Rio by Duran Duran

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon....1-Y2jCWmaL.jpg

Style: Synth Pop, New Wave, New Romantic
Release: 1982
Length 42 min.

Perhaps I need to be more knowledgeable in the new romantic scene, but I'm fairly educated in both new wave and synth pop. And I can honestly say to myself that catchiness and production (somehow managing not to be over-produced with all that's going on) is really all that Duran Duran's Rio has going for it.

The songs all have the same vibe going on. At least I can tell the differences between the songs. Still, I'm a little surprised Duran Duran got so far. I guess it's because they are more of a singles band. They're style seems to get a little tiring early on in the album, even though it's still easy to listen to. I mean, hey. When it comes to similarities, it's no Ramones. But what really gets me is the lack of creativity in most of the main rhythms. This is especially apparent in the opening track of all tracks: Rio.

Still, I will not say the album is “bad.” The album, it's got good features. The vocals are perfectly tolerable and very well sung, the production is almost perfect, and the songs have the romantic vibe Duran Duran was going for. And despite being forty minutes, it is very quick to get through. When I got halfway through, it felt like fifteen minutes, even though I wasn't having much fun. The Chauffeur was a bit different, which was cool. Still, it needs work.

So since every song has the same vibe, I'll just judge them all at once. Decent songs, brilliant production, successful in being romantic, if not a little cheesy. One could easily say it succeeds more than it fails. Definitely one of the best produced albums I've ever heard, maybe second. But they're still going for the same basic sound.

78/100. Voting it off as this, tied with Fear of Music, make the two worst new wave albums I've heard. Not to say it's bad. 78 is four stars.

Hallowed Ground > Violent Femmes

Hallowed Ground was the album where they were confident enough to actually do what they really wanted to do, whereas the debut was more comparatively safe. Their second album is simply one of the best alt rock records of all-time.

I wouldn't say the second was alternative. It didn't have the same sense of diversity, even though I love the cowpunk addition.

Less diverse than their debut, maybe, but it's still quite diverse and alternative (a meaningless term) dude.

You and your genre hangups never cease to amaze me.

To be honest, when it comes to a genre, I can usually tell what makes the sounds of an album get the term, even if it's hard for me to explain. I guess what fascinates me about genres is that there are far too many tags to describe music, but you'll often find many bands in the same genre with very different sounds. For hard rock, KISS and AC/DC are good examples. Prog, Yes and Kansas. Very different. SBut they still follow the general rules of the sounds that they are tagged in. That's because music is all abourt different sounds.

I never said I was always right about it. I can explain how I tag a kind of music as well as you can explain our methods. That has nothing to do with hubris. The fact that you're attempting to call me self-righteous after I describe my method might make you the pretentious one since I'm not trying to label any real people here and you just made fun of something that everyone does: genre tag. Plus, I never said I was king of genres or anything. Genres tags fascinate me for some reason, that's all there really is to it.

But if I must, I'll rephrase it. If I have a set sound in mind for what alternative is like, I'll call it alternative. Basically, you're saying it's meaningless due to alternative's very broad sound, right? Well, the same could be said for practically most genres that experiment with other genres. I've mentioned this before. I mean,l take a look at hard rock. You could put country, pop, blues, funk, punk, anything you want in it. That doesn't mean it has become a meaningless term. Same could go for alternative. Heck, I've seen grunge albums often get tagged with power pop, psychedelic rock, shoegaze, and post-rock as well as the common descriptors that go with grunge, like alternative, punk, riot grrrl, heavy metal, stoner rock, and noise rock.

Your confidence in your abilities far outweighs your actual abilities. Feel free to call that whatever you wish but I'll stick with hubris for now.

I don't see how genre labelling is pretentious. It's just a word, and it's not loike I'm saying I'm better than anyone else. Everyone hasd their own methods for genre tagging, and no one is better than the other. Unless there's someone who labels Justin Bieber as Powerviolence. That would be odd.

*hubris

Similar, but very different.

Hard rock is another similarly meaningless term. It's still valid, but it encompasses so much at this point that hard rock or alternative alone gives you barely any information about the sound.

Over-confidence? So, what's so over confident about a guy who has a set sound for alternative music? Basically, I think it's a pop-rock based genre with influence from post-punk, punk, andf folk rock. Alternative's lyircs usually follow social concern. Pixies followed some of the alternative rock rules, but they largely influenced indie rock, which is a far morwe debatable term.

Basically, having an idea of a sound for a genre just means I can tag it easier. A genre tag is a shorter term used to describe music that has something special about it. So what's more pretentious? The genre term, or trying explain the sound without it? I'm sorry if genre tags annoy some people here, but this is a music forum. And alternative is one of the leading brands of music out there, and there is a reason other than the original "underground" status that alternative is so popular: becuase of the sound. I'll explain a spound with whatever method I use, and it's not a part of any form of pretentiousness.

Jesus Christ dude I take it back, sorry I hurt your feelings.

... You didn't really hurt my feeling. I'm just annoyed that no one ever bothers to tell me what's so pretentious about a genre tag.

I never said pretentious and I never said anything about genre tags being pretentious in themselves.

Over-confident, pretentious, self-righteous, hubris, etc. No one tells my why genre related topics and the deconstruction of a sound and a brand of music is any of the above. I use pretentious because that's the word I usually hear.

You are frequently incorrect in gauging what a song's genre is (at least in my experience with you here so far) and you claim that you are well versed in identifying genre. That is why I call you foolishly overconfident. I'm sure you'll take this well and vehemently agree with me.

What I said was I have an idea in my head of what a genre sounds like, even more broad genres. Plus,l I've made it clear that I'm not good at explaining things like that. In fact, I was totally winging my alternative rock explanation. I never siad I can identify everyone's idea of a genre. I'm not worried about anyone else's ideras of a genre. Strill, two different ideas of a genre's sound of relevancy makes for an interesting debate. So I do talk about it.

Okay now I'm willing to use the word pretentious. Genre isn't nearly as subjective as you make it out to be (although I agree that there is a small degree of subjectivity to it).

Uh-huh. And why?

Because when you make language's meaning subjective, you sing the orbit of left all dance anyone can come mumble with their own meandwarf.

With alternative, I say no. All it had to do is not be glam rock.

Yeah, small degree. But I've also made it clear there are limits, hence my Justin Bieber/powerviolence scenario. And I agree that alternative is extremely broad. Still, they all carry something similar, don't they? At least, modern alternative does since alternative used to be more about being outside of mainstream.

So, you don't see the light combination of folk rock and post-punk influence, as well as the commonj social disconcern theme? I think Radiohead's OK Computer and pracrtically anything by REM are prime examples of this. BNut this also proves both of our points that there are things to disagree on inh terms of genre relevancy and sounds.

Duty Now for the Future by Devo

Devo's first album wasd all about having as much fun one could possibly have. That is exactly what made Devo so good and so influential. The thing is, that wasn't the second album. It just wasn't as fun. Still, it's very well worth listening to, and still inlfuential.

Upon the first note, I wondered where their love for fun had gone. As soon as “Clockout” had begun, I realized it wasn't gone. It was just overshadowed by the albums' complexity. It seems that their will to experiment actually got in the way of their fun-loving personality that made the first album so great. Still, Clockout succeeds as an opening song (not counting the one minute intro track). It sets the standards for the rest of the album and it's actually great. The rest of the album has a slight synthpunk feel, obviously noting that Devo is also influential in the realm of synthpunk. The really are one of the most influential bands ever.

Soon after the first couple tracks, Devo retains their wonderful take on fun and frolic, even though it is not as strong as their debut. Still, the album is very well worth it due to their new, synthy take on their own style. Occasionally, the album feels a bit like a bunch of robots making a punk album for a Sega Genesis game. Nostalgia powers, activate.

I think this album is very well worth it for punk and new wave fans. And I doubt many new Devo fans will be disappointed. It's a great album, liker the debut.

87/100. Gonna be somewhere in the middle of my vote if it stays on new wave and does no get moved to synthpunk. If it does get moved to synthpunk, it'll remain a bit on the high side of my list.

There are alternative bands that have those qualities, that yes. That doesn't mean it applies to every alternative album. Audioslave comes to mind as an alternative band with none of those three qualities you mention. Alternative is without a doubt the most ambiguous genre name because its only cohesive element is that it is not glam rock.

There is a word that describes them. I just can't figure out what it is. It's something that practically connects them all, something in the production and tone...

The word you're looking for is "alt rock". Or maybe it's "boring"? Because Audioslave is naptime music.

A: Do not insult Chris Cornell.
B: That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about something within alternative's so- you said boring. So is it that you do not understand alternative because you do not like it? Or were you specificvally talking about Audioslave?

I like Soundgarden and a couple Temple of the Dog songs, but not Audioslave.

I was talking specifically about Audioslave. When you come upon that word for alternative that will be quickly invalidated with an example you didn't think of, let me know. For now, Alternative is as meaningless a descriptor as "natural".

Post radio-friendly?
Controlled emotion?

Not-glam-rock

What do you call a sound that drags on a little, such as the strum of an acoustic guitar string?

Uh, drone? Half note? Whole note?

Like, drone?

I mean, as the sound fads away after a short time?

...diminuendo?

Like the guitar in the intro to this.



How each strum drags on very very shortly, quickly fading way. Most of the insrtuments tend to use that sound in most of the alkternative rock I've heard. But there's also the tone, a somewhat controlled emotional tone, as if the emotion was more of a musical insturment rather than something used to relate to the audience (not that it doesn't).

I don't think I'll ever understand your method of genre classification. We're classifying bands off of one sound now in a song now? Weird.

That's not it. Can you just think of the name for that? With this freaky language where words have five different meanings, it's called something. The sound that's produced after the strumming of a guitar string. Can you define that? I'm just looking for the name.

I would call them...sustained notes? Still doesn't link together bands like The White Stripes, Smashing Pumpkins, and Blink-182, who are all pointedly alternative bands, so don't try to deny that they are.

I'm not even sure if he understands it.