when a band has a reunion when most of the actual band is already dead or even worse most of the original members don't want to be a part of it but it f*cking happens anyway. Guns N Roses is the best example, I was psyched to hear GnR were getting back together (being a really big fan of them when I was a young lad), but oh wait, it's just Axl and that douchebag who played keyboards on the spagetti incident, well whoopedy doo. Bands "reuniting" when their most important member is long gone is one of the worst. The Doors and Queen are excellent examples. Even worse is when a band "reunites" and NONE OF THE IMPORTANT MEMBERS ARE INVOLVED. Like The Yardbirds, yeah thats right, they actually had a "reunion" in 1992. Lession one, if you have a "reunion" then at least try including one of the members people actually care about. No Clapton, Beck or Page. They could at least have included Keith Relf but oh wait he's dead, they couldn't even get the damn bass player, it was just the drummer and the rhythm guitarist. What a sh*tload of f*ck. Remember when Dinosaur Jr reunited? By that I mean J. Mascis reuniting with Lou Barlow, the goddamn bass player who didn't contribute jacksh*t when he was in the band for say, 3 f*cking years, and Sebadoh sucks anyway. But the indie kids were all over it naturally. To me one of the most appalling so called reunions ever was The Smashing Pumplins, talk about pointless. "Ok guys, I'm getting my band back together, only I'm not, Iha and D'arcy can go f*ck themselves it's just gonna be me and the drummer, the exact same lineup from my solo album." So if Corgan and Chamberlin is enough to count as a "reunion" then why wasn't his sh*tty solo album also a Pumpkins album? What kind of reunion is that? You can't have a f*cking reunion all by your f*cking self, thats like if Morrissey said "hey, I'm reuniting The Smiths" but the reunited band just consisted of him and no one else. What a bunch of bullsh*t, and what an incredibly desperate attempt at getting attention. I love the Pumpkins, when I heard about their "reunion" thats what I f*cking expected, the f*cking Smashing Pumpkins, all those idiot fanboys who said Corgan was the band anyway can screw themselves, so he played most of Siamese Dream, well thats a lame reason, D'arcy and Iha was involved with everything else, they were members of the f*cking band for as long as the band was ever relevant. Even if Corgan WAS the Pumpkins then thats even less of a reason to have a reunion if the "band" didn't even f*cking break up in the first place. What a big "f*ck you" to the fans, as well as the logic of what counts as a band reunion, Corgan can go f*ck himself, or should I say f*ck themselves? Assh*le. |
|