The Rock Album Survivor Reviews Thread

[JGuy Grungeman]

That's not what I said. OK, you really don't know what I'm talking about. And I'm not saying this to insult you. You just took what I said and completely turned it around. I'm not talking about this with you. I wanna enjoy Talking Heads.

[JGuy Grungeman]

Speaking in Tongues by Talking Heads



Style: Art Rock, New Wave
Releaser: 1983]Lengrth: 40 min. (rerelease is 47 min.)
Round: New Wave

I'm not really a Talking Heads fan, but I enjoy their music to an extent. I think Speaking in Tongues has been one of the better experiences I've had with the band's music. The funky side of the album is what made it good.

Upon the first note, I knew I would enjoy this more than Fear of Music and their debut, meaning it was a sure thing to be a legit good album. I knew the first track, “Burning Down the House,” from somewhere. It was a Tom Jones cover. So it was cool to be familiar with the opener. It's a pretty awesome opener, really cool drumming that's like a mix of tribal music and Phil Collins. “Making Flippy Floppy” has a more funky feeling to it, not as good as the first track but good enough for the album. “Girlfriend is Better” really is better. It's got a more dance-worthy vibe, creating a really cool sensation inside the body, one that's a bit different from the previous Talking Heads albums (At least the three I heard, 77, Fear, and Remain). But it's still very TH. Slippery People keeps up the funky fresh vibe, but it's a littler soft in comparison. Still, I like the usage of the vocals in this song quite a bit. “Wild Gravity” is wild in a very deep way. It's very production and electronics heavy, something quite unique for the release. }”Swamp” had nothing new to offer, but it was a decent song. ”Moon Rocks” was better. It had a really funky side that seemed to soothe the soul. “Pull Up the Roots” doesn't have anything new to offer either. “This Must Be the Place” actually has a really cool side to offer, nice and smooth but fairly heavily produced.

I think the best tracks were the softer ones. They seemed to be more fun and have more relation to me. I think this is a good addition for anyone who wants a taste of new wave, as it is somewhat unique.

82/100. Voting it off because there is a lot of better new wave I've heard.

[Frownland]

Hopefully you're a little less heated now.

A lot of alternative bands sound alike. A ****load. So many that it's ironic that they call themselves alternative when they're doing the same **** as so many other people. These bands are the ones that can be easily connected, but due to the nature of what alternative music represents simply from its own language is that it is something that is different from the rest of what is popular. This makes alternative into a huge melting pot of miscellaneous genres. Some of these sound like a lot of the others and the others sound almost exactly like it. There are some genres in there that don't fit in with any of the genres, not even the other genres that are under the umbrella of alternative music with them.

Shoegaze, hardcore punk, britpop, experimental rock, new wave, trip hop, nu-metal, post grunge, funk rock, and so many other styles of music are under the alternative label. If you were to draw a chart to connect all of the artists by explicit similarities: angst, sustain, loudness, cheap tactic for people to think your basic rock band is somehow original, whatever, you would easily connect a lot of bands by one or more qualities beyond "misc."

Then there will be about 30 percent that do not have the common quality that unifies a majority of the bands. Twenty percent will have similarities to the artists in different ways from the central unifying quality. This would make them cousins in a way, but alternative is a very inclusive term, so they're also considered as such. Five percent of them will have neither the initial central quality nor the quality that connected the aforementioned 20 percent with the majority (let's say 70 percent), but instead will be connected through a third quality different from the other two. They'd be second cousins, but because alternative music means that it doesn't fall into other strictly defined genres, they are called alternative music as well even though they are two parts removed from the first similarity that you've established through this hypothetical web.

Then there's like .05 percent that is just chilling by itself with the rest of the genres, because it too does not fit into any established category, so it too is deemed alternative rock. It's beautiful, really. Everyone is invited to the alternative party. Nothing is anything and everything is nothing.

I see that your definition of alternative is pretty much based around the image built around it by the media (radio and labels, mainly) in the early 90s area. I'm basing it off of the meaning of the word, what it represents and the fact that I still have not seen a valid central quality for the word beyond the one that I keep bringing up in this post: miscellaneous. I've shown you examples of artists who do not have the ones you listed (Ween, etc.) and I have not seen any other qualities yet.

tl;dr come at me with a central quality for alternative music.

[JGuy Grungeman]

That's actually what I'm talking about, except for one detail: I think the same could be said for most genres. If that's the case, why are they there? They are still a descriptor. So there's gotta be something similar between them if the original idea is gone and now it has turned into a popular genre. Plus, I'm not worried about other people's definitions. If I disagree on something being alternative, I'll disagree. Yes, alternative has strayed from its original point.

As far as subjectivity goes, I think everyone has their own idea of what a genre sounds like, and if the vast majority agrees on most of the aspects, it's become almost definite. Alternative is still heavily debated. Still, my definition is my definite definition, and I'm not bothered by other people's ideas as long as I'm not being called pompous or anything like that. I'm not looking for people who agree with me. But I still debate it, partially because it's a very engaging topic. As such, I'm not gonna define modern alternative by the past. As far as I'm concerned, the past and the present are just in the same scene, even though they are so different.

That's all I wanna say.

[Frownland]

It is soooooo true that the same thing could be said for any genre. I'm glad that you've caught onto one of my main points. The main descriptor for alternative is simple: it doesn't fit into any other category. The unifying quality is not something that all alternative artists share in their sound as you have been suggesting this whole time.

Hallowed Ground is alternative music too is what I'm saying.

[JGuy Grungeman]

That wasn't my point. I already said multiple times that alternative didn't really start forming a sounf until aft3t bands like Smiths, REM, SYP, and more came out, maning alternwtive in the 80's didn't really have a distinct sound. My main point is I think modern alternative has come closer to a distinct sound.

[Frownland]

So you're moving the goalposts now, gotcha.

[JGuy Grungeman]

What are you talking about? I'm saying what I've been saying. You've been misinterpreting my posts from the beginning.

[The Batlord]

Alright, I'm too drunk to read all that, so I'll just reiterate that alternative rock is an umbrella term in the same way that metal is. Stop trying to come up with a sound to define it. Just accept that it's the sound of underground rock that came after post-punk, and deal with the nebulousness of that without trying to pin down any kind of concrete definition.

[Frownland]

I did misread that one ja, my bad. You've been the one making me question if you ever studied reading comprehension throughout a lot of this convo so maybe don't go throwing around that accusation too readily.