smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Mike Vancha <mikevancha@sk.sympatico.ca> |
| Subject | Song sung Bleu (and White-Stripes) |
| Date | Fri, 02 May 2003 21:38:13 +0000 |
[Part 1 text/plain US-ASCII (3.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Hi everyone,
Brian Curtis talked about the new Bleu song, "Natalie". I had a listen and
think it's the most pop I've heard him. I think many on this list might like
it.
>Stewart M.:
>Comparing the Beatles to any
>group on the current power-pop scene is like comparing Rembrandt
>to...what's his name, that guy who killed himself who did the painting show
>on PBS with the happy little clouds. They're both painters, but they were
>working on two totally different levels.
Stewart,
Did that guy kill himself? Any other closet PBS "art" show watchers on the
list besides Stewart and I?.....Will people be playing the Beatles 500 years
from now? Possibly. Will people be playing most new artists in 25 years? We
can only wait and see.
>Jeff: As far as I can tell the White Stripes are edging closer to
>that Radiohead "hype camp".. Yeah...'Elephant' is an OK rock record and they're
>all bad ass for using pre-1963 equipment yadda...yadda, but
>come on! Meg White plays drums like Bobby Brady...and does
>Jack White really have *THAT* much interesting to say musically?
>And Rolling Stone's 5-star review is just pandering for "hip" factor as
>far as I'm concerned.
It's always been about the hip factor for kids and maybe always will be.
That's the only thing that gives the kids' a signal to buy one thing instead
of something else that's just as good, along with constant exposure of
course. Hey it's all business for the White Stripes and their image and for
Rolling Stone and their magazine sales too. There has to be some "great
great" music out there at all times and if those are bands that can reach
mainstream audiences,therefore helping them sell a lot of their magazines,
the better for them.
--- josh chasin <jchasin@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
>> I've never heard the White Stripes. I just never
>> felt motivated to do so.
>>
>> I just felt like saying so.
>>
>This is one of the silliest things I have ever
>read-for a list that's dedicated to music, and
>consists of people who take music seriously, this is
>just dumb.
Lc.
L.C., I know Josh a little and he's a pretty serious fellow. Maybe he's
going on what he's heard about their style and that's enough for him. Again,
I think it'd would always be more helpfull to not just say "this music is
great or it sucks" but maybe give an idea where the music fits in and if you
like a certain band, you'll like this.
I guess seriousness is all relative. I know my classical and jazz music
friends consider their types of music to be serious art music and laugh, for
the most part at most of the guitar pop nowadays, including ours. Maybe it
wouldn't be a bad thing to take ourselves less seriously. I know I'm trying
it and I don't mind it at all:)
Will:
>In the category of "which of these things is not like the other," I'd like
>to pick Soundgarden. I think most of the other artists cited were either
>hyped beyond all reality or had major mainstream success right out of the
>gate. Soundgarden released "Ultramega OK" a year before Nirvana released
>"Bleach."
I think some of that Soundgarden is psych pop when stripped down to the
basics without all of the distorted guitars. Chris Cornell sounds like a
closet pop artist to me.
>Christopher: In a similar vein, I've seen mixer Bob Clearmountain on a lot of
tasty pop,
>from Crowded House to Aimee Mann to Michael Penn to Duncan Sheik to Roxy
>Music to Candybutchers. Not that I'd buy something on the basis of the mixer
>alone, but I think it can help as a kind of benchmark.
Isn't Clearmountain everywhere there's a lot of money for mixing? I just saw
him on the new Kelly Clarkson CD.
Mike V.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.